Claremont School Board Finance Committee — December 13, 2024

MEDIUM A televised budget meeting of a public body that appears in none of the district's own notices

The Right-to-Know Law's definition of "public body" ends with the clause that carries every subcommittee obligation in this corpus: a school district's boards and committees, "or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto." The Finance Sub-Committee is therefore a public body in its own right, and RSA 91-A:2, II requires that "notice of the time and place of each such meeting…shall be posted in 2 appropriate places one of which may be the public body's Internet website…or shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town at least 24 hours, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, prior to such meetings."

Every district document that prints this committee's December dates omits 13 December. The list first appears in the approved minutes of 18 September 2024 — "Finance Subcommittee Meeting dates: 1-3 PM at SRVRTC John Goodrich Community Room", then November 12, November 19, December 4 and December 18 — and is repeated verbatim in the approved minutes of 16 October. The 20 November 2024 agenda lists "Finance Subcommittee Budget Meeting dates: 1-3 PM at SRVRTC John Goodrich Community Room" and then "December 4, 2024" and "December 18, 2024". The Future Dates section of the approved 20 November minutes prints the same two dates. The November superintendent's report, whose calendar page is the district's public-facing listing, gives "12/4- Claremont School Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting 1:00PM SRVRTC" and "12/18- Claremont School Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting 1:00 PM SRVRTC" and nothing between them. The 4 December agenda — posted nine days before this meeting — lists the Finance Subcommittee only for "December 18, 2024", and so does the Future Dates list in its own approved minutes. A resident who relied on any of those five documents would not have known this meeting existed, and one who relied on the standing hour would have arrived four hours late: every one of them gives 1–3 PM, and this was a morning session.

What does exist is an announcement on camera, nine days ahead, at a properly noticed public meeting. On the recording of the 4 December board meeting (Output/Dialogue/16192 SchoolBoard120424.mp4.CSV) the business administrator says — all times in this paragraph index that recording, show 16192, not this one — at 1:08:04, "And then on the 13th, having one that would be here and would be on CCTV. And I haven't asked you what time you want to do. You said something about morning, but." The committee chair answers, "Can you let Chelsea know so she can get it out." A board member who is not on the committee asks the exact right question at 1:09:39 — "Will the Friday morning be publicized? Is that televised?" — and later, "Last year, there were several meetings that were televised for this year. There's going to be one on Friday, will there?" The approved 4 December minutes record it in the body of the document: "Ms. Henry had emailed Frank Sprague to ask to meet with the finance committee on Thursday next week and then a second meeting on Friday to be televised; the Board will have the budgets before the meeting." So the district intended to publicise the session, said so in public, and instructed a named staff member to do it. What no search has produced is the posted notice itself — and an oral announcement at an earlier meeting, and a sentence in minutes not approved until 18 December, are not what RSA 91-A:2, II asks for.

The by-laws point at a destination that is empty. The by-laws adopted 5 June 2024 direct subcommittee notices and subcommittee minutes to the SAU 6 website, and by-law 4.03(d) makes posting agenda materials along with the agenda a duty of the clerk. That destination was re-inspected for this page on 2026-08-29: the Claremont board page at sau6.org/119765_1 links a Finance subcommittee folder created 4 February 2026 holding exactly two subfolders — a purpose statement created 2 June 2025 and a folder named for 2025–2026 created 2 July 2026. Nothing from 2024 is reachable from it. The board itself conceded in 2024 that the venue was not yet operating. The honest limit is that the site as it stood in December 2024 cannot be inspected from here: this is not published where the by-laws require, and not recoverable, not never existed.

Why MEDIUM and not HIGH. Applying the corpus severity rule: the HIGH limb is for an absence that nothing on the record mitigates; the MEDIUM limb is for one the record does mitigate. Here the record mitigates substantially — the meeting was announced aloud at a noticed public meeting, an instruction to publicise it was given and minuted, the session was carried live on the public access channel and archived where anyone can watch it, and the board later pointed the public to that archive. Flag 2, on the same meeting, is graded HIGH, because nothing at all mitigates the total absence of minutes. What would move this to HIGH: confirmation from the district that no notice was posted. What would clear it: a posted notice, or a dated screenshot of the district's calendar for the week of 9 December 2024.

Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — "public body" includes any committee, subcommittee or subordinate body of a school district board; RSA 91-A:2, II as codified in 2023 (source note ends 2023, 188:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023) — notice posted in 2 appropriate places or printed in a newspaper at least 24 hours in advance; Claremont School Board By-Laws adopted 5 June 2024, rules 1.05(c)–(d), 1.11 and 4.03(d); the four district documents linked above.

MEDIUM A closed session of the whole subcommittee, scheduled for the day before this one and described on camera as a rehearsal for it

At the board meeting of 4 December the board chair described the arrangement in these words, on the recording of that meeting (Output/Dialogue/16192 SchoolBoard120424.mp4.CSV, 1:09:11): "We're going to do the the first meeting on the 12th is just to do a pre meeting for, the 13th. So we can go over everything within the budget, make sure that we understand what we're doing before we, come out in public and that all of our customers are pretty much answered and ready to go." She elaborated at 1:09:43: "Just so everyone on the finance committee has an opportunity to go through the budget on our independently, then sit down with Miss Henry, and hopefully Chris will be able to attend to. We'll be able to kind of run through it then and then have a full budget meeting publicly where we discuss it publicly." The approved 4 December minutes record the same thing in the district's own words: "The meeting on Thursday the 12th will be a premeeting for the 13th so that the finance committee understands the budget before it is presented to the public." Time and place were settled in the same exchange — "Any time after 9:00", "if we did 9 or 930, and then I'll just make sure we have the conference room for a couple hours" — and it was to be somewhere other than the room the board was sitting in.

RSA 91-A:2, I defines a meeting as "the convening of a quorum of the membership of a public body…whether in person, by means of telephone or electronic communication…such that all participating members are able to communicate with each other contemporaneously", for the purpose of discussing or acting upon a matter within the body's jurisdiction. This subcommittee has three members and all three were expected; the subject was the district's own draft budget. The paragraph's four exclusions are collective-bargaining strategy, consultation with legal counsel, a caucus of members of the same political party, and the circulation of draft documents formalising decisions already made in a meeting. None of them reaches a working session on a budget, and there is no "work session" exclusion in the statute. The caucus exclusion is unavailable to any New Hampshire school board in any event: RSA 671:30 requires every school district without a special statute to elect its officers on the non-partisan ballot system, so there is no party caucus for these members to hold.

What this page does not say. No notice, agenda, minutes or recording of a 12 December 2024 Claremont finance meeting has been located, and nothing in the record establishes that the session took place, who attended, or what was discussed. The 13 December recording contains no reference back to it. If anything, the opening of the school-by-school walkthrough runs slightly against the assumption that a full briefing had happened the previous day: Crawford opens at 0:20:11 by saying "I am working on the budget copy that we had last Friday. So I know there's been a revised", and works from it throughout, while Henry corrects several figures live. A gap between what was scheduled off camera and what appears on camera is a hole in the record; it is not evidence of what was decided in the gap, and this page asserts nothing about it.

Two further facts belong on the record. First, this is not an isolated instance: the corpus records three other Finance Subcommittee meetings from late 2024 — 12 November, 4 December and 12 December — for which no notice, agenda, minutes or recording has been found, the first two of them actually printed on the district's own agendas. Second, the arrangement drew an objection at the time, on the record: Crawford called the schedule "a very. Compressed schedule" and said "I know last year we spent several meetings going over the budget. And then I thought it was a very clear process. And I think the public responded to that clarity and to have it compacted. I think is unfortunate."

What would resolve this: a notice or set of minutes for 12 December 2024, or a statement on the record that the session did not take place.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I as codified in 2023 — definition of meeting; the four exclusions; RSA 91-A:2-a — communications outside a meeting, in force from 2008, 303:4, eff. July 1, 2008; RSA 671:30 — non-partisan ballot system for school district officers, 1979, 321:1, eff. Aug. 21, 1979, never amended; Approved CSB minutes 12.4.24.

MEDIUM Catastrophic special-education aid described to the public in figures that appear in no version of the statute then in force — the committee's second wrong rate in a month

At 0:06:56, illustrating unfunded mandates for the camera: "The state reimbursement for special ed is set, I think, at a 95% by law and over costs of $70,000 per student." And at 0:07:23: "the states just come out and said that they don't have the money to pay with the 95%. It's going to be like 63%. And so, so 17, 95% reimbursement, anything over 70,000. We only get 63%. That's the local taxpayer who has to pay that difference. And so I just want voters to realize that that's beyond our control."

Three separate figures, and none of them is the rule. RSA 186-C:18, III as it stood in December 2024 — the text enacted by 2023, 79:141 and 142, effective 1 July 2023 — makes the department liable for 80 per cent of costs above three and one-half times the estimated state average expenditure per pupil, and 100 per cent above ten times it, with the appropriation "prorated proportionally based on entitlement" when it is insufficient. There is no 95 per cent anywhere in the section. The threshold is a multiple of a statewide average, not a flat dollar figure per student: $70,000 is not in the statute either. And the rate actually paid in FY2025 was 67.5 per cent of entitlement, reported four days before this committee's previous meeting and widely covered; independent analysis puts it at 68.8 per cent. "Like 63%" understates it by four to six points.

The $70,000 figure has a real home elsewhere in this very meeting. At 1:03:14 the superintendent uses it as the average cost of an out-of-district placement: "That's probably around $70,000 per student." Presenting a placement cost as the point at which state aid begins makes the aid sound both far more generous and far more accessible than it is: on the real rule, catastrophic aid attaches only once a single student's costs pass three and a half times the state average expenditure per pupil, a figure well above $70,000, and then pays 80 per cent, prorated.

This is the second wrong reimbursement rate this committee has been given in under a month. At its 19 November session it was told the State was supposed to fund "up to 90%" — also a figure that appears nowhere in RSA 186-C:18. Two different wrong numbers, from two different speakers, at two consecutive meetings of a committee whose stated purpose (0:03:49) is that "the citizens will have an understanding of fixed costs", and both delivered to camera as explanations of why local taxes must rise.

Nothing here is a breach of State law, and the vintage matters. The 80-per-cent-of-entitlement floor that a reader of today's statute would find in RSA 186-C:18, III(a) was added by 2025 N.H. HB 2 §137 and did not exist in December 2024 — so the State was not obliged to do better than it did, and citing today's text against this meeting would wrongly accuse it. The defect is one of public information, not of legality. In mitigation, the statement is expressly hedged — I think — and it is made in the course of telling voters something that is substantially true, that the district carries mandated costs the State does not fully fund.

What would resolve this: a correction on the record, and the district's actual FY2025 catastrophic-aid entitlement and receipt.

Sources: RSA 186-C:18, III — 80% of costs above 3½× the estimated state average expenditure per pupil, 100% above 10×, proration when the appropriation is insufficient; RSA 186-C:18 as codified in 2024 — the version in force at this meeting, with proration and no floor; 2025 N.H. HB 2, §137 — the 80%-of-entitlement floor, enacted after this meeting; New Hampshire Bulletin, 15 November 2024 — FY2025 catastrophic aid paid at 67.5 per cent reporting, not law; New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute — FY2025 proration at 68.8 per cent secondary analysis; companion page for 19 November 2024.

MEDIUM A proposal to dissolve the district's preschool programme, resting on a statutory citation that does not support it — and on a placement question that is not the board's to answer

The longest single item of the meeting, twenty-six minutes from 1:40:25, is a proposal by the board chair to close the district's preschool programme and move its staff into unfilled paraprofessional posts elsewhere. The argument is coherent and it is put with care: the programme costs "close to $450,000" in salaries alone; it serves twenty children with mandated needs plus about twenty typically developing "model students" at no cost to their parents; a study the district commissioned from its former special-education director found that the model students "were performing below their peers that did not attend the Claremont Preschool Program"; five paraprofessionals work in the programme while 5 or 6 paraprofessional posts elsewhere in the district sit vacant; and the chair's remedy is explicitly not a cut — "We will continue to provide all the necessary services that we are required for these kids. It's not a demotion of care, it's just an alternate way of providing their needs."

The statute offered for it does not say what it is offered for. The chair grounds the proposal in a citation the recording renders as: "we're not required to provide this standalone service in Claremont per RSA one six C semicolon 3-A, we are required to provide the pushing [push-in] services that Frank was mentioning." Every word of that citation is transcribed at high confidence, and it is reproduced here exactly as recorded rather than repaired. The only New Hampshire section it can plausibly name is RSA 186-C:3-a, which is headed Duties and opens "The division shall help school districts meet their responsibilities under this chapter and under federal law regarding the education of children with disabilities." It imposes duties on the State's division and department of education — monitoring, data collection, technical assistance, administration of funding programmes. It says nothing about preschool, pre-kindergarten or children aged three to five, and it contains nothing releasing a district from operating a preschool programme.

The underlying proposition is nevertheless arguable. No provision requires a New Hampshire district to run its own standalone preschool; IDEA expressly contemplates services delivered in other settings, and the district did exactly that before this programme existed — pushing case managers, occupational therapy assistants, physical therapists and speech staff into local daycares and Head Start, as the committee chair describes at 1:43:49. What federal law does require is that a free appropriate public education be available to all children residing in the State between the ages of three and twenty-one, inclusive; that a continuum of alternative placements be available; and — this is the part the discussion never reaches — that each child's placement be "made by a group of persons, including the parents", determined "at least annually", sited "as close as possible to the child's home", and made only after "consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services."

That matters because the state finding the chair recounts is itself a least-restrictive-environment finding: the district was told it was deficient "because we did not have them in a classroom setting that included traditional students or model students. So what that meant is that we had to have 50% model students". Dissolving the integrated classroom and returning to push-in services may serve LRE better or worse — for some children better, for others worse. Nothing in this discussion is an LRE analysis. It is a cost analysis, and the only benefit it measures is the academic performance of the typically developing peers, not the progress of the children the programme exists to serve. A board may lawfully decide how to organise and fund its services; it cannot decide, in advance and in the aggregate, where twenty individual children will be placed.

The procedural point compounds it. The proposal was made, supported by all three members and referred to the administration for analysis at a meeting with no posted notice, no agenda, no minutes and no citizens' comment period, at which no parent, no preschool teacher and no member of the affected staff was present. Whatever its merits, the families of the twenty children had no way of knowing it was on the table; the record of it is a two-and-a-quarter-hour video with no index.

In mitigation: the chair addressed the human cost herself, unprompted, at 1:59:03 — "as a parent, I understand it would be disruptive to the kids that are anticipated going into this program" — and rested the case on the proposition that the same children would be better supported across a longer stretch of their schooling; the committee referred the question out rather than deciding it; and the driver is a documented shortage of staff for children who already hold IEPs, which is a real and serious problem (flag 3).

What would resolve this: the district's least-restrictive-environment analysis, the administration's response to the referral, and evidence that any resulting change ran through individual IEP teams rather than a budget line.

Sources: RSA 186-C:3-a Duties — duties of the division and department of education; source note ends 2024, 351:2, eff. Oct. 1, 2024; 34 CFR 300.101 — FAPE for all children aged 3 through 21; 34 CFR 300.115 — continuum of alternative placements; 34 CFR 300.116 — placement determined by a group including the parents, at least annually, as close as possible to home, with consideration of potential harmful effect; RSA 186-C:1.

MEDIUM One student's out-of-district placement discussed in open session in identifying detail, when a nonpublic session was available

Explaining an $87,000 rise in special-education transportation at 1:24:04, the director of student services described a single placement: the State the child is placed in, the annual cost of the placement, the fact that it is expected to end within the school year, and the personal circumstance that would end it. A member of the committee supplied further detail. The superintendent stopped the exchange — "We don't want to get into it too much" — and the director closed it with "Because those are always moving targets." No name was used at any point, and the officers were plainly conscious of the line they were near.

That care was not sufficient. FERPA's definition of personally identifiable information reaches beyond names and identifiers to "Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty." In a district of about 1,900 students with fewer than thirty out-of-district high-school placements, a placement State, a cost, a projected end date and a personal circumstance are, in combination, exactly that. An education record may not be disclosed without prior written consent from the parent or eligible student.

The forum was available. RSA 91-A:3, II(c) permits a public body to go into nonpublic session for "Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting" — the standard ground on which New Hampshire boards take individual student matters off camera. Separately, RSA 91-A:5, IV permits (it does not require) withholding records whose disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy. Nothing obliged the committee to discuss this placement at all: the transportation line could have been explained by a cost band without particulars.

This page's own handling is the demonstration. The $340,000 annual placement cost is a matter of legitimate public interest and is reproduced above; the State, the projected end and the personal circumstance are not, and are not reproduced anywhere on this page. That is the same treatment this archive applies to the district's other student-privacy exposures — a special-education report that listed children by full name and grade under a disability heading, and two donor cheques photographed with their full account details legible. The public interest is in what the district spends, not in who the child is.

What would resolve this: a practice of taking individual placements to nonpublic session under RSA 91-A:3, II(c), or of discussing them by cost band in public.

Sources: 34 CFR 99.3 — definition of "personally identifiable information", including the linked-or-linkable catch-all; 34 CFR 99.30(a) — prior written consent required for disclosure; 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b)(1) — FERPA; RSA 91-A:3, II(c) — nonpublic session for matters likely to affect adversely the reputation of a person other than a member of the body; RSA 91-A:5, IV — permits, but does not require, withholding.

MEDIUM ESSER explains a large part of this budget's increase, is invoked twenty-one times, and has never been accounted for to the board that asked for an accounting

Federal pandemic relief runs through this meeting as the explanation for one line after another, always retrospectively. The business administrator lists what it paid for at 0:13:29: "software packages and things of that nature", out-of-district placements "That totaled around $600,000" now falling into the operating budget, "a batch of computers for half $1 million", plus "some curriculum, some supplies, books" and positions. It reappears as the reason the middle school's tuition line rises $500,000 — "There's 600,000 that went through SR [ESSER] special ed tuitions" — as the reason elementary and high-school summer school are not funded, as the source of unusable classroom furniture at Maple Avenue, and, in the approved 20 November board minutes, as the source of a Maple Avenue keyboard being disposed of. On any reading, ESSER is the single largest explanatory factor in the FY2026 increase after health insurance.

The board asked for an accounting and never received one. The approved minutes of 18 September 2024 record a commitment: "Mary Henry will share a summary report of ESSER funding and where the FY24 budget stands in October" The approved minutes of 16 October 2024 record the request being renewed, in one sentence: "Frank Sprague shared that he would still like to see a presentation on ESSER" No such presentation appears in any recording, agenda, packet or set of minutes in this corpus. That silence is stated here as silence, not construed: nothing establishes that a report was refused, and nothing establishes that one was produced elsewhere. What the record shows is that the request was made twice, that ESSER has since appeared only in the past tense, and that at this meeting the member who made the request sat through twenty-one invocations of it — spread over fifteen turns by three different speakers — without renewing it.

One sentence in this meeting warrants a note about deadlines, and no more than a note. At 0:30:07 the business administrator says: "I do know within Esser in the last few months that we did purchase some furniture. I don't know specifically. I'd have to look to see what buildings it was for, but I know because of those requests, we did try to get some things in last minute and Esser with the remaining funds that we had." ARP ESSER funds had to be obligated by 30 September 2024 and liquidated within 120 days of that, by 28 January 2025, under the Department of Education's own grantee guidance and the Uniform Guidance liquidation rule then applicable to these awards. Spoken on 13 December, "the last few months" reaches back across that obligation deadline. The record does not establish when any order was placed, and this page asserts nothing about it. The point is narrower and it is the point of the whole flag: this sentence is the only public description of the district's final ESSER purchases, and there is no accounting anywhere against which a member of the public — or a board member — could check it.

In mitigation, the district's handling of the funding cliff is one of the better-documented things in this meeting and appears to have been deliberate. The superintendent at 0:14:55: "in a lot of districts, they use Esser money to fill positions. And then once the SA1 [ESSER] away, many districts said, okay, now you get to pick up the cost. That wasn't the case in in Sussex [SAU 6]. We we knew that we anticipated that…We took care of that last year." And the business administrator's correction of the summer-school characterisation at 0:41:30 — "It's not even a cost savings…The district never paid for that" — is exactly the kind of clarification the public record needs.

What would resolve this: the district's final ESSER expenditure report, and the summary report promised for October 2024.

Sources: 2 CFR 200.344(b) (2023 annual edition) — liquidation within 120 calendar days; this is the paragraph in force for these awards, and the paragraph the Department of Education itself cites in its June 2024 grantee memorandum the 2024 Uniform Guidance revision, 89 FR 30046 eff. 1 October 2024, moved the rule to paragraph (c) for later awards; 2 CFR 200.303 (2023 annual edition) — internal control over federal awards, including prompt action on identified noncompliance; 20 U.S.C. §1225(b) — Tydings period; approved Claremont School Board minutes of 18 September 2024; approved minutes of 16 October 2024; approved minutes 20 November 2024.

MEDIUM The mechanism the committee says it can no longer rely on is one the district has never reconciled in public

The most consequential sentence of the last ten minutes is a description of how Claremont's budgets have actually balanced. At 2:18:22: "we have been able to offset the cost of budget increases by reserving the end of year balance. And a lot of those end of your [year] balances are related, are generated by unfilled vacancies…our budget has been going up year after year, and we've been buffering the impact by unfilled vacancies, which is not the case anymore." The board chair asks the committee to explain that to taxpayers, and calls the underlying cause by its name: "it's basically it's been a failure to hire."

The mechanism is lawful and specific. RSA 198:4-b, II permits a school district to retain year-end unassigned general funds up to 5 per cent of the current fiscal year's net assessment; II(a) requires a public hearing with at least seven days' newspaper notice before expending them, and II(b) requires an annual accounting. So the district's practice of retaining a balance built out of salaries it did not pay, and using it to hold the next year's appropriation down, is a real and permitted tool — which is precisely why the size of the balance and the arithmetic behind it matter.

The most recent year of that mechanism cannot be checked from the public record. The approved minutes of 18 September 2024 put the FY2024 fund balance "At about $540,000", "Down about $60,000 after roof projects and others; could change", with "a revenue surplus at about $210,000"; the exhibit figure behind that rounding, $544,145.29, is spoken at no later meeting in this corpus. Four weeks on, the approved minutes of 16 October record a different set of numbers and reconcile them to nothing: "there is a surplus of $497,000, plus an additional $114,000 in additional revenue for a total of $611,000." No bridge between $544,145.29 and $497,000 was offered by anyone. Behind both sits a total FY2024 encumbrance of $648,931.76, of which $583,931.76 was the two roof projects voted the previous June, and the worksheet that would settle the arithmetic was cited on the October agenda and in its minutes and is absent from its packet. A smaller discrepancy sits on the face of the same document: the business administrator stated the statutory retention ceiling aloud as $466,664.43, while the approved minutes print "The maximum that can be retained is $469,000" — $2,335.57 above the figure her own calculation produced.

And the money the board did retain was earmarked for the budget being built in this room. The approved 16 October minutes record the motion: "Frank Sprague made a motion to retain up to $350,000 with the stipulation that it be used to offset the 25/26 tax rate", seconded and carried on a voice vote. FY2025–26 is the fiscal year this committee spent the morning on. That $350,000 is not mentioned once in two hours and twenty-three minutes — not when the business administrator lists revenues at 2:19:48, not when the percentage increase is read from the packet, and not when the board chair explains that the buffer is gone. The two statements are compatible — she is describing the drying-up of future year-end balances as vacancies are filled, not the sum already banked — but a resident trying to understand this budget from this recording will not learn that up to $350,000 of last year’s surplus is already committed against it.

So the committee is telling the public, correctly, that a buffer it has relied on for years has run out — while the last year of that buffer has never been closed out in public, the sums that would show what it actually was are inconsistent across two consecutive meetings of the same board, and the portion of it already assigned to this budget goes unmentioned. None of that is an allegation of impropriety; all of it is a gap a reader of the public record cannot close.

What would resolve this: the FY2024 year-end reconciliation tying $544,145.29 to $497,000, the encumbrance schedule behind $648,931.76, the arithmetic supporting a published maximum of $469,000 against a calculated ceiling of $466,664.43, and confirmation of how the retained $350,000 is carried in the FY2026 revenue estimate.

Sources: RSA 198:4-b, II as codified in 2023 — retention of year-end unassigned general funds up to 5 per cent; II(a) prior public hearing before expending, with 7 days' newspaper notice; II(b) annual accounting. In force from 2020, 38:25, eff. Sept. 27, 2020; RSA 198:5 — net assessment; approved Claremont School Board minutes of 18 September 2024; approved minutes of 16 October 2024; companion pages for 18 September 2024 and 16 October 2024.