Stratham board weighs using roughly $1.8M bond surplus; residents urge voter approval and legal review

The Stratham School Board spent the bulk of its meeting debating whether and how to spend about $1.8 million in leftover bond proceeds after a multi‑year renovation.

Superintendent (speaker 8) told the board the district is "looking at what's a projected bond surplus of about $1,800,000" and presented recommended building additions that would stay within the original building‑project warrant: replacing a skylight (~$150,000), replacing all windows (~$330,000), and replacing floors (~$375,000), a package her office estimated at roughly $860,000.

Why it matters: residents and board members said the legal path for using leftover bond money is not self‑evident and urged clear, public legal guidance. Resident Bob Monaco, who spoke during the meeting, told the board that bond law limits direct refunds to taxpayers and that the practical mechanism for returning surplus often involves applying proceeds against principal or using a call provision. "Any dollar that you spend out of this bond money is what I call expensive money," Monaco said, adding that the original bond was "for $12,000,000" and that he believes the complete payback approaches "$19,000,000." Superintendent (speaker 8) said she had asked the bond firm for guidance but was told that bond counsel would not provide further rulings beyond helping issue the bond and that the district should consult its attorney for post‑issuance questions.

Residents who spoke during public comment urged transparency and voter involvement. Glenn Woss recommended the board follow RSA 33:3‑a (Municipal Finance Act) procedures if the public is to authorize leftover spending, and Paul Tesini urged the board to maintain the outreach and contingency list used during the original bond work. "What I'm standing up here for is transparency," Tesini said.

Board members largely agreed that the issue requires more factual work before any decision: they discussed forming a small group to analyze options, involving the financial advisory committee, and drafting precise legal questions to send to counsel. The superintendent offered to arrange for the district attorney or bond counsel to answer questions at a future meeting or by email.

What happened next: the board asked members to submit specific questions for legal counsel and agreed to either have counsel respond by email or schedule an in‑person briefing. No final decision to spend the surplus was made during the meeting.

Context: speakers at the meeting also noted investment mechanics — the board’s bond proceeds are currently invested in the New Hampshire Public Deposit Investment vehicle at about 3.6%, which partially offsets the bond’s interest cost (the bond was placed around 4.3% according to comments at the meeting). Staff emphasized that unused bond proceeds at the formal project close may be applied to principal (not interest) and then appropriated to reduce future tax‑raising, but that the timing and legal mechanics require auditors' and counsel’s guidance.

What’s next: board members will collate legal questions and follow up with counsel; residents urged the board to consider a voter warrant or town meeting approval if the proposed uses go beyond the warrant’s original scope.