Joe Cormier: Is petitioned warrant article addressing wrong statute?

To The Daily Sun,

On Feb. 20, the Moultonborough Selectboard has another public hearing on the RSA 32:5-b tax cap. Comments were already made at the Feb. 10 warrant/budget public hearing. Too bad all of the statutorily required hearings can't be done back-to-back, open-and-close on the same day. Maybe they can.

A lot of discussion has occurred in Moultonborough regarding the interpretation of when does the tax cap take affect, if passed. Namely, which fiscal year. The statute says: “The estimated amount of local taxes to be raised for the fiscal year shall not exceed the local taxes raised for the prior year.” There is debate on which fiscal year to use for the tax cap. FY 2027 is mentioned. Moultonborough's FY year starts on July 1 of one calendar year and ends on June 30 of the following calendar year. This warrant voting is in FY 2025. Doesn't that make FY 2026 the next fiscal year, and FY 2025 the prior fiscal year for the vote? FY 2026 starts on July 1, 2025, and ends June 30, 2026.

We've been told that lawyers are looking at the tax cap.

The Moultonborough School District also has a petitioned warrant article for a tax cap. I'm even more confused about that wording. It also lists RSA 32:5-b. However, that is on the petition and the school board cannot change the petition wording. There has been a public hearing on the warrant. At no time has it been mentioned that, maybe, the wrong statute is on the school district petition. Shouldn't it be RSA 32:5-e, a different statute? Namely: RSA 32:5-e School District Budget Cap says: "In a school district that has adopted this section, the total amount raised and appropriated ... not exceed ..."

I would rather hear from the NH Municipal Association; not lawyers representing no votes.

Joe Cormier

Moultonborough