Linehan: Concord's Growing Tax Burden Is No Longer A Future Concern

CONCORD, NH — For years, Concord's approach to spending has followed a familiar pattern.

A project is proposed. Residents raise concerns about cost. Officials explain the need. The project moves forward, often by a comfortable margin of members of the city's board of education or city council.

Subscribe

Viewed individually, many of these projects are defensible: A police station eventually needs replacement. Schools need maintenance. Roads need repair. Recreation facilities have value. But taxpayers do not pay for projects individually; they pay for all of them together.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as Concord accumulates major capital commitments whose combined cost is now measured, not in millions, but in hundreds of millions of dollars.

Across the middle school project, police headquarters, Main Street and Exit 17 improvements, Beaver Meadow clubhouse, Memorial Field upgrades, a proposed fire station, the city's share of the Loudon Road bridge, homeless encampment cleanups, shelter vouchers, and related spending, the combined principal cost is roughly $324 million once ratepayer-funded sewer work is set aside. That equates to about $7,260 per resident before interest. Once interest on the middle school and police station bonds is included, the long-term burden rises substantially. The middle school alone accounts for the large majority of this total: nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.

The issue facing Concord is no longer whether any individual project is worthwhile. The issue is whether the city has developed a habit of continuously approving new spending without adequately weighing the cumulative effect on taxpayers.

The clearest example is the Rundlett Middle School replacement project.

At approximately $239.6 million, it represents the largest school construction project in New Hampshire history. The full principal-and-interest burden equates to roughly $5,370 per resident and about $25,000 per household assessed at $400,000. For many homeowners, the annual tax impact will be measured not in tens of dollars, but in hundreds.

The new police headquarters is another major commitment.

Supporters rightly note that the existing facility has documented deficiencies and no longer meets modern needs. Yet taxpayers will ultimately bear a cost estimated at $70 million, including interest. The project serves an essential public purpose, but it also shows how routine borrowing has become.

Beyond those headline projects lies a growing list of secondary commitments.

The Main Street Complete Streets project and Exit 17 improvements together represent roughly $17 million to $18 million in city-supported costs. The Beaver Meadow clubhouse, even after reductions from earlier proposals, remains a project whose primary users will represent a small fraction of residents. Memorial Field upgrades continue to advance. A new central fire station looms in the capital plan. Sewer improvements, bridge work, and other infrastructure projects add additional obligations.

Again, the question is not whether each project has merit. The question is whether city leaders have shown enough discipline in deciding which projects should proceed now, which should be delayed, and which should be scaled back.

Even smaller expenditures contribute to a broader perception problem.

Spending on homeless encampment cleanups, temporary shelter vouchers, and diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging initiatives represents a relatively small share of the overall budget but still pushes over half a million dollars. Yet many residents view these expenditures as symbols of a government that too often focuses on programs, processes, and new initiatives while asking taxpayers to absorb steadily increasing costs. That perception may be more politically significant than the dollar amounts themselves.

Across Concord, public frustration is becoming clear and is no longer limited to a handful of budget watchdogs. Longtime residents increasingly describe feeling squeezed by rising assessments and taxes. Some retirees and fixed-income homeowners report difficulty remaining in homes they have owned for decades. Families who once regarded Concord as affordable are questioning whether costs will keep rising faster than their incomes.

These concerns deserve more than dismissive assurances that each new project is worthwhile. Residents understand that government costs money. What they want to know is whether anyone is considering the total bill.

Unfortunately, recent voting patterns have done little to inspire confidence. Major capital projects frequently advance by majorities on our public bodies despite visible public opposition. Residents attend meetings, write letters, and express concerns. Yet the outcome often appears predetermined. Whether or not that perception is entirely fair, it is becoming increasingly widespread.

The danger for city leaders is not that residents oppose any single project. It is that many residents are beginning to believe there is no meaningful limit on spending. Once that belief takes hold, trust becomes far more difficult to restore than a budget is to increase.

A more sustainable path would begin with greater transparency about the true long-term cost of major projects. Every significant capital proposal should be accompanied by a clear cost-per-resident calculation and a realistic estimate of lifetime debt service. The city should consider establishing a multi-year cap on general fund bonding and apply greater scrutiny to projects that serve relatively small segments of the population.

Most importantly, officials must begin evaluating projects not only on their individual merits but also on their cumulative impact.

Concord remains a desirable place to live, work, and raise a family. But affordability is one of the qualities that made it attractive in the first place. If city government continues adding commitments faster than taxpayers can comfortably absorb them, that advantage will gradually disappear.

The debate before Concord is no longer about a school, a clubhouse, a police station, or a road project. It is about what kind of tax burden residents are willing to carry and whether elected officials are giving those consequences sufficient weight before approving the next major expenditure.

Ryan Linehan lives in Concord.