For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it means: This request is for an annual donation to Experience Hampton to help fund the Holiday parade, which generally occurs in early December. It reflects an increase from the $3,000 that had been in place since 2010. The taxpayers are asked to pay a fraction of cost for the parade, which is in the range of $20,000.

Those in favor say: The parade involves many groups, including businesses, schools and local officials. It is a community-building event that also attracts people to the area from around the region, since it has become the largest event of its kind in the region.

Those Opposed say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.  However, Article 38 speaks to whether the taxpayers should be shouldering the cost for this effort.

Fiscal impact: A household valued at $650,000 would see $0.55 incorporated into the tax bill for 2025.  Last year’s number was .40, so there would be an increase of 15 cents.

Note: We use the average cost per property for Hampton. There is “Cost per Warrant Article Calculator” on the Town’s website that allows you to enter your specific property value, and the see the cost for all Warrant Articles. You can access the Calculator here.

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it means: Barbour Road is a residentially zoned area, yet several businesses have been allowed to operate from 17 Barbour Rd. and they utilize heavy equipment in the business. The nearby residents believe that the types of activities that the businesses engage in may well be harmful to the aquifer, and the Town should be acting on this disruptive and potentially harmful activity.

Those in Favor say:  The types of activities that reportedly occur at this location were stated to be detrimental to the environment and to the aquifer. Despite legal review that indicated that these businesses were pre-existing, the residents argue that data from the NH Secretary of State show that the businesses were not listed at the address at the time the regulations went into effect, and therefore cannot be considered “pre-existing”.

Those Opposed Say: Legal opinion obtained by the Town indicates that pre-existing, non-conforming uses are protected by state law.  If it is accurate that the businesses were pre-existing, they would be protected.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct fiscal impact to this Article.

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

 What it Means: The petitioners ask that there be a differential tax rate for real estate owned by people who do not live in Hampton.  The idea is to make up the lost revenue from real estate tax exemptions expanded via the 2024 Town Warrant.

Those in Favor Say:  The state of Vermont has a similar rate differential for non-residents.

Those Opposed Say: State law dictates that tax rates are set based on property value, without regard for residential status. Thus, the Article as written would be illegal and not enforceable, according to a legal opinion obtained by the Town. Aside from the legal opinion, speakers against this idea asked – what about elderly people whose homes have been taken over by out-of-state relatives?  Or family homes that have been inherited by adult children who live elsewhere? Also argued was the thought that out-of-state owners often use less of the Town’s services, yet they pay the same tax rate now.  Increasing what they pay may not be fair.

---

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it means: A group of homeowners who live on Ice House Lane and who have been maintaining it as required by the permitting process and as agreed to by the developer, now request that the Town assume ownership of the roads and maintenance responsibility.  The process of transferring the roads will be at no cost to the Town.

Those in favor say: The people who live in the homes on this street indicate that they pay the same taxes as everyone else, but do not receive services such as road maintenance, plowing, trash, recycling, etc. One speaker said that it should be considered a public roadway, since the public used it to access the fish houses prior to the development, and thus the road should be treated as an exception.

Those Opposed say: This Article would add to the demand on Town services, and could potentially be an additional infrastructure cost if road defects are discovered, since the Town would be accepting the roads on an “as is” basis. The road is dedicated to 8 homes, and was allowed by the Town with the understanding that the Developer or the Homeowner’s Association would maintain the street as a Private Way, a fact that is in the Condominium Documents, and should have been understood by the homeowners before they purchased.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact, but would add to services required by the Town, and could potentially be a cost if work is needed under the roads, which were built privately and thus outside of the Town’s specifications.

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it Means:  Last year, the Elderly Tax Exemption was expanded as it relates to both the exempted amount (amount deducted from the assessed valuation prior to calculating taxes owed) and qualifying net income.  However, the net asset limit remained at $250,000. The petitioners are asking that the net asset limit be increased to $367,000.  Note that this asset value excludes the primary residence (which by state regulations must be in Hampton).

 Those in Favor Say: This Article is intended to allow additional seniors to take advantage of the exemption.

Those Opposed Say: No one spoke against the Article, except to question where the numbers came from (last year’s Town Meeting) or whether the Article should be written as “gross” or “net”.

 Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact, but to the degree that this Article, if approved, reduces the tax revenue, it will mean that other (mostly younger) taxpayers will pick up the difference.

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it Means: The petitioners are seeking to put each Charitable organization that may appear on any future warrants as their own Article, presumably so the voters can decide independently if they want to support that group or not. They are further trying to disallow any charity not based physically in Hampton from being considered for this donation from taxpayers. They seem to indicate that the Town should be responsible for auditing the books of each charity.

Those in Favor: No one at Deliberative Session spoke in favor of this Article. However, one speaker indicated that the folks who put this forward were simply seeking fiscal responsibility, and did not mean to suggest any ill will towards the charities listed.

Those Opposed Say:  Several speakers referred to the fact that the Warrant Article with the Social Services Agencies request is on our ballots each year and always receives a very high rate of voter approval.  If we were to add the Social Services requests to the Warrant individually, we would be adding 20 Articles – this year, that would have increased the number of articles by more than half. That’s how Hampton previously posed this funding question, but subsequently, the charitable requests were combined into one question for brevity’s sake. Currently, the only time an agency is presented on its own is when it is new to the list. According to Legal Counsel, the 2025 Town vote cannot bind the 2026 Town vote (or subsequent years).

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact, but if  the list of agencies changes based on the requirement of physical presence in Hampton, the dollar amount requested might shrink in the future (if this Article passes).

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it Means: The petitioners are proposing that a fee of $5.00 per $1,000 of the sale price of the home, paid by both buyer and seller at closing. This would be in addition to the New Hampshire Transaction Tax. No one was present at Deliberative Session to explain this new funding mechanism. It is unclear if the petitioners are suggesting that this would take the place of annual property taxes, or be an addition to those taxes. If it would take the place of annual taxation, there is no discussion in the Article as how the Town’s budget would be aligned with the amount or timing of Real Estate Transaction fees.

Those in favor say: No one spoke in favor of this Article at Deliberative Session.

Those Opposed Say: According to legal review obtained by the Town, this Article is unenforceable, because all authority to collect real estate taxes comes from the NH Legislature and cannot be amended by the Town.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact, although future taxation might decrease if there were money from this effort to help offset town spending requirements.

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it Means: The petitioners are asking that the voters discontinue the tradition of supporting the annual Holiday Parade. See Article 31 on page 14 for the reference. A “yes” vote means you want to discontinue funding the parade out of taxpayer dollars. A “no” vote means you want to continue the tradition as it stands. If both Article 31 and this Article are passed by the voters, this Article is voided.

Those in Favor: No one at Deliberative Session spoke in favor of this Article.

 Those Opposed Say: The comments against this Article closely mirror the comments in favor of Article 31 (funding the Holiday Parade).  Speakers wondered what the petitioners were intending since the Parade, even at the higher amount requested this year, still adds less than a dollar to the average tax bill.  The Parade gives the whole community a chance to work together, and to have some fun.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact in 2025, but if this article passes it could decrease the total tax bill of a home valued at $650,000 by approximately 55 cents in future years.

For the full wording of the Article, see this link: Link to the Warrant as Amended following Deliberative Session

What it Means:  The petitioners are asking to stop the practice of Selectmen stating whether they believe an Article should be passed, or not. (“Recommended” or “Not Recommended” on most questions.)

Those in Favor: No one spoke in favor of this Article at Deliberative Session.

Those Opposed Say: Legal Counsel has indicated that Selectmen are required by statute to provide recommendations for all appropriations, including Special Warrant Articles.  A “special warrant article” is defined by RSA 32:3, VI and incudes any article with an appropriation that is a petitioned warrant article; an article involving capital reserve funds, trust funds or special reserve funds; an article designated as non-lapsing; and appropriations for capital projects. Selectmen recommendations are also required for Collective Bargaining Agreements. Even if this Article passes, it will not remove those requirements.

By state law, a Select Board may also include both its vote tally and its recommendation in in the town warrant next to the affected warrant article, at its discretion. Thus, even where it is not required, it is allowed by statute and passing of this Article would not change that.  Further, the language of the articles and presentation on the Town’s Warrant is the purview of the Select Board, per the NH Supreme Court, Olson v. Town of Grafton.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact.