Stratham voters approve $11.96 million bond for school renovations after contested debate

Stratham voters on Tuesday approved a bond of $11,961,745 to fund renovations at Stratham Memorial School, with an additional $299,044 to cover the 2025–26 debt-service obligation.

The warrant article, introduced by the moderator and recommended by the Stratham School Board (5–0) and the Financial Advisory Committee (5–0), authorizes the board to issue bonds or notes under the Municipal Finance Act and to accept any federal or state aid that may become available.

The bond campaign was presented to voters by members of the school building subcommittee and staff. Principal Kate Lucas described the school’s educational priorities and community programs and explained the renovation plan’s focus on safety, ADA compliance and instructional space. The building subcommittee and construction manager proposed replacing two temporary classroom buildings, upgrading fire protection, improving administrative circulation, expanding the cafeteria by roughly 20 percent and adding four special-services classrooms (two of those to replace temporary classrooms), among other items. The project budget includes a 15 percent contingency and a $250,000 line for an owner’s representative.

Engineers and construction volunteers on the subcommittee emphasized the need for contingencies and compliance upgrades. Paul Corrino, who identified himself as a professional mechanical engineer and a member of the building committee, told voters that a 15 percent contingency is typical at the schematic-design stage and warned that cutting the project budget now could leave insufficient funds to finish needed work: “It’s too early. You don’t make judgments like that,” Corrino said, adding that further design phases will refine costs.

Builder and subcommittee members called Corino Construction as the pre‑construction manager selected through an RFP process. The presentation noted key line items drawn from schematic designs: sprinkler upgrades and associated water‑main work, boilers (~$235,000), an air‑handling package (about $1,000,000) with control upgrades (~$335,000), cafeteria expansion (~$730,000), office reconfiguration (~$1.4 million) and allowances for leach‑field work, roof replacement and envelope improvements. The presenters said there is roughly $240,000 in the district’s maintenance trust that could be applied to window replacement (estimated at $400,000–$500,000) but that windows were not included as an immediate necessity in the bond scope.

Floor debate included calls to reduce the bond by removing what some residents characterized as nonessential elements and by lowering contingency from 15 percent (board staff’s proposal) to 10 percent (the contractor’s suggestion). Resident Sean Dempsey moved to amend the article to reduce the bond to $10,000,000 and to lower contingency to 10 percent; the motion was seconded. Supporters of the amendment cited declining enrollment and tax pressure; opponents — including on‑site construction professionals and building‑committee members — argued the risk of underfunding the project and the need to preserve contingency for unknowns uncovered during design and construction. The amendment failed on a voice vote.

After the floor debate closed the meeting opened a one‑hour ballot for the bond (required by the RSA cited in the warrant language). When ballots were counted the moderator reported the tally as read from the meeting: 7 abstentions, 28 no, and 411 yes; the moderator announced that Article 1 passed. Following the result, the meeting approved a motion to restrict reconsideration of Article 1 so the article would not be reintroduced the same evening.

The bond authorizes the school board to issue, negotiate and deliver bonds or notes under the Municipal Finance Act and to take any other action relative thereto; the article also includes the separate appropriation of $299,044 for the project’s 2025–26 debt service.

What’s next: the bond proceeds and project planning will move into the design‑development and construction phases; presenters repeatedly said more detailed cost estimates will follow as designs are finalized and that the additional contingency was intended to prevent construction stoppages or late change orders.