Budget Cap

Summary: Sets limits on how much the city can increase property taxes each year to match inflation. Requires the portion of the city budget funded by property taxes to not exceed the new limit. It allows the Council to override the limit when needed with a two thirds vote.


(Francis Casale writes) Vote for the cap because:

The Budget Cap amendment was developed in response to resident concerns about unsustainable tax increases and they are calling for tax relief. The City budget is funded by property taxes and revenue such as user fees. This alone will not fix the unaffordability Lebanon is facing but does direct elected officials to be more constrained and strategic in spending and revenue decisions. Most NH cities have a form of budget limitation in their charters but Lebanon does not. Lebanon DOES NOT combine its school and city budgets; this WILL NOT affect the school budget

The cap acts as a budget guard rail:

  • Allows city tax increases guided by cost of living and inflation (3-year average CPI)
  • Predictable taxes for homeowners planning their budgets
  • Encourage efficiency in operations and alternative revenue sources
  • A safety net allows the Council to override the cap by a 2/3 majority vote

The Cap DOES NOT: require cuts to services nor limit the amount of tax revenue collected from the commercial sector


(Mayor Douglas Whittlesey writes)Vote against the cap because:

  • The CPI-U does not reflect the City’s cost increases for the services our residents expect, which often rise differently than CPI.
  • The cap does not include increases for growth in the City and is rigidly tied to the prior year’s budget, so the City won’t be able to grow services to meet the increase in demand.
  • The savings, when removing the effects of the State-mandated property revaluation process, would be $42.28 per year on a $400,000 house while limiting the services the City could provide.
  • The tax cap would push the City to budget to the cap to meet both current and future needs. The City would, out of prudent long-term financial planning, lose the flexibility to budget below inflation, such as in 2026 when we budgeted for 0.7%, well below the 3% expected inflation rate.

This proposal oversimplifies a complex responsibility and risks long-term impacts to infrastructure and services for limited savings.


Do you want to submit a public argument against this measure? Contact us with your argument; no more than 1000 characters.