Questions the budget doesn't answer
The City of Keene's FY27 operating budget is thorough on line-item spending and capital planning. It details every department's allocation, every bond outstanding, and every capital project planned through 2033. It is less detailed about multi-year financial forecasts, performance outcomes tied to spending growth, and several specific policy targets that would help residents evaluate the budget in context.
These gaps are not unusual. Most municipal budgets in New Hampshire do not address the questions listed below, because the analysis required is significant and often falls outside standard budgeting practice. The budget being silent on a question does not mean the question is being avoided — it may mean the analysis has not been conducted, is published in a separate document, or is not considered standard practice for a city of Keene's size.
This page lists the questions a resident might reasonably ask after reading the FY27 budget, organized by topic. Each question links to the section of the budget where the topic arises and identifies the City contact who could address it. When the City provides answers through public forums, this page will publish them.
These questions are intended as a resource for civic engagement: for public comment at Council meetings, for conversations with Ward councilors, for questions submitted to the Finance Committee during the budget cycle. They are the questions the budget invites by presenting data without the surrounding context that would address them.
This page evolves as the budget review process unfolds. Questions and topics added after the page's original publication are marked with a colored bar on the left and a dated note. The original content remains unchanged. See Budget review updates for the chronological record of what's been learned in budget review meetings.
Fund balance and structural sustainability
The FY27 General Fund budget uses $3,842,085 from unassigned fund balance to close the gap between projected revenue and recommended spending. The City Manager's transmittal memo describes this use as "strategic, short-term" and acknowledges that it is "not sustainable long term." The City's fiscal policy sets a minimum unassigned fund balance of 7% and a maximum of 17% of the operating budget. The budget does not project the fund balance trajectory beyond FY27 or estimate when the balance would reach the policy floor at the current draw rate.
- At the FY27 rate of fund balance use, how many fiscal years can the City draw from unassigned fund balance before reaching the 7% policy floor?
- Does the City maintain a multi-year operating forecast that projects revenue and expenditures beyond the current budget year? If so, is it published or available on request?
- What is the projected gap between recurring revenue and recurring expenditures once fund balance is no longer available to close it?
- What specific measures does the City anticipate using to close the structural gap when fund balance use is reduced — revenue increases, expenditure reductions, or both?
Contact: Finance Director
No public responses received yet.
Debt service and the CPI cap
The City's fiscal policy caps the annual increase in property tax revenue at the three-year average of regional CPI — 3.4% for FY27. However, debt service and state-mandated retirement contributions (NHRS) are excluded from the cap calculation. FY27 General Fund debt service is $4,897,076, up from $3,821,383 in FY26 — a 28% single-year increase. The budget's Long-Term Debt section shows $25.2 million in additional bond issuances anticipated through FY33. The single-year debt service ratio for FY27 is 8.6% of the operating budget; the fiscal policy ceiling is 12% measured as a five-year average.
- What is the projected total annual debt service through FY33, incorporating the anticipated bond issuances listed in the capital improvement program?
- Where does the City expect the five-year average debt service ratio to sit over the next several years relative to the 12% policy ceiling, given the planned issuances?
- Has the City stress-tested the debt service projections at interest rates above the 5% assumed for anticipated bonds — for example, at 6% or 7%?
- Given that debt service and NHRS contributions are excluded from the CPI cap, what mechanism in the fiscal policy framework constrains total municipal cost growth for taxpayers?
Contact: Finance Director
No public responses received yet.
Roadway and capital asset condition
The FY27 capital improvement program funds roadway preservation and rehabilitation. The budget does not publish a current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for the City's road network, an engineer-recommended annual funding level for roadway maintenance, or a system-wide assessment of deferred maintenance across the City's capital asset classes — roads, bridges, buildings, water and sewer infrastructure, and stormwater systems.
- What is the current Pavement Condition Index for Keene's road network, and how has it changed over the last five years?
- What is the engineering-recommended annual investment to maintain the road network at its current condition, and how does the FY27 capital plan compare to that figure?
- At the current level of capital investment in roadways, what is the projected trajectory of the network's condition over the next ten years?
- Does the City maintain a comprehensive deferred maintenance assessment across all major asset classes — roads, municipal buildings, water and sewer infrastructure, and stormwater systems? If so, what is the estimated total?
- Following the May 19, 2026 FOP meeting: the Public Works Director noted that the wastewater treatment plant's discharge permit expires in November 2026 and that anticipated tighter limits would likely require new treatment processes and significant plant upgrades. What is the estimated capital cost of those upgrades, and is it reflected in the capital improvement program through FY33?
- Following the May 19, 2026 FOP meeting: the NHDES PFAS detection limit for the closed landfill has dropped from 70 to 12 parts per trillion. What is the projected multi-year cost of continued PFAS monitoring and any remediation under the tightened limit, and where does it appear in the City's financial planning?
Contact: Public Works Director
No public responses received yet.
Airport cost recovery
The FY27 budget allocates $513,819 in property tax revenue to the Dillant-Hopkins Airport. Water, sewer, solid waste, and parking are organized as enterprise funds, where user fees cover the cost of providing those services. The airport is organized as a general-government function within the General Fund, with the difference between airport revenue and airport expenditures covered by property taxes. The budget does not publish a cost-recovery ratio for the airport, a count of direct airport users, or a formal policy target for airport cost recovery.
- What is the airport's current cost-recovery ratio — the share of airport operating costs covered by airport-generated revenue — and how has it changed over the last five years?
- How many individuals and businesses directly use the airport in a typical year, and what is the approximate per-user property tax contribution?
- What is the policy rationale for organizing the airport as a general-government function rather than an enterprise fund, given that the City's other utility-type services operate as enterprise funds?
- How is the planned airport solar project expected to affect the airport's operating costs and revenue, and does the City anticipate it will change the property tax contribution over time?
- Does the City have a formal cost-recovery target for the airport, or a timeline for establishing one?
Contact: Airport Director
No public responses received yet.
Fire and EMS performance
Fire Department spending grew from $8.45 million in FY24 actual to $9.96 million in the FY27 City Manager recommendation. The department's published performance metrics show 90th-percentile response time compliance at 80%, measured against the NFPA 1710 standard of 90%. Public safety spending growth raises questions about performance outcomes — not about whether public safety matters. The questions below ask about the data that would help residents understand what the spending growth has achieved and what the proposed additions are expected to accomplish.
- What measurable outcomes have resulted from the staffing additions made in FY24 and FY25 — specifically, has the 90th-percentile response time compliance improved toward the NFPA 1710 standard?
- What is the breakdown of Fire Department calls between medical (EMS) responses and fire suppression, and how has that ratio changed over the last five years?
- The FY27 budget estimates ambulance revenue at $1,900,000, which is below the FY25 actual of $2,528,829. What accounts for budgeting this revenue line below a recent actual?
- If the proposed four-firefighter addition does not achieve the expected improvement in response time compliance, what is the evaluation framework and timeline for assessing the outcome?
Contact: Fire Chief
No public responses received yet.
Revenue diversification and the commercial tax base
The City Manager's transmittal memo identifies revenue diversification as a structural concern. Property taxes account for the majority of General Fund revenue. The budget does not publish a commercial-to-residential ratio for the tax base, measurable targets for non-residential growth, or a formal strategy for reducing reliance on residential property taxes. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenue — payments from the Library Campus TIF district — declines from $1,005,842 in FY24 actual to $485,032 in the FY27 recommendation.
- What is the current ratio of commercial to residential assessed value in Keene's tax base, and how has that ratio changed over the last ten years?
- What specific initiatives in the FY27 budget are intended to grow the non-residential tax base, and what measurable outcomes are expected from them?
- What accounts for the decline in TIF revenue from $1,005,842 in FY24 actual to $485,032 in the FY27 recommendation?
- What is the measured return on the City's investments in regional economic development partnerships, and how does the City evaluate whether those investments are producing growth in the commercial tax base?
Contact: Community Development Director
No public responses received yet.
Service reductions and authorized but unfunded positions
The FY27 budget includes two unfunded police positions — authorized roles for which no salary is budgeted in the upcoming fiscal year. The budget characterizes these positions as temporarily unfunded due to recruitment difficulty. The City Manager's Office and Human Resources departments show year-over-year decreases at the departmental level. The Police Department's Investigations cost center shows a reduction of approximately $150,000 in full-time wages from the Department Request to the City Manager's Recommendation. The budget does not establish a formal timeline for restoring funding to unfunded positions or a threshold at which an "unfunded" position effectively becomes a reduction in the authorized force level.
- At what point does an authorized but unfunded position effectively become a reduction in the authorized force level, requiring explicit Council action to confirm?
- What is the planned timeline for restoring funding to the two unfunded police positions, and what conditions would need to be met to restore them?
- What is the impact on Police Department operations of operating with two fewer funded positions through FY27?
- For departments that decreased year-over-year (City Manager's Office, Human Resources), what specific changes in operations or service levels result?
- What process does the Council use to determine whether reductions in the City Manager's Recommended budget reflect appropriate cost discipline or unintended reductions in service capacity?
Contact: City Manager (cross-departmental questions); Police Chief (police-specific questions); department heads (individual department reductions)
No public responses received yet.
Added May 15, 2026, after the FOP budget overview and department review meetings.
The May 12 and May 14 budget review meetings added context to this topic that is worth tracking alongside the original questions.
The May 12 meeting revealed that three of the four personnel reductions appearing in the FY27 budget are parts of one coordinated decision. The City Manager explained that the Community Development position and the Fire Administration deputy position have been held vacant to fund the contract role of Rick Wood as fire marshal. The FY27 budget makes that consolidation permanent — Rick Wood becomes permanent City staff serving as emergency management director, fire marshal, and building official. The previously vacant positions are being eliminated to fund the consolidated role.
The May 14 meeting added context to the Police Investigations unfunded position. The Police Chief described a department operating with 10 functional vacancies against 44 authorized sworn positions, with 6 officers eligible to retire immediately and 5 more approaching retirement. The unfunded position in the Police Investigations cost center reflects what is actually happening in the department — recruitment difficulty leaving positions unfilled — rather than a service capacity reduction the FY27 budget creates.
- When a coordinated personnel restructuring appears in the budget document as multiple separate "unfunded position" lines (as with the Rick Wood consolidation), how should residents understand the underlying decision? What process does the Council use to evaluate cross-departmental restructurings that are not surfaced as a single proposal?
- For departments operating significantly below authorized staffing levels (as with Police at 10 functional vacancies against 44 authorized), what is the threshold at which sustained under-staffing becomes a de facto reduction in service capacity? What process determines whether to maintain authorized staffing levels that are not being filled, reduce authorized levels to match reality, or intensify recruitment to close the gap?
Contact: City Manager (cross-departmental questions); Police Chief (police-specific questions)
Added May 15, 2026, after the FOP budget overview meeting.
How outside agency funding decisions are made
The FY27 budget includes line items for outside agencies — nonprofit and community organizations that the City supports through annual contributions. The budget document presents these items in a "Department Request" column followed by a "City Manager Recommended" column, the same format used for City departments.
During the May 12 FOP meeting, the City Manager clarified that the budget document's presentation of outside agency funding differs from how the City presents its own departments. The "Department Request" column for outside agencies reflects a recommendation from a review committee rather than the agency's actual request. The City Manager noted that the budget document will be updated next year to include what the agencies themselves requested, and that some line item descriptions are from prior years and need to be updated.
The outside agency review process is referenced in the budget but not explained in detail. A review committee — composed of representatives from human services, Keene Police Department, and two City Councilors — reviews applications each February, scores them against established criteria, and forwards recommendations to the City Manager.
- What are the established criteria the outside agency review committee uses, and how are scoring decisions documented?
- How are the committee's recommendations communicated to applying agencies, and what process do agencies have to respond to or appeal recommendations before they reach the City Manager?
- What is the relationship between the committee's recommendation, the City Manager's recommendation, and the final adopted budget for outside agencies? At each step, what changes are made and on what basis?
- For agencies whose City Manager Recommended funding differs substantially from their actual request (as with MFS at $9,850 recommended against a $25,000 request, or Arts Alive at $1,000 recommended against a $10,000 request), what process gives the agency visibility into the rationale for the difference?
- How are outside agency line items reviewed for whether their current descriptions still match the program being funded? The City Manager noted that the "MFS Street Outreach" label reflects a prior-year program rather than the current FY27 application.
Contact: City Manager's Office (budget document presentation); Human Services Manager (review committee process)
How to ask these questions
These questions are meant to be used. The City of Keene provides several channels for residents to engage with the budget process and ask questions of City staff and elected officials:
- Public comment at City Council meetings — the Council meets regularly and provides time for public comment.
- Contact your Ward councilors — each of Keene's five wards elects two councilors, plus two at-large members.
- Finance, Organization, and Personnel Committee — the committee that reviews the budget in detail before Council action. Questions can be submitted in advance or raised during public comment.
- Budget workshops — held annually during the budget cycle, typically in the spring. These are the most direct opportunity to ask detailed questions of department heads and the Finance Director.
If you raise one of these questions in a public forum and receive a substantive answer, please share it with this project. Responses will be posted on this page so other residents can see them.
Contact: dan.wyzik@gmail.com
Source: All topic areas reference specific sections of the City of Keene FY27 Operating Budget. All figures are City Manager recommended unless otherwise noted.