Prohibits towns, cities, village districts, and unincorporated places from appropriating or spending taxpayer funds to donate to non-profit organizations, while allowing grants awarded through a competitive bidding process and contracts for goods and services.
prohibiting certain tax dollars from being donated to non-profit organizations.
Hatched = form letter · 16 of 563 written submissions (3%) came from organized campaigns
HB1649 would bar New Hampshire cities, towns, village districts, and unincorporated places from appropriating or donating tax dollars to non-profit organizations except through a competitive bidding or grant process. The overwhelming majority of submitters, including many town residents, nonprofit staff, lake associations, and at least one city council, oppose the bill, arguing it strips local control from towns and voters and would cut off funding many small nonprofits rely on. A small number of supporters argue that taxpayer dollars should not subsidize private organizations at all.
Supporters argue that public tax dollars are not the government's to give away to private organizations, and that nonprofits should instead raise money through private fundraising and donations rather than property tax allocations.
“I FEEL STRONGLY THAT GOVERNMENT MONEY… PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS… SHOULD NOT BE DIVERTED TO NONPROFITS… A NONPROFIT SHOULD RAISE ITS OWN FUNDS…”
— James Morgan, Newbury · #548167 — read full submission →
“Charities can raise funds through fund raising rather than through property tax allocation”
— Donna Whitney, Antrim · #553988 — read full submission →
At least one supporter argues that channeling public money through nonprofits and NGOs amounts to outsourcing governance to unaccountable actors, which they see as undermining democracy.
Submitters argue that decisions about whether to fund local nonprofits are already made democratically by town voters and elected officials, and that a state-level ban on such spending is an unwarranted overreach into local affairs, at odds with New Hampshire's tradition of local control.
“By eliminating the option for direct municipal appropriations, the bill would limit local control and undermine the “New Hampshire way” of addressing community needs through trusted nonprofit partnerships.”
— Beth Merrill, ANTRIM · #554044 — read full submission →
“The state government should not be involved in deciding what local governments give their money to. What happened to getting rid of big government and keeping it out of local business?”
— Elizabeth Fourar-Laidi, Rochester · #551703 — read full submission →
Many submitters warn the bill would jeopardize municipal funding for lake associations, land trusts, and watershed groups that run Lake Host and invasive-species prevention programs, water quality monitoring, and conservation work that towns lack the staff or expertise to perform themselves.
“As written, HB 1649 could jeopardize critical funding that supports local lake management, restoration, and protection programs.”
— Valerie Burns, ELKINS · #553209 — read full submission →
“If Swanzey lake suffers so will the economies of Swanzey, Winchester and Keene.”
— Jeffrey Lapid, Swanzey · #542279 — read full submission →
Submitters describe direct harm to a wide range of nonprofits providing food assistance, homeless shelter, senior services, transportation, and family support, arguing these organizations serve vulnerable residents at lower cost than municipalities could achieve on their own.
“If this bill passes, I lose my job. But that’s not the point. The point is that the people I work with lose access to help they already trust, and towns lose one of the cheapest, most effective tools they have.”
— Amanda Carter, Peterborough · #554088 — read full submission →
“The municipal funding is critical to the operation of these non-profits who are providing essential services for many of our state citizens.”
— Joe Dame, Silver Lake · #549539 — read full submission →
Rather than an outright ban, many submitters ask the committee to amend the bill so municipalities can still appropriate funds to nonprofits through a warrant article or budget item, provided a clear public purpose, written agreement, recordkeeping, and public accounting are required.
A large cluster of submitters, many from the Monadnock region, describe the specific loss of roughly $42,000 in municipal funding to the Grapevine Family & Community Resource Center and its Avenue A Teen Center, which serves several towns' families, teens, and seniors.
“If HB 1649 were to pass, it would eliminate approximately $42,000 in municipal funding for The Grapevine and Avenue A—more than seven percent of our annual operating budget.”
— Jacqueline Roland, Nelson · #553861 — read full submission →
“This bill would strip $42,000 (about 7% of our budget) by banning towns from choosing to fund us.”
— James Panico, Antrim · #554221 — read full submission →
Submitters, including a city council, argue that municipal support for nonprofits is cheaper than having towns provide the same services directly, so eliminating it would increase costs to municipalities and taxpayers rather than saving money.
Submitters point out that nonprofit funding requests already go through town meeting votes, warrant articles, or budget committee review, so the bill would override a process voters already control and rarely reject.
Some submitters frame the bill as a partisan or ideological attack tied to Republicans or 'Free Staters,' calling it mean-spirited, heartless, or hypocritical for a party that claims to favor small government and local control.
Using language echoed from a common template, submitters argue non-profits are not businesses subject to a competitive 'bidding process,' and that the funds municipalities provide are closer to payment for services already easing a burden towns would otherwise have to fund directly.
“The bill is self-defeating since non-profits help ease a financial burden (assistance to the needy) that municipalities would otherwise have to fund.”
— form letter, submitted 16 times · #553745 — read full submission →
“the bill is self-defeating since non-profits help ease a financial burden (assistance to the needy) that municipalities would otherwise have to fund and possibly administer.”
— Daniel Aronson, Keene · #553871 — read full submission →
Submitters argue small towns often lack staff capacity and small nonprofits lack the resources to navigate a formal competitive bidding or grant process, which would favor larger, well-resourced organizations over small grassroots groups.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
16 submissions match a shared template; 319 are individually written.
The bill is problematic because non-profits provide essential services that would otherwise require municipal funding, and these organizations do not operate like businesses.
The bill is self-defeating since non-profits help ease a financial burden (assistance to the needy) that municipalities would otherwise have to fund. Non-profits are not businesses and do not engage in "bidding processes" as the bill requires. The funds cities and towns pass along to most non-profits should be considered payments for services provided, and further, that non-profits serve people regardless of political affiliation.
Detected by text-similarity clustering; campaign names are AI-generated.
I am a supporter of several nonprofits because they are able to provide help that others NEED.. There is no GOOD reason I can think of where a government entity should be able to prevent a town, etc. from supporting worthwhile nonprofits from doing the same.
I strongly oppose this bill. As a non-profit board member of two small non-profits, we do not need legislation to encourage us to wisely spend monies donated to us - we are very careful to use the money entrusted to us to make it go as far as possible to help as many people as possible. Because of the work we do, these people need fewer town or municipal services. I also support several non-profits that do critical work in serving the neediest in our communities. Eliminating the municipal monies given to them does not save taxpayer dollars but rather stetches them because non-profits and their volunteers provide services the muniipalities would have to provide with paid employees. This bill is not only bad for non-profits and those they serve, but also taxpayers.
Family Resource Centers are crucial in New Hampshire. They have helped my family and many other families I know immensely. By eliminating the option for direct municipal appropriations, the bill would limit local control and undermine the “New Hampshire way” of addressing community needs through trusted nonprofit partnerships.
Doing this bill would be very devastating to the Madnadnock community as these programs help a lot of families including mine. These programs help the kids and adults. These programs help the kids with motor skills, physical activity, environmental learning, play skills, social skills, childhood development. It helps the parents by having other parents to talk to about the issues or problems you have with the kids and finding solutions, making new friends that are parents, finding a village, finding people that you can connect and confide in, to learn more about childhood development, to think outside the box of finding a solution. This would be highly detrimental also for the youth as some kids have low income families and can’t afford activities and these programs give them the opportunity to do these things that they may not have been able to without the river center. To get rid of a great chunk of money for the non profit just wouldn’t be a great idea. And not just for the river center but for all non profits. Think of the families that they are providing help for and how much they’ve helped parents and children be able to do things they normally might not be able to do. I oppose this bill.
As a member of the community and small business owner in NH I am extremely opposed to this bill. It won't just negatively affect our community members but also many small businesses. This directly goes against the NH way of addressing community needs through trusted nonprofits as well as limits local control. Many community members cannot afford to fix their vehicles in our rural area and we as a business also depend on the local non profits assisting them in paying us as a local automotive repair shop in the area. We have attempted working with the state in this same manner and it is an absolute nightmare and unsustainable for us. Limiting local control will only negatively affect New Hanpshire residents when the state is not stepping up to fill those voids.
The State government should not limit how local taxes are spent. Local control is imperative. This is not the New Hampshire way.
This bill would limit local control that addresses real community needs with long trusted nonprofit partnerships. I am opposed. The Grapevine Family Center provides valuable support to children and parents everyday. They need this money to thrive. Janet Altobello 33 East Hill Road Peterborough, NH 03458
LeadingAge Maine & New Hampshire, a trade association representing nonprofit housing and long term care providers, urges you to reject HB 1649. Presently, municipalities make vital (but very limited) funding available to social safety net organizations that aid their own vulnerable citizens. Nonprofit organizations need proof of local support when applying for much larger grants. In other words, often these small donations to nonprofits help leverage the REAL dollars it takes to carry out their important social service missions. Removing this municipal "match" could mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to essential nonprofits and more individuals applying for aid from town welfare offices when these frontline nonprofits can no longer help. This bill is an afront to local control, standing in the way of municipalities partnering with nonprofit partnerships to address critical needs. Lisa Henderson Executive Director LeadingAge Maine & New Hampshire www.leadingagemenh.org
Citizens of a town should be able to support any organization they choose that supports good local values.
The River Center was an irreplaceable support system for me when I was a new mom. These sorts of programs are essential for the care and raising of children in our area! Of course our tax dollars should be able to be sent where the public feels it’s necessary. Our own families, friends and neighbors deserve our support.
Hello there, My name is Heidi Schultz and I am a resident of Peterborough, New Hampshire. I just became aware of House Bill 1649, which will not allow NH towns to designate funding for nonprofits based on tax dollars. I am appalled at the fact that this bill is even being sponsored in our Congress. For two years, I managed the Avenue A Teen Center for The Grapevine Family and Community Resource Center. Avenue A is a place for teenagers to come and participate in activities, and make healthy connections with other teens and adults. There are many programs that teach teens new skills. Programming through the Grapevine is free for these teens. Avenue A serves five towns in the Monadnock region, but draws teens from a much wider area. These are kids who come from all kinds of socioeconomic backgrounds, but tends those who cannot afford to pay for activities outside the home. The TeenCenter is gifted $42,000 a year from the five towns referenced in their mission statement. If this bill were to pass, it would eliminate this critical funding. I’ve also worked at three other nonprofits in New Hampshire, and am aware of how important this type of funding is for all nonprofits that serve our state. It would be devastating for the citizens of our state if this bill were to pass. Please vote no on House Bill 1649. Thank you for your consideration. Heidi Schultz
Why would we purposefully undermine funding to our non-profits, which perform essential work in our communities? I am thinking specifically of 100 Hundred Nights in Keene, which appealing for help on this issue. It will be -25 to -30 this weekend. Unless proponents of this bill are intending to rely on their own spare bedrooms to save those who need shelter in the winter, I submit HB1649 must be defeated.
This bill would change how towns, cities, and villages are permitted to allocate public funds to nonprofit organizations. Many municipalities currently partner with nonprofits to deliver essential services efficiently, particularly in areas where municipal capacity is limited. Nonprofit organizations often provide direct community benefits such as family support services, food access, early childhood programs, housing stability, and public health initiatives. These partnerships allow local governments to meet resident needs while leveraging nonprofit expertise and infrastructure. Limiting municipal support to certain nonprofit organizations may reduce service availability, increase pressure on municipal departments, and create gaps in support for vulnerable populations. It may also limit local decision-making by preventing municipalities from responding flexibly to their community’s unique needs. Consideration may be warranted regarding how municipalities will continue to meet these community needs and what alternative funding or service delivery mechanisms would be available if such partnerships are restricted.
This bill should not move forward. It is utterly inexpedient to legislate. Whenever anyone suggests that the State of New Hampshire should do something that might benefit local communities, we rightfully insist that local governments and local voters know their local needs better than does the state government. HB1649 says, "No, your state legislature knows better than you local people. We will prevent you from deciding what services you wish to support in your town. We in Concord know what you want and need better than you do. HB1649 is insulting as well as damaging to our towns. Thank you.
For a State that professes to support local authority, the most conservative members of our House consistently try to prevent local control, except when they align with the decisions that local areas want to make - to the benefit of their citizens. This Bill is a perfect example of overreach, something that would hurt local areas and therefore the citizens of an area. This is why I oppose this Bill.
As an avid kayaker, boater and swimmer in NH Lakes all my life, the work that is done by lake hosts and associations to keep lakes clean and help prevent the spread of invasive species is invaluable and not free. Please amend this bill to allow towns to continue to work with trusted non profit organizations to ensure public dollars are used responsibly and accounted for clearly.
New Hampshire nonprofits deliver essential, community-based services no one else can—such as family resource centers, programs serving older adults, food access programs, and local water quality monitoring, just to name a few. These organizations assist hundreds of Stratham residents providing a valued return on the meager investment from the Town. As an example, Stratham provides $2000 to Womanade of Greater Squamscott and has received over $7,000 in return.
I'm writing to express my strong opposition to HB1649. By eliminating the option for direct municipal appropriations, this bill would limit local control, corrode New Hampshire's longstanding devotion to freedom expressed through that local control, and undermine New Hampshire's distinctive way of addressing community needs through trusted nonprofit partnerships. With all of this in mind, I strongly recommend that HB 1649 be deemed inexpedient to legislate. Sincerely, Matthew Boulton Keene, NH
Our towns cities and villages deserve the right to decide how their tax dollars are spent. If a certain nonprofit organization is benefiting their community they should be allowed to support it.
Completely unnecessary.
I am writing this testimony to voice my opposition to HB1649. I urge all who read my comments to consider marginalized and vulnerable populations who face difficulty securing housing and our vulnerable to losing it. I urge you to consider what it is like to live in a car in winter. I urge to consider when you turn your thermostat up what it is like to try to fall asleep when it is cold. I urge you to step outside of your circumstances and look upon those of a different social class with basic human decency. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. Our communities depend tax payer funds to provide necessary social services to our most vulnerable. We want to be good neighbors and we look to our local nonprofits where we give of our resources and time to care for those in need. Please do not limit the good and necessary work these fund enable our communities to do.
This pernicious bill would undermine local government and the right of voters to support essential nonprofit services that the community needs and supports. PLEASE VOTE NO on this bill!
This is an attack on local government.
Good morning, As a parent of a teenager who has benefited from many of the services provided by a local non-profit services, I do not support this bill of cancelling the funding. If it wasn't for the services that the program provided, then she would not be where she is today.
To whom it concerns, Let the record be clear that I oppose HOUSE BILL 1649. There are many non profits that are serving a wide variety of community members, from minors and youth to elderly and older folks - and everyone in between. Removing the ability for towns to appropriate funds to the non profits would negatively impact many organizations and the community members they serve. It goes against the foundation of towns appropriating and allocating their spending, would leave vulnerable people without safe havens or much needed services, be detrimental to the nonprofits helping lift up and support communities, and in the long run would increase the need for government assistance as these support systems wane. It is a disservice to communities and the state of NH and should not be implemented. With respect from a concerned resident.