BY ROD HANSEN

The Goffstown School District won’t have to make up for an expected shortfall in state education aid because that money wasn’t anticipated in the budgeting process, members of the school board said.

“We’ve presented for all budget scenarios, but we budgeted for the worst-case scenario” in state aid, said school board Chairman Keith Allard.

Allard’s comments came a few days after several residents asked school board candidates how the district would compensate for an anticipated $1.5 million reduction in revenue the school district would receive under Gov. John Lynch’s current proposed budget.

Under the current law for New Hampshire Equitable Education Aid, Goffstown would have received a $1.7 million increase in state aid beyond the $5 million the district received last year.

However, the budget Lynch recently proposed calls for a 5 percent across-the-board increase in state education aid, meaning Goffstown would receive a $250,000 in new revenue for a total of $5.25 million, said school board member Scott Gross.

The Lynch proposal would result in the local school portion of the tax rate rising by approximately 39 cents, Gross said. This would put next year’s school portion of the tax rate at $12.74 per $1,000 of assessed value, up from its current $12.35.

This projected increase in the tax rate is less that the 59-cent hike predicted in the warrant article guide if the district’s $33.26 million operating budget and four special warrant articles had passed with no increase  in state aid.

If the district had received the expected $1.7 million increase in state aid, the warrant article guide predicted  an 81-cent decrease in the tax rate.

Gross said the various funding scenarios produce problems in the budgeting process.

“From a school district perspective, the state aid fluctuatuating as wildly as it does introduces unpredictability into our revenue stream. This doesn’t help the school district, because you see these wild spikes” in state aid, Gross said.

The governor’s proposal is also still subject to review by the state legislature.

“It’s important to remember all these numbers are projected,” Gross said.

Along with variations in state aid scenarios, the district also had to consider costs beyond their control during the budgeting process, Allard said.

For example, the board had to absorb approximately $1 million in increased costs such as $262,000 in new professional and support staff retirement costs, $343,000 in special education tuition, and $287,776 in health insurance.

The district has made significant attempts to cut back on future employee benefit costs, Gross said.  These efforts include phasing out the most expensive benefit program and offering incentives for employees to switch to less expensive health plans.