Weare board adopts $20.45 million proposed budget; splits on three petition warrant articles

The Weare School Board on Jan. 15 voted to adopt a proposed 2025–26 operating budget of $20,449,303 and completed recommended positions on three citizen petition warrant articles that will appear on the town ballot.

Business officials presented the proposed budget and a default budget calculation. The proposed budget was $20,449,303; the default budget — the amount that would take effect if voters reject the proposed budget and the board makes no further changes — was $20,469,757. The board approved the proposed budget by roll call vote; the recorded yes votes were from board members present at the meeting.

Finance staff said the proposed budget equals a 4.27% increase in district expenditures over the current year and that projected tax rates reflect changes in state aid and fund balance assumptions. Using the projection included in the materials, staff said the tax rate implied by the proposed budget is about $9.82 per $1,000 of assessed valuation — a roughly $1.26 per $1,000 increase compared with the just‑adopted previous rate — which translates to about $441 more on a $350,000 house under the assumptions used in the presentation.

District staff and the board attributed part of the tax‑rate increase to a reduction in projected state revenues: the district’s share of a change in state grants reduced projected state aid by about $462,150 and accounted for roughly 35¢ of the projected tax rate change, staff said.

The board also reviewed a collective bargaining agreement for support staff that appears on the warrant (the support‑staff contract is broken out as a warrant article). Meeting materials listed the contract’s projected local impact as approximately $145,420 in year one and $95,469 in year two; staff projected per‑employee average changes for paraprofessionals and described new longevity and differential pay provisions in the negotiated text.

Petition warrant articles: three citizen‑filed petition warrant articles were discussed. Article 5 would require the district to publish an estimated tax impact for the annual budget and special warrant articles (an RSA 32 provision); Article 6 would implement a statutory per‑pupil budget cap tied to RSA 32:5(e) and CPI‑U; and Article 7 calls on state lawmakers to halt any expansion of taxpayer funding for private education until accountability and funding guarantees are in place.

After discussion the board voted on advisory recommendations for the petition articles. By recorded vote the board voted to recommend Article 5 (publication of estimated tax impacts). The board voted not to recommend Article 6, the statutory per‑pupil budget cap (board members expressed concerns about a rigid cap tied only to enrollment and CPI and the supermajority requirement to override it). The board voted to recommend Article 7, a petition calling for accountability and transparency in taxpayer funding for private education. The board scheduled the statutorily required public hearing for the budget‑cap petition (Article 6) for Feb. 18 at 6 p.m., after deliberative session, as required by RSA 32:5(e).

Other actions: the board confirmed a deputy election official for the district warrant and finalized logistics for deliberative session on Feb. 5; the board also adopted the budget in a roll‑call vote at the meeting.

Ending: The proposed budget and the board’s recommendations on petition articles will go to the district deliberative session on Feb. 5 and then to the ballot; Article 6 has a separate public hearing requirement on Feb. 18.