Allows a town or city that votes to adopt the provision to require tax-exempt non-profit organizations to make payments in lieu of taxes equal to 25 percent of the municipal property tax rate, with religious organizations exempted.
relative to enabling municipalities to levy payments against non-profits at a percentage of their assessed property values.
HB625 would let municipalities require nonprofit organizations to make Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) equal to 25% of what their property tax would otherwise be. A large majority of submitters, mostly nonprofit staff, board members, and supporters from across the state, oppose the bill, arguing it would force service cuts or closures at organizations serving vulnerable populations and erodes their tax-exempt status, while a smaller group of supporters, concentrated in Plymouth where over half of taxable property is nonprofit-owned, argue nonprofits should contribute a fair share toward the municipal services they also benefit from.
Supporters argue that as some nonprofits, especially large institutions with substantial property holdings, grow and benefit from municipal infrastructure and services, they should help fund those services rather than placing the full burden on homeowners and small businesses.
Many supporters, largely Plymouth residents, cite the town's unusually high concentration of tax-exempt nonprofit property (over half of taxable value) as creating an inequitable tax burden on the remaining residential taxpayers, including many seniors.
At least one municipal official argues that the current lack of consistent rules for negotiating PILOT agreements causes confusion, and that the bill's revisions would provide clarity and share responsibility for municipal services more evenly.
The dominant objection is that requiring PILOT payments would divert scarce funds from programs like childcare, homeless services, food pantries, and healthcare, forcing many already thinly-funded nonprofits to reduce capacity or shut down entirely.
“Taxing these organizations would significantly reduce their capacity to serve vulnerable populations—or worse, force some to close their doors altogether.”
— Tammy Carmichael, Laconia · #392453 — read full submission →
“Representative Bolton's proposal could lead to reduced capacity—or even the closure—of critical programs such as childcare, homeless services, and food pantries.”
— Marie Harding, Bedford · #392831 — read full submission →
Submitters representing historical societies, museums, and cultural organizations argue these small, often all-volunteer groups operate on shoestring budgets and would be forced to close or curtail programming if required to pay property taxes.
“The passage of this bill would be detrimental to the existence of the many historical societies across the State of NH.”
— Renney Morneau, Berlin · #405501 — read full submission →
“Levying taxes on nonprofits based on a percentage of their assessed property values is ridiculous. Historical sites such as the Enfield Shaker Museum would be bankrupted.”
— Nancy Munsey, CANAAN · #393734 — read full submission →
Submitters from organizations serving people with disabilities, seniors, and those needing affordable housing argue the added expense would directly reduce care and support for populations who are often already vulnerable and dependent on tight nonprofit budgets.
Opponents argue that if nonprofits close or reduce services because of the new payments, municipalities and the state will end up paying more to replace those services than the PILOT revenue would generate.
Some nonprofits, particularly senior and aging-services providers, note they already have voluntary PILOT or GILOT agreements with their towns, and argue a standardized mandatory 25% rate removes their ability to negotiate contributions suited to their actual finances.
Opponents object that the bill carves out an exemption for religious properties while imposing payments on secular nonprofits, arguing this selective treatment is inconsistent and favors one type of organization over others providing comparable community benefit.
Some submitters frame the bill as an attempt to cover state revenue losses, such as from repealing the interest and dividends tax or cutting business taxes, by pushing new costs onto nonprofits instead.
A smaller number of submitters argue that calling the payment a 'PILOT' rather than a tax is a semantic dodge, and question whether it is legal or constitutional to impose such a charge on organizations with tax-exempt status.
Without opposing the underlying idea of PILOT payments, some submitters argue the bill's proposed 25% rate is inadequate and that exempt properties should default to paying the full assessed property tax rate, with municipalities free to reduce it locally if desired.
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.
This bill would get a huge "foot in the door" to wipe out the American tradition of not taxing non-profits, i.e., charities. This bill is very clear that its goal is to allow property taxation of charities, just at a reduced rate of 25%. This is a serious infraction of our historic protection of charities, which depend on donations to fund their good works. So of course I do not want this bill to pass.
This bill would impair the ability of non-profit organizations in New Hampshire to serve the people of New Hampshire and their communities.
Dear Members of the House Municipal & County Goverment Legislative Committee, The Berlin & Coos County Historical Society would like to go on record as opposing House Bill 625. The passage of this bill would be detrimental to the existence of the many historical societies across the State of NH. Historical societies exist by the grace of unpaid volunteers who devote countless hours to the preservaton of an historical legacy whose passion helps to share their local story.. These grassroot efforts exist to enhance the offerings of a community in bringing about historical pride and preservation. The volunteers of these organizations selflessly give of their time and talent to promote the history of their towns and cities. In the case of the Berlin & Coos County Historical Society, the organization was created for the public good and never received, nor depended on, the city for financial assistance. Efforts like ours contribute to the state's many points of light and help to enhance our state's cities & towns by helping to bolster and promote cultural tourism on a local level. For 35 years we have been completing our annual tax exemption paperwork for the City of Berlin. Our society has always referred to the 1938 court case of Portsmouth Historical Society v. Portsmouth, as the basis for not being liable for any type of tax payment, whatsoever, whether it be a percentage of taxable property value, or payment in lieu of taxes, Certainly, this present attempt to levy a 25% tax against assessed historical societies' property values, is a bad idea. These historical societies do not have coffers overflowing with cash. The situation is as clear today as it was in 1938, common sense should prevail now as it did then, by not taxing any historical society in our state, Sadly enough, the passage of this bill in committee would surely cause the demise of the state's local historical societies, by rendering them unable to pay their operating expenses. We cannot let this happen On behalf of the Berlin & Coos County Historical Society Board of Directors, I strongly urge your committee members to vote against this bill. Very truly yours, Renney E. Morneau, President Berlin & Coos County Historical Society
I am President of the Trustees for the Remick Foundation, a non-profit organization in the Town of Tamworth, NH. Our organization is strongly opposed to this bill. First, and most obvious, is the financial difficulty this would likely pose for non-profits should their towns decide to adopt this new language and impose a PILOT as suggested in the bill. We note that the language is sufficiently vague that a municipality could in fact demand more than the 25% indicated. The bill creates a functional property tax while avoiding calling it by name. We wonder whether this is in fact legal, since non-profit organizations cannot be forced to pay taxes. We question the validity of exempting religious organizations from this bill. Secular non-profits are being targeted. Either all are tax-exempt or none are. We are very concerned with the favoritism on display here. This bill, if enacted, will be implemented unevenly and potentially unfairly as municipalities individually decide whether to adopt the mandated payment. In the guise of giving localities more authority to raise revenue, the Legislature will be sowing the seeds of confusion and conflict at multiple levels. We the Trustees of the Remick Foundation are strongly opposed to HB625 and urge that it be withdrawn.
Hello, I am a 68 year old resident of the town of Plymouth, NH. I have lived here and paid taxes for 30 years. My three children went to Plymouth public schools through high school. It was a great place to raise children. The non profits in town offer important services. However, they are 53% of the taxable property. Many of the non-profits offer services to Plymouth and non-Plymouth residents. Non- Plymouth residents get to use the non- profits' services without contributing to our taxes. That leaves the remaining 47% of tax payers to carry the majority of the tax burden for residents and some non residents.. I think it is time for the non-profits that are not exempt to help with the cost of city services. I support HB 625.
This bill is nuts. New Hampshire non-profits do so much good work that the state is unwilling to pay for taxing those organizations would clearly make their work more difficult, doing harm to many people in need of help the state won't give.
My town, Colebrook, has extremely high property taxes, caused by a small, geographically isolated community trying to support a small school system without significant economic base. The Tillotson Arts Center allows our children to experience and participate in the arts and other recreational experiences at a caliber far beyond what we could otherwise offer, and would have to close if required to pay property taxes. Many other entities in our town would also suffer: food bank and community meals come to mind. Many citizens are feeling the pinch of inflation, and we just don’t have resources to draw upon within our tax base. The Tillotson Center is so valuable, and may have to close if we need to pay property taxes for doing nonprofit work!!!
Non-profits do so much good in the world, in our communities, and to levy taxes on these already strained organizations will cause them to pull back on services done within the community.
I am very much opposed to HB625. As a member and a volunteer for the Lancaster Historical Society, I have to say that having a levy against our property we barely make ends meet and depend on donations to keep the museum in good condition and open to the public. We are keeps of Lancaster Historical Society the Town needs to back our efforts rather than penalize them. Our museum is an economic asset to the the Town bringing Ina large number of visitors. Please vote down this bill!
As a newly formed Non Profit in NH, I oppose this bill.
As a member of the Exeter Area GFWC, we have been the recipient of Gaming funds and have passed these funds onto many other non-profits and other community needs such as scholarships, 68 hours of hunger, YMCA, Gathr and many other organizations.
This measure poses a significant threat to the property tax-exempt status of nonprofits in New Hampshire. The proposal could lead to reduced capacity—or even the closure—of critical programs such as childcare, homeless services, and food pantries. I strongly oppose this bill.
I oppose this bill. Please vote ITL.
I, Blake Johnsen, oppose this bill due to the undue burden it places on nonprofits who already struggle to make ends meet. This bill in no way reflects New Hampshire’s “live free or die” sentiment and places more governmental control and tax liability on organizations that should be exempt. Thanks
Why would the NH legislators choose to enact a statute to enable municipalities to levy payments against non-profits at a percentage of their assessed property values. To collect money from a nonprofit organization, in lieu of taxes, when these non profits have to rely on donations and volunteerism just to survive is a sin. Historical societies, art centers (to name two) and other nonprofit community organizations provide links to the past, our history, cultural and other activities. Why would you want to destroy them? What of organizations that provide physical fitness and health activities for citizens and are nonprofits that have property/buildings/assets. These clubs, snow mobile clubs, ski and snowshoe clubs, ATV clubs etc...... are a vital part of our communities. I vehemently oppose this legislation and respectfully request that any and all members vote this bill down! Why would you want to destroy so many vital community organizations. Shame on you!!!
If any non-profits (i.e., religious groups) are exempt from this charge, no non-profits should be charged. All non-profits, including religious groups, should be able to prove their value (financial or services provided) to the community and pay reduced amount accordingly.
I believe that this bill would be detrimental to the many non-profit organizations who are operating on razor-thin margins at best. This bill would cripple or even force these organizations to close. Non-profits work so hard to enrich our communities. I firmly oppose this bill.
If passed this bill will make it even more difficult for NH nonprofit organization to survive.
The Lake Sunapee Protective Association is doing wonderful work to protect our watershed for future generations to enjoy. They rely on the generosity of donors to fund their research and programs so the lake and watershed remain safe for all. Having to pay taxes on the money they raise would severely jeopardize many of their valuable programs to protect the environment and those who live in and enjoy the region.
At a time when numerous small nonprofit museums and historically important sites across New Hampshire are facing decreased visitor traffic and rapidly increasing operational costs, passage of HB625 could quite literally mean the difference between continued operation and closing the doors or dramatically curtailing services for these organizations. This would be a travesty for a state which prides itself on its deep respect for tradition and history. I urge you to OPPOSE HB625.
Imposition of a mandatory PILOT will hurt nonprofits in their ability to serve the public as it will remove monies from program services to cover tax payments. As a result, nonprofits will have to either increase program participation fees and/or decrease the number of programs we can offer to our communities.
I am very much opposed to HB625. As a member and volunteer for the Lancaster Historical Society, I have to say that having a levy against our property would probably close us down. We barely make ends meet and depend on donations to keep the museum in good condition and open to the public. We are keepers of Lancaster' history and artifacts and the town needs to back our efforts rather than penalize them. Our museum is an economic asset to the town bringing in a large number of visitors who then visit our downtown businesses. Please vote down this bill.
I work at a Historical Society of Cheshire County which operates as a museum and a place of research for the Monadnock Region. We host programs that celebrate and explore local NH history for both regional schools, local residents, and college students. This Bill would severely impact our ability to service the region and negatively impact our staff due to the monetary strain that this Bill would put on our operating budget.
Allowing municipalities to assess real estate taxes on non-profits is insane. This wide net would include not only vital human services, but houses of worship, museums, some non-public schools, etc. This is a horrible trade for the elimination of interest and dividend taxes (state level). Another idea would be to permit municipalities to assess a sales tax or increase property taxes on real estate valued over $500,000.
As the town administrator of the Town of Peterborough I have negotiated a number of PILOT agreements with non-profit organizations. There is a lack of consistency in the applicable RSAs, which causes confusion and frustration amongst the non-profit agencies and the taxpayers. I support the revisions proposed in this bill, as they will provide consistency and clarity, as well as share the responsibility for supporting municipal services amongst all who benefit from them.