Stratham School Board holds public hearing on FY26 budget; residents split on staff cuts and taxes

The Stratham School Board opened a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget on Jan. 8 at Stratham Memorial School, inviting residents, staff and volunteers to give three-minute statements. Board members emphasized the hearing was fact-finding ahead of a March vote on the final budget recommendation.

The hearing drew roughly three dozen speakers over two hours. Many parents, teachers and school staff urged the board to preserve current staffing levels and class sizes, arguing cuts would harm personalized instruction. Other residents — including longtime homeowners and taxpayers — urged restraint because of recent property-tax reassessments and the town’s changing demographics.

Board Chair Jennifer (first name only in transcript) opened the meeting by describing the process: the board will collect public comment, the Financial Advisory Committee (FACC) will review and endorse or not endorse the budget, and the board will vote on its recommendation before the public deliberation and final vote on March 4.

Administrators described the current proposal and its drivers. Kate (first name only in transcript), who presented the budget overview, said the FY25 approved operating budget was $15,021,286 and that the FY26 proposal as read aloud in the meeting was “15,000,000 637,374,” a change the presentation identified as roughly $416,000 and 2.73% over last year. Kate listed major cost drivers as special education, curriculum resources (+$35,799 called out on the slide), professional development and increased numbers of English-language learners. She also described areas of the budget that are contractually driven or otherwise limited in flexibility.

Several teachers and staff described classroom realities and effects of larger class sizes. Third-grade teacher Whitney Forbes testified that teachers are responsible for a wide range of academic and socio-emotional needs and supported preserving staff so that students receive individualized attention. Other staff and parents repeated similar concerns: smaller class sizes help with screening, intervention and social‑emotional support, they said.

Opposing speakers emphasized tax pressure. Several residents without children in the schools said recent reassessments and prior tax increases make larger expenditures difficult for households on fixed incomes. Debbie Sandberg, a Stratham resident, said she supported the recommended maintenance work to the building but could not back an operating increase at this time. The board heard questions about enrollment trends: presenters cited a 2023 enrollment study that modeled five scenarios (all projecting either steady enrollments or increases), while the board and some residents noted short-term declines in actual enrollment and asked which trend the district should follow.

Board discussion and next steps Board members discussed staffing scenarios generated after an early‑retirement incentive (the district offered $15,000 incentives and five employees accepted). Administration and finance staff presented options that would reduce the FY26 operating ask by not refilling up to two positions (presented generically as “one teacher and one specialist” in the budget scenarios) and estimated related savings. Trustees said they prefer an adaptive, year‑to‑year approach that aligns staffing to verified fall enrollment and avoids automatic last‑in, first‑out layoffs under a RIF process. The board asked administration for specific implications (grade-level effects and student assignment changes) before any final staffing decisions.

Trust funds, building maintenance and other fiscal items Business/finance staff Chris (first name only in transcript) walked through three trust funds the district holds: a technology trust that currently holds $10,000; a Special Education Trust Fund cited in the meeting as $516,702; and a building repairs/maintenance trust listed during the meeting as $228,296,296 (the minutes and presenters also referenced a target of at least $250,000 for that fund). Chris said the Special Education Trust balance could cover two students placed out of district for roughly one year at current prices, and recommended monitoring that fund as special‑education costs fluctuate.

Votes at a glance - Motion to allow teachers from Stratham Memorial School (and later out‑of‑district teachers) to speak at the meeting: approved by voice vote (Chair: “All in favor… Aye.”; recorded as passing). - Motion to approve public and non-public minutes (both sets): passed by voice vote. - Non-public motions (personnel items): the board reported it denied a personnel request and accepted a resignation (both motions passed; actions occurred in non-public session and were announced on return). (See the actions[] array below for the formal motion text, movers/seconders where recorded, and outcomes.)

Why it matters The board and administration must balance two visible fiscal pressures: near‑term taxpayer capacity after a townwide reassessment and long‑term programmatic and special‑education obligations that can create large, often unplanned costs. The public hearing illuminated sharply divided community views: employees and families urged protection of staff and class size while some taxpayers pointed to affordability concerns. The board signaled it will finalize a recommendation after the Financial Advisory Committee’s endorsement and additional staff analysis of enrollment and staffing implications.

What’s next The board plans to continue outreach on the building bond over the next month and to finalize the board’s recommendation at a future meeting before the public deliberative session and the March 4 vote. Administration will provide more granular staffing and enrollment scenarios ahead of the board’s final vote.