The recession, coupled with a further downshifting of state responsibilities to cities and towns, has brought Concord to a crossroads. Head in the wrong direction, and it could be a long trip back to the kind of place Concord was and wants to be.

The city council asked Manager Tom Aspell to come up with two budgets for the coming year: one with no tax increase and the other with a 3 percent increase that would keep many projects on schedule and more public employees on the job. Those numbers are arbitrary. Hard times might justify a reduction in taxes, or worthy projects and increased needs could make a higher tax increase necessary.

In this case, despite the stumbling economy, the price paid for a flat tax rate is too high. The cuts Aspell first proposed would hurt people in need and reduce city services too much. When Concord last went without tax increases, residential and commercial growth meant revenue increased anyway. So did the take from vehicle registrations. Now, if city estimates are right, the traditional sources of non-tax revenue will increase just barely or not at all next year.

The state cut the revenue it sends to Concord by $1.3 million, but the school board agreed to transfer $800,000 of its funds to the city to keep tax increases down. That left a gap of about a half-million dollars. Every 1 percent increase in taxes, at current rates, raises just under $300,000. An increase of 1.5 or 2 percent would eliminate or minimize the damage of the most troubling cuts.

Adding $500,000 or so in revenue would allow two of four police officers' jobs to be saved, the main public library to remain open for more reasonable hours, parks to be maintained and snow removal to be kept at last year's level. Those are worth doing to keep Concord the kind of city employers want to come to.

Even if some cuts are restored, the proposed budget would mark a change in the way services are delivered. Many would no longer be paid for with property tax revenue but through user fees like water bills and the soon-to-be-implemented pay-per-bag trash collection system. Both of the former should be fee-based. But should recreation programs be open solely to those who can pay and their children? How about the city's swimming pools, community centers and, for that matter, the public library? And once fees are charged to use such properties, can they properly be called public anymore?

There's also a price to be paid in lost time, higher vehicle repairs and more accidents when streets are plowed and sanded less often. Those, too, in a way, are user fees. So are the effects of a dramatic reduction in the money the city gives to social service agencies.

The flat-tax budget would eliminate the city's contributions to the Visiting Nurses Association, the Concord Area Trust for Community Housing, the Families in Transition program and the YMCA. Contributions to the Community Action Program and Boys and Girls Club would be halved. Such savings would be offset in part by increased costs to deal with social problems.

The choices faced by the council are miserable ones. But though some taxpayers will be angered by anything less than no tax increase, a very modest increase so that cuts in service will be less severe is the way to go.