Families in Concord and across the state are struggling with property taxes, but Question 2 is not the solution. It is a bold attempt at misdirection. Question 2 is a cynical attempt by Gov. Kelly Ayotte and the legislature to divert blame from their continued failure to meet their responsibilities to fund public education.
The ballot question has two parts. The first would cap school district administrative costs at 6%. The language in the resolution is unclear about what exactly counts as administrative costs, but under our best interpretation of the law, Concord administrative costs are about 3.5% to 4%. That is money used to develop curriculum, oversee the safety and security of school buildings, provide human resources and payroll for our employees, and to implement the dozens of laws about public schools the legislature passes every year.
Meanwhile the legislature allows the Children’s Scholarship Fund of New Hampshire — which oversees its voucher scheme and has none of those responsibilities — to use 10% of its funds for administrative costs. In 2024, the Fund paid its New Hampshire director more than $194,000 a year and its President more than $360,000.
The second part of Question 2 would impose a property tax cap at the rate of inflation.
The Concord School Board passed a budget with less than a 2% spending increase. To get there, we cut 45 positions. We trimmed budget lines. We’r putting buildings up for sale. We brought more alternative high school programming in house. And yet, Concord School District taxpayers are still facing a significant tax increase.
Two key factors are driving the tax rate increase. First, last year, the School Board used money from a trust fund to address a sudden increase in special education costs. Those costs continued into this year and are now being paid for by the general fund. Second, and more significantly, the state cut education funding to Concord by nearly $4 million.
Under the cap called for by Question 2, Concord would have had to cut another $6 million. The fastest-growing part of our budget is special education student services. We have more students with more complex needs who are legally and morally entitled to services that allow them to participate in school. Neither the state nor the federal government are meeting their financial responsibilities for these services. But those services are still legally required.
So if forced to cut another $6 million,where would it come from? There are not good choices: extra-curricular activities and athletics or art, music and advanced placement classes. But at the end of the day, most of the district’s budget is people. Cutting $6 million is the equivalent of cutting 90 people. That’s closing a school.
The same legislature that mandated that this question go on every ballot in the state has cut funding to public schools even as it adds to our costs. The legislature passed a law requiring public schools to serve students with disabilities to age 22, instead of age 21, shifting what had been a state cost for services to local school districts. Public school districts are required to pay for support services for charter schools. And now, we will be required to allow students participating in the voucher scheme to participate in our classes without reimbursement. So voucher students will be able to get their math and science or English education at their local public school and use the voucher money for ski lessons (real story).
Property taxes are too high, and families are really struggling. But the solution is not Question 2. The solution is for the legislature and the Governor to meet their responsibility to public education.
Pamela Walsh serves as the president of the Concord Board of Education.