Weare School District holds public hearing on Article 6 budget-cap petition

The Weare School District held a public hearing on a voter petition to place Article 6 — a budget-cap warrant article citing RSA 32:5‑e — on the district ballot, the board said. The board read the petition language and noted the hearing is a required step under state law; the article was scheduled to appear on the district ballot for the March vote.

Supporters said the cap would restrain year-over-year spending and protect local taxpayers; opponents said it would force staffing cuts and undercut recent gains tied to a teacher contract. Speakers also debated whether the district’s spending or state funding levels were the primary driver of local tax increases.

A school board member read the Article 6 language into the record and said the petition met the 25-signature threshold required to put the item on the ballot and that the article cites RSA 32:5‑e. The board opened the public hearing and later closed it after hearing from residents and district staff.

Residents who backed the cap said they were motivated by rising property tax bills and what they described as unsustainable budget growth. Janice Matthews, Woodbury Road, said, “Public school administrators and board members all across New Hampshire continue to perpetuate the myth that spending more money on education produces better student outcomes.” She urged voters to approve the cap to force accountability.

Michael Jorgensen, Knox Road, said the measure is “a common sense measure” that would let the district plan under a fixed constraint and adjust “just like household budgets.” Another supporter, who identified herself as Kate Bloom and who was referred to during the hearing as the petition sponsor, said the district’s operating budget rose about 37% over 10 years while enrollment fell roughly 20%, and that cost per pupil has risen substantially; she argued a cap would limit local tax increases and push conversation about state funding.

District officials and other residents warned a cap would require cuts that could affect classroom staffing, programs and planned improvements. Dr. Cote, speaking for the district, described the existing multi-month budget process and said the district’s operating budget increased an average of 3.7% over the last five years, compared with a 3.5% average CPI during the same period. He said, had a cap like the one proposed been in place last year, the district would now be preparing a budget roughly $650,000 lower than its current default.

Several teachers, parents and other residents said recent investments — including the teacher contract approved by voters — have begun to produce improvements. One speaker who described work underway said, “We are at that cusp of making big improvements, but we’re just starting. If we put a cap now, what’s that going to mean for the future of all these things that we put into place to help out our kids that we’re able to do because of money?”

Speakers also discussed the broader funding context. A resident identified as Joshua said the district’s per-pupil spending is below the New Hampshire average by about $1,500 at elementary level and by more than $3,000 at middle school, and urged residents to press state legislators in Concord about school funding. Another resident cited New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau figures and said the town’s 65-and-older population and poverty rate differ from anecdotal portrayals made during the hearing.

No final policy decision was made at the hearing; the board opened the hearing, heard public comment from multiple residents, district staff and the petition sponsor, and then closed the hearing by procedural motion. The article will appear on the district ballot for the March vote, as noted when the board read the warrant language.

The board recorded a motion to open the public hearing and a later motion to close the public hearing; both procedural motions were approved by voice vote.

The board’s next formal steps will follow the timeline set out in state statute and the district’s warrant process; the hearing itself was the statutorily required public hearing held between 15 and 30 days before the vote.