By Dale Girard
Things are about to get interesting at the New Hampshire House this week as lawmakers prepare to vote on HB 675. This bill seeks to increase the total revenue raised under the statewide education property tax (SWEPT), require municipalities to remit excess SWEPT payments to the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA), limit the authority of school districts to make certain appropriations, and increase the base adequacy cost per pupil.
At first glance, the bill appears to follow the recent court ruling on school funding by providing $7,356.01 per student — an important step toward addressing the long-standing issue of education funding in New Hampshire. However, the way this revenue is raised is where the debate begins. The proposal would generate nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars, which would then be redistributed back to local education.
Many wealthier communities may oppose this bill because, under its provisions, they would no longer be allowed to retain excess SWEPT funds. In the past, some school districts used these surplus funds for school maintenance, athletic field improvements, or other projects, since they were obligated to collect SWEPT but not turn the money over to the state for redistribution.
On the surface, HB 675 may seem like a promising way to reduce local property tax burdens. However, in my opinion, SWEPT is a fundamentally flawed system. Currently, New Hampshire property owners pay $1.12 per $1,000 of assessed value in SWEPT, an amount adjusted by the DRA based on local property assessments, which is why Claremont taxpayers are currently paying $1.34 per $1,000. Historically, the state has collected around $363 million through this tax. Under HB 675, that figure could increase by approximately 215%, potentially raising the SWEPT rate to $2.88 per $1,000. While this additional revenue might reduce local education taxes, it is unlikely to provide any substantial relief for property owners.
Another major concern with the bill is its approach to limiting local school budgets. As originally written, HB 675 would have capped school budgets using a three-year average of past spending, though an amendment proposes increasing this to a five-year average. Many critics argue that this restriction undermines local control, and they’re not wrong.
While communities would have the ability to override the spending cap, doing so would require a two-thirds supermajority rather than a simple majority — a significant hurdle. If this applies to additional school warrant articles as well, it could make it much harder for districts to pass essential funding measures in the future.
New Hampshire lawmakers have been dealing with education funding for decades, yet we still lack a sustainable, long-term solution. While HB 675 attempts to address the funding crisis, it ultimately shifts tax burdens without guaranteeing meaningful relief for homeowners. Instead of another temporary fix, we need a comprehensive approach that balances fairness, local control and sustainable education funding.
I encourage everyone to reach out to their state representatives and share their thoughts on this bill. No matter the outcome of Thursday’s vote, one thing is certain — this issue isn’t going away anytime soon.
