Shall the Town of Hampton vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $30,000 to be placed in the Hampton Conservation Fund? This Fund is used to “acquire, maintain, improve, protect or limit the future use of, or otherwise conserve and properly utilize,” open spaces and conservation easements in Hampton in accordance with RSA 36-A:4.

What it Means: This Fund is used by the Conservation Commission to protect open spaces via acquisition or conservation easements, on behalf of the Town. This Warrant Article helps to build the Fund so that it can be used to pay for future conservation opportunities as they are identified.  Examples of recent uses of the fund include the 2022 purchase of the Barkley Property and the establishment of a conservation easement there, and the 2019 establishment of a Conservation Easement on the Batchelder Farm.The Commission tries to build up this Fund gradually to help reduce, if not eliminate the need to ask the voters for additional dollars when conservation opportunities arise. The Commission always uses this fund first before going to the townspeople for additional financial support for these opportunities.

No one spoke for or against this Article at Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

Fiscal impact: The estimated tax rate impact in 2026 is less than $0.01 per thousand. The estimated tax impact

for a home valued at $600,000 is $2.96.

To see if the Town will vote to change the existing Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund, created in 1986 pursuant to RSA 31:19-a and amended in 2016, to the Cemetery Maintenance Capital Improvements and Expansion Trust Fund, to be administered by the Trustees of the Trust Fund; and to further authorize the Select Board as agents to expend principal and income from this fund. (2/3^rds Ballot vote required)

What it means: This fund was initiated in 1986 under the title of the “Cemetery Burial Trust Fund” for the maintenance of Town-owned cemeteries.  In 2016, the name was changed to “Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund,” and allowed the legislative body (voters at Town Meeting) to make expenditures from both the principal and the interest in the Fund. The current question asks whether the Fund can be used to expand the capacity of the cemeteries (in addition to maintenance) and it changes the authority for making withdrawals from the voters to the Board of Selectmen. Note that because this is a change to a Trust Fund, 67% approval by the voters is required to pass.

No one spoke for or against this Article at Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

Fiscal impact: No tax immediate impact. However, if the principal is depleted by virtue of the broader definition of the purpose of the Fund, future maintenance expenditures may need to be covered by other sources of revenue, such as taxes.

To see if the Town will vote to adopt the provisions of NH RSA 261:153 (VI) to levy an additional motor vehicle registration fee in the amount of $5.00 to support a municipal fund for improvements in the local or regional transportation system including roads, bridges, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, electric vehicle charging stations, parking and intermodal facilities, and public transportation. With the adoption of this article the Town shall establish a Capital Reserve Fund pursuant to RSA Chapter 35 to be known as the Municipal Transportation Improvement Fund, and to name the Select Board as agents to expend. The funds may be used for engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and constructions costs of transportation facilities, and for operating and capital costs of public transportation only. The funds may be used as matching funds for state or federal funds allocated for local or regional transportation improvements and shall not be used to offset any other non-transportation appropriations made by the Town.

What it means: This Article proposes a $5.00 surcharge on motor vehicle registrations to be deposited into a new Capital Reserve Fund that would support transportation needs including roads, bridges, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, electric vehicle charging stations, parking and intermodal facilities, and public transportation.

Fiscal Impact: There is no direct tax impact for this Article, but an additional $5.00 would be collected each time you register a vehicle.

Shall the Town authorize the Select Board to enter into a long-term lease agreement for up to twenty (20) years with Kearsarge Solar LLC, or its successors or assignees, to lease a portion of Town-owned property located on Hardart’s Way (constituting the closed, capped Town landfill) for the construction, installation, and operation of a solar array, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Select Board and to authorize the Select Board to take any other actions necessary to carry out this vote.

Further, to see if the Town shall vote to authorize the Select Board to negotiate and execute a net metering agreement, PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes), and such other agreements related and incidental to the lease of the parcel for that purpose on such terms as the Select Board deems reasonable.

What it means: The Town has the opportunity to lease the closed capped Town landfill on Hardart’s Way, for the purpose of constructing and installing a solar array which would benefit the Town with revenue from Kearsarge Solar LLC (the lessee).  In addition, the Town could negotiate a net metering agreement with the lessee to share in the benefits of the electricity generated by the solar panels to help reduce the cost of electricity required by DPW.

Those in favor say: Those in favor pointed out that this is an opportunity to take advantage of the unused Town-owned land.  There would be two positive impacts on the budget – the lease revenue and the potential of an offset to electricity costs for DPW.

Those opposed say: There was no opposition to this Article, but concerns were expressed about costs of maintaining the panels, as well as possible damage to the membrane to the covered landfill that could cause gasses to escape. The response to this concern was that the agreement would include provisions that these responsibilities and associated costs would be borne by the leasing party, not the Town.

Fiscal impact: No immediate tax impact. There is a possibility of expense offsets and/or revenue in the future.

To see if the town will vote to increase the optional tax credit for a Service-Connected Total Disability currently at $4,000 to $4,750 on residential property per the provisions of RSA 72:35.

What it means: Previously, Veterans with a Service-Related Permanent Disability or surviving spouses could qualify for both a standard tax credit and an optional tax credit.  Recent changes in state law dictate that only one can be claimed, not both.  To keep Veterans from losing part of their previous property tax credits, towns including Hampton are proposing to increase the optional credit from $4,000 to $4,750. There is no significant tax impact because one type of cost easement is being substituted for another.

No one spoke for or against this Article at Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact because theoretically, one type of cost easement is being substituted for another.

To see if the Town will amend the Elderly (Property Tax) Exemption program of RSA 72:39-a as previously adopted in the Town of Hampton, based on assessed value for qualified taxpayers, to be  as follows: for a person 65 years of age up to 75 years, $175,000; for a person 75 years of age up to 80 years, $225,000; for a person 80 years of age or older, $300,000.  To qualify, the person must have been a New Hampshire resident for at least 3 consecutive years, own the real estate individually or jointly, or if the real estate is owned by such person’s spouse, they must have been married to each other for at least 5 consecutive years.  In addition, the taxpayer must have a net income of not more than $50,000, or if married, a combined net income of not more than $90,000; and own net assets not in excess of $250,000, excluding the value of the person’s residence.  The purpose of this article is to change only the net income thresholds to qualify.  Should this article not pass, the net income amounts for the Town’s elderly exemption from property tax shall remain as previously established.

What it Means: : In Hampton (as in many towns), we have real estate tax exemptions that are granted to lower-income older residents to assist with their tax burden, to allow them to remain in their homes. The way it works is the amounts referenced in the chart below are taken off the assessed value of the home prior to calculating the taxes for that property. There are net income and net asset limitations, since the program is meant to help those in need. Currently, older taxpayers can earn no more than $42,000 for one person or $75,000 for a married couple in order to qualify for this exemption.  The exemption deducts between $175,000 to $300,000 (depending on age) from the property valuation before taxes are calculated. If this Article passes, single qualifying homeowners would be able to earn up to $50,000 per year and a married couple could bring in up to $90,000 a year.  That increase is roughly 20% higher than the previous qualifying income limit.

Those in favor say: The income limit to qualify for the Elderly Property Tax Exemption has only been increased once in 25 years for 15%, during a span of time during which inflation has gone up 75%.  This Article will help prevent older taxpayers from having to sell their homes if they can’t keep up with the rate of increases on property taxes.

Those opposed say: The population group of 65+ is going to double by some estimates in the next 20 years.  The more exemptions that we allow, the more the tax burden shifts to younger people who are also just trying to make ends meet.  The income level was just increased via Article 29 in 2024.  At that time, the income qualification for a single taxpayer was raised from $38,000 to $42,000 (10% increase) and for married taxpayers, it increased from $58,000 to $75,000 (29% increase). The increases proposed this year would be on top of the 2024 increase.

Fiscal Impact:  A speaker at Deliberative Session stated that only 3 additional Elderly Exemption applications were received at Town Hall after the 2024 increase, however it is not known how many taxpayers will apply for the exemption with the new increases in place.  For fiscal perspective, in 2022, all exemptions reduced the Town’s taxable valuation by roughly $30 Million, of which the elderly exemption represents about 90%. This was equivalent to about $430,000 (in 2022) in tax expense that was redistributed to other taxpayers.  Not knowing the precise impact of inflation or the impact of increased applications, if we roughly say $500,000 in redistributed tax requirement (for all exemptions), that equates to about $50 per home valued at $600,000 – for all exemptions including those already in place.  Much of this is in the current budget; the additional impact is not known.

To see if the Town will vote to modify its Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive Program previously adopted in 2011 pursuant to RSA 79-E:3 and vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 79-E:4-a and establish a Coastal Resilience Incentive Zone (“CRIZ”) within the Town of Hampton to include land located in a Special Flood Hazard Area, as defined by the Town’s zoning ordinances and as amended from time to time; to identify potentially impacted structures within the CRIZ as permitted by RSA 79-E:4-a; to define qualifying resilience measures that may be subject to tax relief such as, elevation and free-board renovations, elevation of mechanicals, construction of resilient natural features, enhancement or creation of tidal marshes, elevation of private driveways and sidewalks, construction or enlargement of private culverts and other structures to enable increased water flow and storm-surge, and movement of property to higher elevation on the property or to a newly acquired property at a higher elevation within the municipality; and to give authority to the Select Board to grant short-term property tax relief according to RSA 79-E.  This article does not impact the authority previously granted to the Select Board in 2011 under RSA 79-E.

What it means: In 2011, the Town adopted the Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive Program to encourage investment, rehabilitation, and redevelopment in designated areas of the Town in order make it more financially feasible for property owners to undertake substantial rehabilitation or replacement of underutilized, deteriorating, or vacant buildings. This Article looks to establish the Coastal Resilience Incentive Zone to include land located in the pre-defined Special Flood Hazard Area. This would allow the Town to identify potentially impacted structures and define qualifying resilience measures.  In addition, it would give the Board authority to grant short term tax relief to qualifying structures and improvements.

Discussion: No one spoke for or against the Article but rather questioned the length of “short term tax relief”.  It was clarified the term of the relief would be established at the time of the application of the relief.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact, but to the extent that this program is utilized, those properties will see lower tax impact – thus increasing the load for other taxpayers.

To see if the Town will vote to modify its Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive Program previously adopted in 2011 pursuant to RSA 79-E:3 and vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 79-E:4-d and establish property tax relief for buildings or structures currently being used for office use if those buildings or structures are converted to residential use, such area of office use in which the tax relief for qualifying structures may apply shall be designated by the Select Board; and to further give authority to the Select Board to grant short-term property tax relief according to RSA 79-E.  This article does not impact the authority previously granted to the Select Board in 2011 under RSA 79-E.

What it Means:   This Article proposes to establish tax relief for the owners of a building or structure currently being used for office use in whole or in part, if such use is converted to residential use, in whole or in part.  It is another measure aiming to increase the availability of affordable housing in Town. The Select Board will be responsible for granting or rejecting the tax relief application, and if granted, for determining the extent and duration of such relief.

No one spoke for or against this Article at Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

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 taxpayers will pick up the difference.

To see if the Town shall vote to move from a six-year term to a three-year term for the Supervisors of the Checklist, electing one each year over a 3-year cycle. If adopted, it would not affect the terms of supervisors of the checklist currently in office.

What it Means:  Supervisors of the Checklist consist of a three-member board traditionally elected for staggered, 6-year terms.Recent legislative changes explicitly allow voters at Town Meeting to opt for a 3-year term, electing one supervisor each year over a three-year cycle.  These changes would not affect the terms of previously-elected Supervisors.

Those in Favor: This is a volunteer position, and a very important function that is critical to democracy. It also takes commitment, and it is easier to find people willing to commit for 3 years than it is for 6 years.

Those Opposed Say:  No one opposed this proposition at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal impact: Since these are volunteer positions, there is no tax impact.