Concord School District presents $111.6 million FY26 budget proposal; estimated local tax rise 4.44%

Superintendent (name not specified) opened the Concord School District’s first public work session on the proposed fiscal 2026 budget on the board’s agenda, calling the presentation a “big picture overview” intended to give the board material for further deliberation.

“This budget is in response to your goal to change up the way the budget was delivered,” the superintendent said, introducing materials that the district posted online in advance of the meeting so residents could follow along.

Jack (finance staff, name not specified) told the board the proposed general‑fund operating budget is $111,574,863, a 2.84% increase over the current fiscal year. He said the estimated local tax impact of that proposed budget would be $0.62 per $1,000 of assessed value — a 4.44% increase in the local education rate that would move the local rate from 13.96 mills to 14.58 mills. When combined with the state education tax (which the district projected would not change), Jack said total education taxes would rise from $15.53 to $16.15 per $1,000 under the proposal.

The presentation framed the request as a starting point: officials repeatedly told the board that numbers would be refined during a multi‑week review and that decisions remain to be made before the public hearings and final vote.

Why it matters: the budget document layers several pressures that drive spending higher — staffing costs (about three quarters of the budget), negotiated contracts, insurance premiums and special‑education and out‑of‑district transportation costs — while proposing one‑time trust‑fund offsets to blunt the tax increase.

Key budget features and offsets

- Proposed general fund: $111,574,863 (2.84% increase over FY25). Jack stated the figure directly to the board.

- Estimated tax impact: $0.62 per $1,000 (4.44% local rate increase). Jack presented the arithmetic showing the local education rate rising from 13.96 to 14.58 mills and the combined education tax moving from $15.53 to $16.15 per $1,000.

- Trust‑fund offsets: the district proposes roughly $2.45 million in one‑time uses of trust and reserve funds to reduce the immediate tax pressure. Jack described pulling $1 million from the health risk reserve, and additional one‑time amounts to cover proposed start‑up costs (including a van fleet proposal) and summer projects. Where numbers were unclear in discussion the presenters said they would provide clearer line items in subsequent versions of the budget document.

- If the board accepts the offsets, the budget’s net increase (after those one‑time uses) was presented as lower; Jack emphasized the October budget adjustment window if state revenues or other items change.

Drivers of higher costs

Board and staff walked through the major areas that are pushing the budget upward:

- Personnel and contracts: roughly 76% of district expenditures are personnel. Jack said salary increases in collective bargaining and rising benefits are an unavoidable driver. The district expects contractual salary increases and benefit costs to add to expenditures even if staff hiring is restrained.

- Insurance: the district’s health‑insurance premium rates are increasing (Jack reported a 13.4% renewal for the district’s health plan); property and liability coverage and workers’ compensation are also rising. The presentation cited a 13.6% increase in property and liability and a 12% rise to workers’ compensation premiums. Staff said those market changes — including reinsurance costs tied to large national losses — are increasing district costs.

- Special education and related services: John (student‑services staff, name not specified) told the board the district has seen notable growth in autism and medically‑need populations, increasing caseload pressure on related services (occupational therapy, speech and physical therapy) and transportation. He proposed increasing some positions (for example, expanding a middle‑school occupational therapist to full time and adding a certified occupational therapy assistant and a speech‑language pathologist to allow district‑wide deployment rather than building‑by‑building hires).

- Out‑of‑district transportation: John said out‑of‑district transport costs can reach thousands per day when outside vendors are used. He proposed an alternative: a fleet of smaller passenger vans to serve student‑services transportation needs, which would reduce vendor costs and allow hiring faster (no CDL required for the smaller vans). The one‑time startup cost shown in the packet was approximately $1 million with roughly $1 million per year thereafter to operate the proposed fleet; staff described possible cost‑sharing with neighboring districts in the future.

- Food service and meal balances: Jack reported that the school food service program will require an estimated general‑fund support of $112,657 and a transfer of up to $55,000 to cover an outstanding unpaid meal balance liability — a combined potential general‑fund support of about $162,000.

Other items in the budget packet

- Capital and facilities: staff reviewed ongoing projects (new HVAC/dehumidification work at two elementary schools, planning for a high‑school HVAC project and the middle‑school construction decision approved by the board in February 2024). The packet also included trust‑fund balances and information about prior bond approvals and a declaration of intent to reimburse tied to a previously‑considered site; staff said they will reconcile what costs can be carried forward to current projects.

- Technology: the district continues its 1:1 program and plans rolling device replacements (teacher/staff laptops and Chromebooks on a rolling cycle). Staff said cyber‑security subscriptions and equipment inflation are factors to watch for FY27.

- Staffing reductions and vacancies: staff proposed using natural attrition, retirements and select unfilled positions to reduce personnel expenditures by about $973,900 as an initial step; staff said they will present more detailed lists in the next work sessions.

Process and next steps

Superintendent (name not specified) and staff said the budget document posted online is version 1.0 and that additional detail and refined line items will be provided at subsequent work sessions. The board scheduled additional work sessions and was asked to pick locations and dates for public hearings; staff asked the board to confirm where the hearings should be held so they can be posted 10 days before the hearings, as required by the district charter.

Formal action taken

At the end of the public session the board voted to enter nonpublic session under RSA a 3, section 91 a 5 (personnel; school records of pupils). The motion was seconded by Miss Boucher and passed by roll call with all members present voting yes.

What officials said

“This is meant to be an introduction of this and kind of a big picture overview,” the superintendent said at the start of the presentation. Jack told members, “we're proposing 111,574,863 or 2.84% over the current FY '25 budget.” John summarized the changing special‑education caseload and staffing proposals.

Looking ahead

Board members asked staff for more detailed comparisons showing how potential investments (for example, a smaller van fleet) would reduce contracted transportation costs; staff agreed to provide breakouts showing the upfront cost, ongoing annual operating cost and the projected reductions in contract vendor spending. Staff also committed to clarifying the trust‑fund withdrawals and to update the packet with versioned changes that will be posted to the district website.

The board’s discussion is ongoing; staff emphasized the document is preliminary and that the October adjustment window — and any state revenue changes — could alter the final numbers presented at the public hearings.

Ending

Staff closed the public portion of the session by asking board members to review the posted packet, and the board moved into nonpublic session for personnel matters.