The Stratham School District Board met and voted on a package of capital and operating items, including a recommended $12 million school-improvement bond, two trust-fund transfers and the operating budget. The Facilities/Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) presented its unanimous recommendation to support the bond; the board approved the bond as presented. The board initially failed to pass the operating budget as proposed and then approved a revised, smaller budget later in the meeting. The board also approved a set of policy updates and authorized modest trust-fund additions.

The FAC presentation and bond recommendation

Kathleen Peck, a member of the FAC, told the board the FAC had reviewed the construction proposal and unanimously recommended supporting the bond for school improvements, identified in the package as a not-to-exceed $12,000,000 bond. "My name is Kathleen Peck. I am one of the members of the FAC ... All of us voted unanimously to approve that bond," Peck said during the FAC report. The FAC described discussions about whether to accelerate window replacement and whether to include a generator now or later; the FAC and board discussed contingency and value-engineering steps taken during design and contracting.

The board approved a bond authorization for the project in the amount shown in the warrant: $11,961,745 (presented as a not-to-exceed $12,000,000 figure that includes a 15% contingency). The warrant also includes a first-year interest payment amount of $299,044 to be raised for FY 2026. The board recorded the motion and approved the bond (recorded vote: 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain).

Why the schedule and contingencies matter

Board members and FAC presenters emphasized that the cost estimate includes a 15% contingency (about $1,500,000) and $250,000 for an owner’s representative; the construction manager indicated value-engineering opportunities remain once design work is complete. One board member said the bond’s tax impact estimate assumes a 25-year bond at 4% and an average home assessment of $834,000, producing a rough $315 per year tax impact for that average property (rough estimate provided in the meeting handout).

Trust funds and policy approvals

The board approved warrant language to add $20,000 to the Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund (to build toward future maintenance needs such as windows or other capital repairs) and $10,000 to the Technology Capital Reserve Fund (intended for periodic infrastructure and switching upgrades). The board also approved a package of policy updates (listed in the packet as EHB data records retention and destruction, EHB-R data governance and security, GBJ personnel records, JRA student records withdrawal language, EBHR local records retention schedule, and GBJR personnel records regulation). Those policies were moved and seconded and recorded as approved by the board.

Operating budget: initial rejection, amended approval

After extended discussion and substantial public comment, the board took an initial vote on the operating budget as presented (total in packet: $15,637,374, a 2.73% increase). That motion failed on the floor. Board discussion focused on class sizes (particularly in grades 4–5), staffing levels, special education costs and whether the decline in enrollment justified staffing reductions. Several board members said they wanted to align staffing to current enrollment and to the 2020 class-size recommendations that the board previously discussed; others cautioned that student behavior and increased needs meant the district should be cautious about reducing instructional staff.

Following the failed vote, a board member moved an amended operating budget of $15,526,375 (a reduction of roughly $111,000 from the original proposal). After discussion the board approved the reduced operating budget (recorded vote: 3 yes, 2 no, 0 abstain).

Public comment and discussion themes

During public comment and board discussion, several recurring themes emerged: (1) concern about rising taxes tied to the bond and operating budget, (2) support for the bond because of deferred maintenance and building needs, (3) concern about student behavior, dysregulation and the need for supports in classrooms, and (4) differing views on whether reducing staffing (or not rehiring vacant positions) is the right response to declining enrollment. Christina Gaynor, who identified herself as a teacher at Stratham Memorial School and a resident, emphasized the value of teacher-student relationships: "I firmly believe that having a positive and supportive relationships with students is paramount to student success," she said during public comment.

What the votes mean and next steps

- Bond: approved by the board; the warrant language will appear for the town vote (the bond total in the warrant is presented as not-to-exceed $12,000,000; project dollar amounts and contingencies are in the FAC/CM estimates).
- Trust funds: the board approved the recommended contributions to the Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund ($20,000) and the Technology Capital Reserve Fund ($10,000).
- Operating budget: the board rejected the original $15,637,374 budget and approved a reduced $15,526,375 budget that will appear on the warrant.
- Policy updates: the listed policy changes were approved by the board during the meeting.

The board chair and administration indicated the bond sale and final amortization schedule will be completed after the warrant vote; the chair and administration also said the district will continue to present the board with details about staffing, student supports, and programmatic impacts of any staffing changes. The board asked administration to present a clearer picture of schoolwide behavioral and academic supports at an upcoming meeting so the board can better weigh trade-offs between staffing, class size and programmatic supports.

Votes at a glance

- Minutes (Jan. 8): Motion to approve minutes — approved (recorded as unanimous by voice; tally recorded in meeting).
- Policy package (listed in packet: EHB, EHB-R, GBJ, JRA, EBHR, GBJR): Motion to approve policies — approved (recorded in meeting).
- Bond (Article 1, not-to-exceed $12,000,000; shown in warrant as $11,961,745): Motion to approve bond warrant article — approved (5–0–0).
- Trust Funds (Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund add $20,000; Technology Capital Reserve Fund add $10,000): Motion to place warrant articles — approved (voice votes recorded).
- Operating budget (original): $15,637,374 (2.73% increase) — failed on first vote.
- Operating budget (revised): $15,526,375 — approved (3–2–0).

Ending

The board closed the meeting after approving the revised operating budget and the bond warrant language. Board members asked administration to return with additional detail about classroom supports, special-education cost drivers and options for staffing that would allow the board to evaluate trade-offs before future budget cycles. Public comment reflected both support for the bond (to address deferred maintenance) and concern about taxes and classroom conditions; administration and FAC presenters emphasized contingencies and value-engineering work done so far and during design.