Kingston — Two citizen petitions requesting full property-tax exemption for the Kingston Veterans Club and for Hall Masonic Lodge No. 84 were before the select board; the board voted to not recommend both petition articles, and members described the pick of assessor findings and statutory limits that constrain local action.

The board explained it had directed the assessor to review tax-exempt properties after a change in assessing contractors. The assessor identified several properties that, in the assessor’s view, did not meet the statutory criteria for tax-exempt status. The town read excerpts that cited New Hampshire law governing veterans organizations (referenced in the meeting as RSA 72:23-a) and said federal or state documentation is required to qualify for exemption.

Select board members said the town’s process was not intended to target veterans or fraternal organizations, but to apply the statutory criteria uniformly. The meeting record shows the board reinstated a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) arrangement for one waterfront property originally documented in the 1992 warrant article and scaled the prior $1,000 payment to reflect inflation; the board also voted to forgive prior unpaid amounts. The transcript records a figure for the current annual PILOT of about $2,236 and an assessed value given in the discussion of $449,500 for a listed property.

Petitioners were told they can pursue state-level nonprofit or tax-exemption filings; board members said municipal staff and the petitioner could pursue documentation at the state level but that the board could not grant exemptions that are not allowed by state statute. Meeting participants also noted that the petition articles are advisory in the town’s attorney’s view: even if voters supported the petitions, the town must still follow statutory eligibility criteria.

Motion and votes: For each petition the select board moved and recorded a recommendation to not recommend the petition articles at the town meeting. The meeting transcript records the board’s votes to not recommend; one board member recused from discussion on at least one petition.

What this means: The board’s action was a recommendation to voters; the legal status of exemption eligibility rests on compliance with state/federal statutory requirements and assessor determinations.