On November 3, 2026, Nashua voters will decide Question #2, which, if approved by a 60 percent majority, would impose a cap on funding for the Nashua School District. Unfortunately, the question is poorly written, and so far, no state official has been able to fully explain how it would work in practice. That alone should be reason enough to vote no.
Having studied tax and spending caps in graduate school, I see several serious problems with this proposal that voters should understand before heading to the polls.
The first part of the question asks: “Shall the City of Nashua limit property tax growth for the Nashua School District (SAU 42) under RSA 32:5-i? If adopted for a two-year period: (1) the local property tax levy may not grow beyond the prior year’s amount, adjusted for inflation and new construction.”
This language raises several concerns. First, most New Hampshire voters are probably unfamiliar with RSA 32:5-i, yet the question provides no explanation of what that law means.
More importantly, the ballot question does not define which measure of inflation would be used. That is a significant omission because different measures of inflation can produce very different results.
My assumption is that the proposed cap would use the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures inflation experienced by consumers and is used by other local tax and spending caps in New Hampshire. However, CPI does a poor job of measuring inflation experienced by local governments. Other measures, such as the State and Local Government Implicit Price Deflator (S&L IPD), better reflect government expenses, like asphalt for roads, diesel fuel for city trucks, and employee health care costs, but I doubt that inflation measure will be used.
Compounding this problem, unlike other existing tax and spending caps, this cap uses inflation for a single year instead of using a multiyear average to smooth out fluctuations in inflation. This could make school budgeting extremely difficult. For example, national CPI inflation was negative 0.4 percent in 2009 but increased to 8 percent in 2022. Imagine trying to plan a school budget around such unpredictable changes.
The second part of the question states that SAU central office spending may not exceed 6 percent of total school district appropriations. However, Nashua's central office spending is likely already well below that threshold, meaning this provision may be completely ineffectual.
The final part of the question is perhaps the most misleading. It claims that “these caps apply only to administrative operations of the SAU central office and do not affect classroom instruction, school-based services, or other municipal expenditures.”
That claim simply does not make sense.
If school tax revenue cannot increase beyond CPI inflation, but the cost of operating schools rises faster, something has to give. Employee health insurance, special education and transportation costs have all increased substantially in recent years. Last year alone, district employees experienced a 9 percent increase in health insurance costs, while special education and transportation expenses increased even more.
School boards have limited control over these types of expenses because they involve contractual obligations or state and federal mandates. In fact, rising transportation and special education costs already forced the Nashua School District to cut many positions last year. If these costs continue rising faster than inflation, this cap would force more damaging cuts.
Lastly, there is no guarantee that Question #2 will actually lower property taxes. Remember, it limits growth in the school tax levy, not the overall cost of municipal government.
Fortunately, there are better ways to address rising property taxes. New Hampshire could restore recent reductions in the Business Profits Tax, which primarily benefited large corporations, and reinstate the Interest and Dividends Tax, which was paid primarily by wealthier residents. Congress could also pass the IDEA Fair Funding Act, providing additional federal funding for special education and helping relieve one of the fastest growing expenses facing school districts.
On November 3, please vote no on Question #2. It is misleading, poorly written and unlikely to provide meaningful property tax relief. What it could do, however, is force harmful cuts to our public schools, ultimately hurting the students and families who depend on them.
Gary Hoffman
Nashua, N.H.
Gary Hoffman is the president of the Nashua Teachers’ Union. Prior to becoming president, he spent more than 20 years teaching social studies in the Nashua School District and served as a national facilitator for the American Federation of Teachers’ Teacher Leaders Program. In addition to his work in public education, Hoffman serves as president of the Perham Place Condominium Association and treasurer of Greenridge Office Park, both located in Nashua. He holds a master’s degree in Regional Social and Economic Development from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and a master’s degree in Public Policy from Tufts University. Hoffman and his wife, Karen, reside in Nashua’s Ward 3
