Every fall in New Hampshire, when property tax bills arrive, most of us talk with our neighbors about wanting lower property taxes. That’s understandable and appropriate. Property taxes are a significant burden for many households, and in the Granite State they fund much of what residents depend on in their communities.
That tension between affordability and the public services residents expect is worth examining carefully. It’s therefore a useful time to discuss what property taxes are, what they pay for and where savings can realistically be found.
In New Hampshire, a property tax bill isn’t one thing. It typically reflects four principal components: municipal, local education, state education and county. In many communities, school-related taxes represent the largest share of the property-tax bill, which is one reason school spending receives so much attention.
It’s my belief that every organization should be looking for efficiencies, including local governments, school districts and counties. Budgets should be examined carefully. Assumptions should be tested. Old ways of doing business should be revisited. That’s responsible management.
But there is a difference between disciplined scrutiny and casual rhetoric. Too often, people call for cuts to “local funding” without identifying what that means in practice. Those decisions affect road maintenance and snow removal. They affect fire, police, dispatch, libraries, parks, recreation, public health, inspections, planning, welfare, county nursing-home and correctional operations and, of course, schools.
It’s easy to say there must be waste somewhere. It is harder to say what should be reduced, who should wait longer, which position should go unfilled, or what long-standing service should no longer be available at the level residents have come to expect.
Consider a major paving project in Durham or Concord. Should the work occur during normal business hours, with traffic disruption and extended delays? Or should it be performed overnight, often at a higher cost, to lessen the impact on travel and local businesses? Neither choice is free. Each reflects a local policy decision, and each carries consequences.
The same tradeoffs arise in decisions about police and fire staffing, capital investments and human-service programs. Choices about replacing equipment, maintaining facilities, responding to homelessness, emergency-response times and program availability have real costs and consequences. They affect residents directly, in their daily lives, often more tangibly than decisions made at the state or federal level.
This isn’t an argument against reform. The opposite is true. The best local governments, counties and school systems continually seek better ways to deliver services, share resources, use technology well, buy smarter, coordinate regionally and eliminate work that no longer adds value. Savings and efficiencies are real, and they should be pursued relentlessly.
That work must also account for the underlying costs that drive local budgets: health insurance, information technology, fuel, electricity, asphalt, retirement obligations, contractual services, collective bargaining agreements and other costs of providing public services that can rise faster than general inflation.
In my experience, meaningful savings are usually found through steady, informed effort: asking hard questions, using data, challenging old habits and remaining focused on results for the public.
New Hampshire’s fiscal system also deserves a sober look. Using the most recent comparable national fiscal data, New Hampshire relies more heavily on property taxes than any other state. In fiscal year 2022, property taxes supplied about 61% of local-government revenue, the highest share in the country. New Hampshire also ranked 48th among the states in per-capita aid to local governments. That does not excuse poor management anywhere. It does mean the pressure residents feel on their tax bills cannot be explained by local decisions alone.
The best approach locally is to insist on seriousness.
If there are efficiencies to be found, find them. If there are services the public is willing to reduce, say so plainly. If the state should shoulder more responsibility, say that plainly too.
What should be set aside is the easy habit of demanding cuts in the abstract while assuming daily life will remain unchanged. Most often, it will not. Property tax bills are painful enough. The public discussion about them should at least be honest.
Originally from Laconia, Todd Selig is a resident in Durham.