Articles 18, 20 and 26 if approved, will draw upon the Unassigned Fund Balance for a cost reduction to taxpayers in the current year of $1,154,500 – roughly $36.00 savings for a home valued at $400,000. This is in addition to $2 million from the Unassigned Fund Balance that was used to lower the tax revenue needed to meet general budgetary requirements.

The Unassigned Fund Balance consists of excess funding that comes from either more revenues than expected (Example: the Rooms and Meals Tax distribution from the State; or higher than anticipated reveneus from Trust Funds)) OR from lower than anticipated costs (example an expense approved by the taxpayers that ends up not costing as much as expected, or the project is not pursued.)

There is a required minimum funding that a municipality needs in the Unassigned Fund. The New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) recommends 5%-17% of the municipality’s overall budget be held as “unassigned” to cover emergencies and to mitigate the fluctuations in the timing of revenue received and outlays required. The top end of this exigency translates to over $5 million for Hampton. Even with the hold-back requirements, there is excess funding to dedicate to projects the Town Departments feel are needed. If the voters approve these expenditures and if they were NOT being funded by the Unassigned Fund Balance, it would require additional taxation.

If all the Articles that call upon the Unassigned Fund Balance are passed, it would reduce the Unassigned Fund by $1.1 million, which would leave adequate backup resources, and would still allow the town to qualify for a lower bond rate for Warrant Articles that are bond-funded.

When you see “no tax impact in 2024” associated with an Article that uses the Unassigned Fund Balance, it means there is no need to raise new tax revenue to cover the proposed costs, because the money was previously raised, earned or conserved. However, the voters have the ability to approve or reject the proposed use of those funds.

What it means:  The CBA is a cooperative agreement at SAU 21. As such, the CBA warrant article needs to pass in all five (5) school districts within SAU 21 – in order for it to take effect in any one district. If one school district CBA warrant article fails, they all fail.

Those in favor say: A speaker stated that this article was unanimously supported by all members of the School Board, and discussed the importance of the educational associates. He talked about the need for this article to pass in order to retain the best educational associates and to be able to hire high-quality new associates. He discussed the high turnover rate and stated that we currently provide uncompetitive compensation and benefits to these important employees.

If the CBA fails, paraprofessionals do not receive pay increases, steps, or health insurance offerings.  Hampton’s paraprofessionals are currently paid $15 – $19 per hour and are only eligible for single-person health insurance. This is not competitive with surrounding school districts, or businesses and retailers. Hampton loses paraprofessionals at a 40% turnover rate.

SAU 21 paraprofessionals are in the classroom every day working with teachers and supporting students to allow for individualized and personalized instruction. They assist with hands-on learning opportunities and educational experiences. These professionals work in both general education and special education, providing services for students as required by their IEPs.

Those opposed say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: A Hampton home valued at $400,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $ 2.76 in 2024 if SAU 21 Article 2 passes, and for each year of the contract, the cost is below $3.00. Take your property valuation divided by 1000 and multiplied by .007 to get your cost.

Note: These costs for taxpayers are calculated at 47.1% of the appropriations, which is Hampton’s share.

What it means: The School Board proposes to raise and appropriate $400,000 to fund the planned HVAC upgrades project per the HVAC replacement plan and five-year capital improvement plan (CIP).

Those in favor say:  The proposed HVAC upgrades project reflects the scheduled upgrades per the plan. The project is part of the ongoing HVAC replacement cycle that includes ongoing HVAC replacement, upgrades, controls integration, and duct cleaning.

The HVAC replacement cycle helps minimize large one -time expenditures for multiple system replacements and levels the spending over multiple years.

Those opposed say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: A Hampton home valued at $400,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $ 18.99 in 2024 if SAU 21 Article 3 passes. Take your property valuation divide by 1000 and multiply by .047 to get your cost.

Note: These costs for taxpayers are calculated at 47.1% of the appropriations, which is Hampton’s share.

What it means: A total main school building and gymnasium roof replacement is scheduled for 2024-2026 at an estimated cost of $3,500,000 including all translucent panels and skylights. This will be phased into a multi-year project (3 years) starting in the summer of 2024.

Those in favor say: In order to minimize tax payer impact, funding will be over two years with the bulk of the funding raised in 2025-26 to coincide with expiration of the building bond, which will offset the cost.

Those opposed say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: A Hampton home valued at $400,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $ 46.29 in 2024 if SAU 21 Article 4 passes. Take your property valuation divided by 1000 and multiplied by .116 to get your cost.

Note: These costs for taxpayers are calculated at 47.1% of the appropriations, which is Hampton’s share.

What it means: The SAU 90 Proposed Operating Budget is more than last year by $2,084,825.  That consists of $1,255,849 that will be included in the Default Budget, and $828,975 that is being proposed to cover additional expenses.

Note:  The school district is seeking a 5% salary increase and associated benefits for 57 Non-Union employees; including those who work in Custodial, Support Staff, Technology, ABA Techs (behavioral support), Social Worker, and Administrators.  These salary and benefit increases represent 44% of the Proposed Budget increase over the Default ($359,868).

Additionally, the Proposed Budget includes Special Ed costs to support an increasing number of students identified as needing out-of-district placements; as well as funding for increases in Transportation and facilities costs.

Those in favor say: Regarding the increases to the salaries and benefits for the 57 non-union employees, the school district is competing with other schools to hire support staff such as custodians, food service, etc. It has been very challenging to find people, and some of this is due to potential applicants not being able to afford to live in this area.  The modest 5% increase will help to make these jobs more attractive.

Special Education costs reflect the changing needs of the students; we are required to educate any child that comes through our door. Every attempt is made to keep the children within our district, but at times we need to place them outside for services we are not prepared to deliver.  When we have a move-in who needs out-of-district services that we did not budget for, that increases our costs by $100,000 to $200,000 per student (including  transportation). The school has no control over move-ins, and no option once the need is identified for services the district does not offer. Since these occurrences may take place within the budget year, any such diversion of funds means that less funds are available for the rest of the student body.  The Proposed Operating budget asks for recognition of these unforeseeable costs so that all students can receive the education they deserve.

Funds that were previously available due to the effects of the pandemic, notably ESSER funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund) were concluded as of last year.  That means less dollars available to offset district costs.

Those against say: No one spoke against the Article at the SAU 90 Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: The difference between the actual budget from 2023-24 and what is proposed for 2024-25 is $2,084,824. That difference will add .53 per thousand of property valuation, or $212.00 to the tax due for a household valued at $400,000.

Should Article 1 fail to pass, the Default Budget will add $128.00 to the tax bill versus last year for a property valued at $400,000.  Thus, the difference between accepting or rejecting the Proposed Operating budget is $84.00.

Take your property valuation divided by 1000 and multiply by .53 to get your cost increase versus last year for the Proposed Operating budget, and .32 to get the cost for the Default budget.

What it means: This is an annual request to keep the buildings updated and in good condition.

Those in favor say: Paying for ongoing maintenance helps to prevent more expensive repairs or student displacement in the future.

Those against say: No one spoke against the Article at the SAU 90 Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: Technically, $300,000 will cost an additional .076 per thousand, or $30.40 for a home valued at $400,000.  Keep in mind that the $300,000 was part of the budget last year, so there would be no increase in your tax bill due to this Article, if it passes.

What it means: This Article requests voter approval for the funding of a centralized ventilation system to improve air movement and air quality via dehumidification.  This is not the same as air conditioning, which is cooling the space.  This is to reduce moisture and to prevent mold issues.

Air Exchanges:

• Replace inside air with fresh outside air that has been dehumidified
• Reduce the level of carbon dioxide
• Operate quietly
• Are controlled by an automated direct digital system
• . Measure the demand, to better control costs

Current Condition at Centre School – Air Purifiers/Scrubbers

• UV Light / HEPA filtration
• Purchased in 2020, and meant as a temporary solution
• The system runs 24/7 to assure ventilation and acceptable indoor air quality
• The current system requires frequent servicing due to size and constant air circulation
• The air purifiers are noisy.

Those in favor say: The building was constructed in 1927, with an addition in 1959.  Air treatment needs and technology have changed since then. The air treatment system that was put in place during the pandemic was meant as a stop-gap measure and has a lot of short-comings.  This request is a lot of money, but it is necessary.  It will cover design and construction; renovation and replacement of the indoor air quality systems at Centre school.

The American Lung Association writes that “Taking steps to address air quality issues in schools before they become a problem can make a big difference in the health and success of students, faculty, and staff. Making even minor changes can have a large impact on health and learning. Increasing outdoor ventilation rates can result in higher standardized test scores, reduce the spread of respiratory illness, and decrease absences.  Good indoor air quality helps to create a healthy learning environment and results in better health and learning outcomes.”

Those against say: No one spoke against the Article at public meetings.

Fiscal Impact: The $2 million cost for this project will cost .51 per $1,000 of assessed value, or $201.60 for a property valued at $400,000.