Lee Town Budget Fails Again!

June 9, 2026. What I think this lo-res photo from the town is telling us is that in today's special election, the Lee Budget failed to pass for a second time in two months, by a vote of 255 (44%) YES to 319 (56%) NO.  The budget is for FY27, which is July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. I forgot to vote.

In the March 10, 2026 election, Lee voters, understandably upset that the increasing Oyster River Cooperative School taxes seemed to land disproportionally on them this year, voted against both the school budget and the town budget.  The school budget passed anyway, carried by the votes from Durham and Madbury. NO prevailed for the Lee town budget, with voters opting for the $5.69M default budget rather than the proposed $6.09M budget, which was 7.0% higher than the default budget.

As the article states, rather than simply accept the default budget, the board availed itself of the option to  try to pass another budget, this time asking to appropriate $5.93M, 4.3% above the default. As we are an SB-2 town, we had a second Deliberative Session on May 9, and election day today where NO won again.

I attended the May 9 Deliberative Session for a few minutes, but I didn't really follow the details of what was proposed for the modified budget. I supposed it doesn't matter much now that it failed. 

The town has already announced the cut of the town-wide yard sale next year; the recreation commission usually covers the nominal expense of $50-$75 for printed maps of the participating residences.  Similarly, I was told that the budgets of the Sustainability Committee and Technology Committee would be cut to $0 in the proposed budget. I don't know if that means the 2027 Made In Lee Artisan Fair will have to be skipped. 

I'm not certain, but it appears that as these committee lines have been in the budget consistently over multiple years, they count as recurring, so should be included in the default budget. In any case, the board has wide discretion on how to juggle expenses when a budget fails.

If those items are any indication, many of the town-run public events will be cancelled, and the citizenry may come to regret their NO vote.

Superintedent Shaps announces June, 2027 retirement, not soon enough for the teachers

 

Superintendent Shaps's retirement letter; click to enlarge

Oyster River Superintendent Robert Shaps has announced that he will retire in June, 2027.  He began at Oyster River in July, 2024, taking the reigns after James Morse's retirement. He is currently in the second year of a three year contract, which he will not seek to renew.  The 15 month heads-up allows an orderly search process for a successor.

The announcement comes on the heels of a relatively successful election for the school district in a rather difficult period. The large budget passed and the two incumbent school board members were reelected.  All but one of the board-recommended warrant articles passed, and the four citizen petition articles, explicitly not recommended by the board, all failed.  

The one district failure was that only 49% of us voted for the $10M bond for the elementary schools renovation and expansion project.  60% was required for passage, and that threshold was not reached in any of the towns.  Only 34% of Lee voters, notably grumpy over their apparent outsized share of the taxes, voted for the project.

There was a substantial online contingent angry about the school tax increases including the elementary project, and much of their anger was directed at the board and superintendent.  Despite the district's mixed but positive results on election day, it appears the opposition was sufficient to cause the superintendent to announce he would not try to renew his contract.

Gelsey, Day Win, Elementary Project Fails, Budget Passes

Incumbents Giana Gelsey and Denise Day were reelected to the Oyster River School Board, with 33.2% and 24.7% of the vote respectively in this five way race.  Day's name did not appear on the ballot; she ran a write-in campaign.  Congratulations Giana and Denise.

Newcomer Colin Blake-Butler came in third with 20.4% of the vote. That's a very good showing in this tough field; I expect if he perseveres, Blake-Butler will be elected to the board in the next couple of years.

The $62.4M budget passed with 63.1% of the vote; the last time support was lower was 2015.

The $10M Expansion/Renovation of the Elementary School failed with 49.3% of the vote; 60% was required for passage.

Turnout was at least 3021 voters, relatively high for the district.

Al Howland was elected Moderator, congratulations Al.

The board-recommend warrant articles for ORPaSS, ORESPA, Facilities Fund, Special Education Fund, and a $0 appropriation for Open Enrollment all passed.

The Citizen petitions all failed, despite YES circled on the report below.  It also says the Tax Cap article required 60% to pass per RSA 32:5-c1, which was not mentioned on the ballot.

For the first time, the district reported the result by town.  Lee voters, who are paying local ed taxes at an apparent rate much higher than the other towns, were notably grumpy, favoring Blake-Butler over Day and Gelsey, and with majorities voting NO on the Facilities/Solar Array, and YES on the citizen petitions for a statutory budget committee, ending retention of fund balance, a tax cap and performance audit.  

The 58% support for the $10M Elementary Project in Durham and Madbury falls short of the required 60%, and with only 34% YES in Lee, the project failed to even achieve a majority in the district.

-----------------

I tried looking into if and why taxes are hitting so much harder in Lee, but didn't figure it totally out. Looking at the current year (FY26), we have Durham : Lee : Madbury equalized real-estate valuation 57.8% : 29.1% : 13.1% and student counts 46.4% : 36.8% : 16.8%. We see that Lee has 37% of the students in the district but they are supported by only 29% of the real estate; similarly Madbury has 17% of the students supported by 13% of the real estate.  The coop agreement splits half the bill in proportional to valuation and half in proportion to number of students, so Madbury and Lee pay at a higher rate than Durham.  In the past, the state adequacy aid went a long way to bringing taxes back to where they'd be if the district were one large town (so split proportional to property values alone).  

If, for the current year we divide the percentage of the bill (before state aid) by the percentage of the real estate, we get Durham: 52.1/57.8=90.1%, Lee 33.0/29.1=113%, Madbury 14.9/13.1=113.7%. If we do a similar calculation after state aid is applied, we get Durham (23.4/43.2)/.578=93.7%, Lee (13.6/43.2)/.291=108.2%, Madbury (6.2/43.2)/13.1=109.6%.  So we conclude this year, Lee and Madbury folks were paying a rate about 15% higher than Durham folks. That's part of the deal that was made to start the co-op: the towns with more students have to pay more.

The conclusion assumes the equalization ratios are correct.  The equalization ratio for a town is the number used to equalize real estate valuations across towns.  It is basically the ratio of assessed value to market value in the town; below 100 indicates the assessments are below market value.  If you're just splitting up taxes within a town, this doesn't matter, but it matters a great deal in cooperative school districts, because it's the equalized valuation of the town (assessed value divided by equalization ratio) that's used in the Co-op apportionment calculation.

I had thought the equalization ratios of the three towns were about the same, making the millages comparable, but the latest report (2024) has Durham 77.6, Lee 72.6, Madbury 64.1, or relative to Durham, Lee 72.6/77.6=93.6%, Madbury 64.1/77.6=82.6%. 

To convert a millage that is applied to your assessed value to an 'equalized millage' across towns, we multiply it by the equalization ratio. That gives what the millage would be if the assessed value equaled the imputed market value. We can calculate 'equalized millages' as Durham .776*(.92+10.79)=9.09, Lee .726*(.85+18.29)=13.90, Madbury .641*(.91+11.77)=8.13, so now it appears in the new budget that Madbury is getting a bargain, 11% less than Durham, and Lee pays at a rate 53% over Durham.  That swing in Madbury doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm out of time for this, uncle!

I could not find the numbers the district uses to estimate the millages for FY27, what we just voted on.

Board Member Heather Smith had some ideas about Lee taxes; I'll include her facebook comments on the Community Discussion Page here; hope that's OK, thanks Heather.  

Hi Dean. Part 2. It's not a mistake that the board looks at the total tax impact (state tax + local tax). We do that on purpose to understand the total impact to the taxpayers. TL;DR – it’s a feature, not a bug.

This comes out of a discussion of how the state funds education. On a per town basis, the state will determine how much adequacy aid each town gets by calculating the number of students (specifically, the average daily membership) at a rate of $4,351/student. Funds get added based on free and reduced lunch, special education, and English language learner populations. That sets up how much the state should provide for an adequate education. For FY27, that's around $4M for Durham, $3.5M for Lee, and $1.6M for Madbury. (I'm using round numbers).

Then comes the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT). The state raises around $364M for education in state-wide property taxes. These taxes are raised locally and kept locally, but they are “state” taxes. This tax is determined based on each town's equalized value (EV) proportion of the total state’s value. For FY27, Durham is paying $2.4M, Lee is $1M, and Madbury is $500K in SWEPT. This is higher for Durham and lower for Madbury and Lee compared to FY26.

The state subtracts the SWEPT from the adequacy aid to determine how much they owe you in grant. Lee and Madbury also get additional grant funds for fiscal capacity disparity aid and hold harmless grants. On a town basis, it breaks down:

Total grant = SWEPT (aka money you are paying) + Adequacy Grant (aka money the state pays)

D: $4.0M (total) = $2.4M (SWEPT) + $1.6M (Adequacy)

L: $4.2M (total) = $1.0M (SWEPT) + $3.2M (Adequacy)

M: $1.7M (total) = $462K (SWEPT) + $1.3M (adequacy)

So, in terms of the numbers you published in estimated tax impact.

Durham’s SWEPT from $1.06 to $1.18 (+11.3%); local tax from $10.79 to $11.59 (+7.4%); total of $11.85 to $12.77 (+7.8%).

Lee’s SWEPT from $1.57 to $1.43 (-8.9%); local tax from $18.39 to $19.28 (+4.8%); total of $19.96 to $20.71 (+3.8%)

Madbury’s SWEPT from $0.99 to $0.95 (-4.0%); local tax from $11.77 to $12.72 (+8.1%); total of $12.76 to $13.67 (+7.1%)

This starts a whole conversation about how the towns assess and the assessed value. This is an area where I know a little but am going to get out over my skis pretty fast. (1) Depending on how long it has been since a town has done a reevaluation, the millages can look out of whack. Durham's millage was estimated at $19.36 in 2023 and came in at $12.97 due to the reevaluation that happened. The money the district asked for was exactly the same. The value of the properties was now more, so the millage decreased. This is where the "my piece of my town's pie" conversation starts to happen, if your property went up more or less relative to the town as a whole, so your taxes went up or down as a result. Throw in the relative value of commercial versus residential and it can get messy fast. Madbury went through a reevaluation recently. They were up at around $21 for their millage in 2024 and it's $13 something now. I believe Lee is due pretty soon, and that's why the millages look out of whack. (2) I did a back of the envelope calculation by looking at the assessed value from the Lee assessor's website for a few houses in Lee built around the same time and purchased around the same time as mine. Using an average cost per square foot and average cost per acre, I determined a rough assessed value for my house if it were in Lee. Then, I applied the tax rates and ended up just about the same in terms of school tax liability (about $200 cheaper in Lee). Not 100% scientific, but gives a flavor for how this plays out in reality, depending on when a town updates their assessed values.

--------------------

Please enjoy this spreadsheet history of the district, covering the time I've been paying attention, followed by detailed election results.  I typed those in; corrections welcome.

 

Durham / Todd Selig posted the following, which I've included for the wording of the warrant.  Thanks Durham / Todd.

OYSTER RIVER COOPERATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT UNOFFICIAL RESULTS - Durham, Lee and Madbury Combined Ballots from all three precincts.

Article 1:

For School Moderator (1 year) (Vote for not more than one)

Allan Howland - 2408

Article 2:

For School Board-At-Large (3 years) (Vote for not more than two)

William A. Howard - 473

Colin Blake-Butler - 989

Elizabeth S. Copley - 575

Giana Gelsey - 1607

Denise Day - 1195

Article 3: Mast Way/Moharimet Renovation Expansion Project

Shall the District raise and appropriate the sum of $9,827,000 (gross budget) to finance renovations and additions at both elementary schools to include additional classrooms, expanding a cafeteria, and creating appropriate spaces to deliver services to students (the "Project"); and authorize the issuance of not more than $9,827,000 of bonds or notes in accordance with the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33); and authorize the School Board to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the dates, maturities, interest rate, and other details of such bonds or notes; and authorize the School Board to accept on behalf of the District any federal, state, or private funds that may become available to fund the Project and use such funds toward the Project or to reduce the amount of bonds or notes issued for the Project; and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $245,675 for the initial debt service payment due during the fiscal year? The School Board recommends this Article (3/5 ballot vote required)

Yes - 1490

No - 1531

Article 4: Operating Budget

The average cost-per-pupil for the preceding year as calculated in accordance with RSA 189:75,I(a) is $24,268. ELA Proficiency: 75%; Math Proficiency: 65%; Science Proficiency: 61%

Shall the District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amount set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $62,365,067? Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $60,463,982 (Default Budget) which is the same as last year with certain adjustments required by previous action of the District or by law; or the District may hold one special meeting in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI to take up the issue of the revised operating budget only. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

Note:

Fund 10 = $60,183,022 (regular operating budget); Fund 21 = $1,432,045 (expenditures from food service revenues); Fund 22 = $645,000 (expenditures from federal/special revenues); Fund 23 = $105,000 (expenditures from pass through funds).

Yes - 1897

No - 1110

Article 5: Approval of the ORPaSS CBA

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Paraeducators and Support Staff and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2026-2027 - $543,972

2027-2028 - $577,025

2028-2029 - $176,733

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $543,972 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2214

No - 791

Article 6: Approval of the ORESPA CBA

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Office Educational Support Personnel Association and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2026-2027 - $213,498

2027-2028 - $104,826

2028-2029 - $106,852

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $213,498 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2266

No - 677

Article 7: Facilities Trust Fund

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Facilities Development, Maintenance and Replacement Expendable Trust Fund which was established in March of 2017? This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation No amounts to be raised from taxation. (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2079

No - 900

Article 8: Special Education Trust

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Special Education Expendable Trust Fund which was established in March of 1999? This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation No amounts to be raised from taxation. (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2331

No - 643

Article 9: Open Enrollment

To see if the School District will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $0 for the purpose of funding the estimated tuition of School District students who attend open enrollment schools/programs located outside of the Oyster River Cooperative School District in accordance with RSA 194-D. The School Board recommends this appropriation (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2131

No - 795

Article 10: Petition Warrant Article

Shall the provisions of RSA 32:14 through 32:24 (Budget Committee) be adopted by the Oyster River Cooperative School District, as provided by RSA 195:12-a? The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1002

No - 1882

Article 11: Petition Warrant Article

To see if the Oyster River Cooperative School District will vote to rescind the authority previously adopted regarding the retention of year-end unassigned general funds as provided by RSA 198:4-b, II. If adopted this article mandates that any unassigned general fund balance remaining at the end of the fiscal year be used to reduce the District tax rate. The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1164

No - 1765

Article 12: Petition Warrant Article

Shall the Oyster River Cooperative School District adopt the provisions of RSA 32:5-b and implement a tax cap whereby the School Board or Budget Committee shall not submit a recommended budget that increases the amount to be raised by the local taxes by more than 15% above the amount raised in taxes the previous fiscal year? This cap may be overridden by a 3/5 majority vote of the legislative body. The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1246

No - 1698

Article 13: Petition Warrant Article

To see if the Oyster River Cooperative School District will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $100 for the purpose of hiring an independent auditing firm to conduct a performance audit of the School District Administration. The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1230

No - 1724

Guide to the 2026 ORCSD Election

This is my annual voting guide to the ORCSD election.  I'll try to clearly delineate my opinion in italics from the objective information. The pasted images come from the district and town websites.

TL;DR: I'm voting for Giana Gelsey and writing in Denise Day for school board. I am voting YES on all the school board recommended articles, including the elementary school expansions, articles 3 through 9. I am voting NO on the four citizen petitions, articles 10 through 13.

Voting Mechanics

Durham's summary of voter registration

Election Day is Tuesday March 10, 2026.   If you're a US citizen at least 18 years of age who lives in Lee, Madbury or Durham (including UNH students who live in the district), you can do same day registration on election day at your town's polling place and vote. Even if you've never voted or registered to vote in New Hampshire before, you can vote Tuesday.  NH got rid of the affidavit system that allowed you to register and/or vote without proper documentation. Proofs of identity, age, citizenship and domicile MUST be presented to register to vote. Click here for an explanation of the requirements to register to vote under the new law. A passport or birth certificate, driver's license and a utility bill or government check with your address would be good documentation for a same-day registrant to have. Already registered voters just need a state photo ID.

Your election day polling place and voting times depend on where you live:

Durham: Oyster River High School 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Lee: Public Safety Complex 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. 

Madbury: Town Hall 11:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Madbury also has a genuine town meeting, 7 pm at Madbury Town Hall, where they vote on the majority of their warrant articles, but the school district stuff is in the daytime election.

The Issues

The issue this year, as I suppose it is pretty much every year, is money.  Local ed taxes are going up, in the 6 to 9 percent range, depending on your town. Some of this is the COVID inflation slowly working its way through the system. The elementary school expansion is also a big issue, not impacting taxes much this year, but will cost the taxpayers $10M plus interest over the life of the bond if approved.

The School District Ballot

As always, voters in each town are given identical school district ballots. Let's briefly go through the ballot questions, also known as the warrant articles. There are 13 this year, including four citizen petitions, so I'll try not to stretch this out too much.

Article 1: Elect Moderator

Former School Board Chair Michael Williams has been moderator since March, 2023, and presumably would have continued to be elected for as long as he cared to run. Michael did an excellent job at deliberative session this year, and throughout his tenure.  Thank you for your service.

This was a surprise.  It looks like former board member and current State Rep Al Howland will be elected moderator.  Al has real political power that he demonstrated at the last Deliberative Session, moving the successful amendment that increased the proposed school budget by $519K.  He will no longer be able to wield that power as moderator, as he will need to impartially run the Deliberative Session instead.  The moderator also has duties on election day, and in the past has run the Candidates' Forum.

I'm voting for Al Howland for moderator -- there's one choice, take your pick.

Article 2: Elect two school board members

Article 2 elects two at-large school board members to three year terms.  At-large means the members can come from any of the three towns.  The incumbents are Denise Day, who's served on the board for the last twelve years, including a stint as chair, and Giana Gelsey, completing her first three year term of service on the board.

Please see my previous post, where I go through the positions of the candidates, all except write-in candidate Denise Day.  Day was intending to retire and did not file to run or participate in the candidates' forum. According to her, there was a groundswell of public opinion asking her to run, over concerns with candidates Howard, Blake-Butler and Copley. 

Day answered the questions from the candidates' forum here.  My summary of Day's accomplishment's: Chair when the board was awarded 2023 School Board of the Year by the New Hampshire School Boards Association (NHSBA). Key leader overseeing the development and construction of the new, LEED Gold certified middle school. Champion of the expansion of world language and competency-based learning. Played a central role in hiring many district administrators, including the new superintendent. Served on the Policy Committee, Wellness Committee, Long Range Planning Committee, and Manifest Review Committee. 

I'm voting for incumbents Denise Day (write-in) and Giana Gelsey. The other candidates have serious flaws, so I am going with the proven records of the incumbents. 

I especially admire Gelsey's advocacy against the various state attacks on public education, including her spearheading the board's resolution against the "chilling effect on teaching" of the state's divisive concepts law (RSA 354-A:31-34), as well as her opposition to reduced teacher probation periods and removing mandatory criminal background checks. Also exemplary was her service on the Wellness Committee, and her working with the public regarding COVID response and the candidate forums. She is a strong booster of increasing mental health resources for students and for improving the school calendar to allow more time for AP test preparation. She has a long history of service even before joining the board, and I am certain she will continue to strongly advocate for our students and teachers.

My third choice was Colin Blake-Butler. Since he was part of the group of community members that presented citizen petitions to impose a statutory budget committee (which he has publicly stated he does not support with a now deeper understanding of its risks) and a tax cap (under the idea it would move items from the take it or leave it proposed budget into their own warrant articles where the funds would have to be used for what they were approved by the voters for) it was natural for some to conclude that he was aligned with the Republicans against public education, who have used the same RSA's with other intentions.

But it's certainly possible to fully support public education and still want to have the district run more efficiently and burn through fewer tax dollars. That's what most of us want, and that's where I believe Blake-Butler is. Like many of us, his family moved to the district largely for the schools, making it implausible to me that he wants to make public school worse.

That said, it is very clear that Blake-Butler is new to all this, and he has made significant lapses in preparation and errors in judgement in his campaign. One way that is obvious is that he now opposes some of the very articles he participated in creating and publicly championed at Deliberative Session. I can give him partial credit for accepting his errors, but this is just bad preparation.

Perhaps his most egregious error in judgement was who he chose to associate with when creating and presenting these citizen warrant articles. These folks have demonstrated their opposition to public schools. That's fine, it's a free country, but that is not a position I would want to associate with, nor do I want it in my school board candidates.  There's a new facebook group that I won't link to but is relatively easy to access, where the very people he stood with at Deliberative Session are attacking Giana Gelsey in ugly terms. I only had to look for a minute to find one of them call her an "entitled creep," and there were references to "left wing nut job."

Of course the president has made this sort of rhetoric commonplace, but it is not civics I desire. Again, folks are free to say whatever they want about candidates and elected officials. But the objects of their derision are not distant representatives in Washington. These are our neighbors who do these jobs, who volunteer their time and effort to serve without pay, often at substantial personal cost. I would hope the citizenry would treat them with the respect they deserve. Not because the rules say so, but because we all need to live together in these small towns, and sowing hate and division is not good and not right.

I've seen the attacks on Giana; they're ugly but politics ain't beanbag. What really made me angry today is that I learned the attacks extend to bullying her children.  This is totally out of line.

Blake-Butler needs to denounce the haters, to loudly and publicly say he does not want the votes of people who bully our neighbors who serve, and their children.  As these folks are still actively supporting Blake-Butler, he clearly has not done that, and as such he does not deserve our votes this time around.

EDIT: 8:15pm 3/9  Sorry, been traveling with a broken phone all day.  Back now.  I'm told that some have interpreted my post like I've accused Colin Blake-Butler of bullying.  That was never my intention, and I apologize to Colin and the community for that impression. I've left the text above untouched so we can all go back and judge. Colin has denounced the haters like I asked; thank you Colin.  I like Colin, and I think we've both learned a lot these past few weeks.  I'll include this screenshot Colin sent me where Giana Gelsey confirms that Colin is not a bully.  I'm am going to add this as a comment everywhere I shared my post.

My next choice would be William Howard, who says many things I agree with, especially getting back to a focus on STEM education.  I am passing this time, because last year he filed to run and then failed to participate. I believe there was no explanation offered; at least I failed to record one in my blog.  This year he appeared at the candidates' forum, but I have not seen any other sign of a campaign or participation in the community discussion online.

The final candidate, Elizabeth Copley, seems like a fine person, but at the candidates' forum gave no indication she had any familiarity with the issues facing Oyster River schools, nor have I seen any sign of her campaign or participation in discussion since.

Article 3: $10M elementary schools, renovation and expansion

I've been on vacation and didn't get a chance to dive into the expansion plans and costs like I wanted to. Here's a link to the district's site about the project; the DS slides are also informative. 60% YES is required for passage. Historically the district voters have supported this sort of thing, but 60% is tough and there are a lot of folks upset about the tax increases this year, so I think it will be close. 

I don't find these estimated millage increases as helpful as others seem to; personally I prefer a percentage.  The current local ed tax rates are Durham $10.79, Lee $18.29 and Madbury $11.77, so the principal+interest millages represent local ed increases of 2.9% Durham, 3.2% in Lee and 3.1% in Madbury.  These are based on the assumption of a 10 year loan at 3.4%.

I was happy when the district got rid of the two pre-fab classrooms that were costing taxpayers I think $20K each per year; I would have been less so had it occurred to me that this meant a $10M cost down the line. Unfortunately, the modular classrooms are no longer a viable solution for a number of reasons.

I'm voting YES because I can afford the taxes and do not want to be a grumpy old man unwilling to fund adequate schools for other people's children. I can certainly understand how other folks' calculations may be different. The effect on taxes this year will be small, but a ten year loan will increase taxes over $1.1M per year. 

The district argues that the space is needed, and if we delay the costs will always go up.  That may be true in nominal dollars, but I am far from certain that it is true in real dollars. Interest rates change.  That said, I believe that an increase in the real cost of the project is probably likely for the next few years. The district also argues that replanning for a smaller project will result in another significant expenditure before construction begins; my opinion is that is probably true but shouldn't stop us if that's the direction the community wants to go in.

I've heard reports of 'Vote no on 3' signs appearing next to Gelsey and Day signs, even on private property without permission.  This is apparently intended to mislead voters into believing that Gelsey and Day do not support the elementary school project; of course they have both expressed strong support for the project. Again this willingness to violate the rules is disheartening and in my opinion should definitely not be rewarded.  Curiously these signs have the same treasurer listed on them as a new, slick website promising information in the district. You're not going to get a link from me; it's currently devoid of content anyway. I'd be interested in knowing who is behind these.

Article 4:  $62.4M budget

Article 4 is the budget appropriation of $62.4M,  That number was $58.0M last year and $38.4M in 2012, when I started paying attention.  The appropriation is $60.5M if NO wins (and there's no revote), a significant 3% less.

Current year apportionment calculation

The actual number proposed by the school board was $61.8M, and included $519K savings from layoffs of two teachers, three interventionist and a nurse. That money was added back at the Deliberative Session by the voters present with an amendment brought forward by Al Howland, and seconded by Colin Blake-Butler. Blake-Butler also stated during the candidates' forum that he was involved in the drafting of the amendment that was brought forward. 

I voted YES to that to restore the interventionists -- I've been MATHCOUNTS co-coach since 2019 and I've observed some decline in performance lately. Personally, I thought the planned nurse and teacher layoffs were well-reasoned management decisions that do not need to be undone. 

Assuming this passes, it's still up to the board what to do with the extra money, if anything.

The teachers agreed to a five year contract with small raises right before COVID hit, and the ensuing inflation has brought salaries down sometimes to below market rates. The new contract makes this up over a few years; we see that here.  

[EDIT: Board member Smith tells me that the district now gets the actual price when budgeting health care, so no future savings there.  Thanks, Heather, and sorry about the mistake, everybody. ] Health insurance is a bit of a district slush fund.  The budget is based on a guaranteed maximum provided a year ahead of time; usually costs come in lower, giving the district some appropriated funds to spend on whatever it wants.

These are the millage increases if all the board-recommended articles pass  (including the elementary expansion), before the addition of $519K.  I couldn't find a chart that reflected the $519K. It's a mistake for the district includes the state tax line; they don't have any control over it, though of course we all have to pay it. Calculating the increase relative to the current local ed line, I get Durham .92/10.79=8.5%, Lee .85/18.29=4.6% and Madbury .91/11.77=7.7%.  I'm going to assume the other  board-recommended warrant articles add up to about $519K, so we can use these numbers as the approximate impact of this article alone.

I'm voting YES. The budget's always passed since I've been paying attention; I'm guessing it will this year as well.

This got long and needs to go out now, so I will speed through the remaining articles.

Article 5:  ORPaSS

This article asks us to approve the contract with ORPaSS, the paras and support staff.  The district never tells us the base for these things, so it is difficult to calculate the percentage increase.

We need these folks, so I'm voting YES.

Article 6:  ORESPA

ORESPA are the maintenance staff, custodians, secretaries, and similar positions.  

I'm voting YES.

 

Article 7: Middle School Solar Array Fund

This is the fund to purchase the middle school solar array.  I think we're pretty close to paying this off, but you'll have to look at last year's post to see when that happens.

I'm voting YES.

Article 8: Special Ed Trust

This fund is an emergency fund for when the district is hit with unexpected special education expenses.

I'm voting YES.

Article 9: Open Enrollment

Open Enrollment is the idea that students can go to any school in the state (if there's space), with the student's school district of residence footing most of the tuition; there's a big expansion under consideration in Concord. The district thinks by explicitly appropriating $0 for Open Enrollment, they cannot be forced to pay tuition for students attempting to access it. 

I'm voting YES.

These are the four citizen petitions brought by a group which includes candidate Blake-Butler.  Anyone can get a warrant article on the ballot with the signatures of 25 district voters.  We're an SB-2 district, which means the articles have to survive the Deliberative Session before the wider citizenry gets to vote.

Article 10: Statutory Budget Committee

 

The SBC is essentially a second school board that basically exists to fight with the real school board.  There is no real way to separate budget considerations from all the other factors that go into a working school; almost every decision has a budgetary component. This article is basically a way to defund public education; I'm voting NO.

It's been pointed out to me that Colin Blake-Butler has also publicly stated he will be voting no too.

 Article 11: End Fund Balance Retention

The fund balance is the unspent money at year end.  As we can see from the warrant, many questions ask the voters to divert fund balance into various funds. In the district, we have approved a rule that allows the board to retain up to 5% of the appropriated funds in a contingency fund without a warrant article.  If YES wins here, that power will end, and any funds not explicitly diverted by warrant article will be returned to the towns, where it is used to lessen the impact of next year's taxes.

I'm voting NO.  The contingency fund allows the board to lessen the impact of large budget increases.

Article 12: Tax Cap

A tax cap restricts the amount the school can budget for.  This particular article was neutered at Deliberative Session by changing the cap to a 15% increase from the previous year, which is of course very large, and bigger than any increase I've seen in the last 15 years.  The original article capped the increase at the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U).

It's largely symbolic; I'm voting NO.

Comment from Colin Blake-Butler: I'm a no vote too at this time as I don't see any value with these extra rules in the rule book. This comes back to my earlier "edit" idea to push budget items into their own warrant articles just like we have in Lee.  I like that model a lot.  I hate I have to choose yes on all the budget items even if I don't agree with many. I don't like the take it or leave it.  I get that tax caps can be weaponized.  I would personally like to find another way urge for more warrant articles as individual budget items.

Article 13: Performance Audit

This article was changed at Deliberative Session to appropriate $100 for a performance audit, instead of the original $60K. I was a bit disappointed by that; I don't see the harm in letting an independent set of eyes review the district operations; those sorts of audits usually find some relatively painless savings. 

I might have voted for this in its original form, but now I am voting NO.  The board is free to initiate this without a vote.

Extra

Phew, that was pretty long.  Here I'll mention that in Lee I'm voting for Rebecca Hawthorne, and I hope everyone else does too.

This Saturday, ORMS competes in the NH State MATHCOUNTS competition, go Bobcats!  Krista Butts and I are coaches.

2026 ORCSD School Board Candidates Forum Summary

Election Day is this Tuesday, March 10.  I watched the candidates' forum; it took me a few times to stay awake to the end.  Here's the link:  

Let's start with the bios of the candidates, which I've summarized from their initial introduction.  I'll follow this with a summary of the candidates positions.  I'll try to keep it unbiased until the end when I'll tell you who I'm voting for; feel free to skip that part.

William Howard

30 year residence of Durham, 1996.  3 children attended ORCSD K-8.  Two boys played football at St Thomas Aquinas.  Retired professional engineer, worked for US government and Waste Management. Supporter of STEM education. US needs to train the next generation of engineers.

Giana Gelsey (facebook)

From Madbury. School board member the last three years.  Children at the middle school & high school.  Works in Biological and Geological Sciences. In the district 10 years,  ORPP, LRPC, Moharimet PTO chair, Madbury Resource Board. Community Organizing, COVID school board forums.  Students first, public education advocate, Strategic planning committee, Sustainability Committee, Wellness Committee.  New Hampshire Schoolboard Association delegate for three years.  Clear and honest.  Looks forward to a second term on the school board.

Elizabeth Copley

Raised in Wilton CT. Wilton HS. Marketing at Franklin Pierce.  In Lee for 24 years, loves it.  Lots of experience working with Board of Education, father was a member, fundraised, built a stadium.  Parents live in Kittery, got on the board of ed there.  Kids first.  Taught Skiing in VT 16-20 and NH. Only taught kids, every weekend, every season. Interested in tracking school expenditures, assuring the budget money is used in the most cost effective way, maintaining the high standard of quality education.  "Wilton HS was highest accredited school in New England, Oyster River can be the same."

Colin Blake-Butler (facebook)

Resident of NH since 2010, from upstate NY.   Met his wife Rebecca; moved to Oyster River in 2020.  Rebecca is a speech pathologist; two kids in OR schools.  20 years in IT, Cybersecurity and Data Analytics. Solution architect of Minecast (?).  Work involves making complex systems more efficient, secure accessible and transparent for the users.  Analyzing AI systems; "I believe understanding these tools is vital for how we prepare students."

Late addition: Denise Day

School board member for 12 years, including a stint as chair.  From her facebook post:

Hello, after encouragement from many people, I am moving forward with a write-in campaign for a seat on the Oyster River School Board. Our district is facing many challenges, and I believe that my 12 years of experience on the Board will be helpful in addressing these issues. I ask for your vote on March 10.

ORCSD FY27 Budget Increased $519K in Agonizing Deliberative Session

School board proposed cuts

At the ORCSD Deliberative Session yesterday, ORMS math interventionist and former board member Krista Butts* gave an impassioned appeal to undo the board's proposed cut of the three interventionists, and Amanda Hassan (?) argued against the nurse cut. In response, the citizens overwhelmingly approved State Rep and former board member Al Howland's motion to increase the proposed $61.8M budget by $519K.  

The amended budget and a dozen other warrant articles will be voted on by the citizenry of the three towns on election day, Tuesday, March 10, 2026.  Should the budget pass as it always has, the board is free to do what it wants with the extra money, including just giving it back to the taxpayers at the end of the school year. 

Estimated tax impact (not including the $519K increase)

My understanding is the administration was laying off the two teachers because they no longer needed them, due to the changes in the number of students at each grade. The students aren't really going anywhere and the class size guidelines have not changed, so the district will just hire new teachers for the grades that need them. This is a big part of what we pay the district administration to do. While the board should give due weight to the relatively clear intent of the voters at DS, they are still obligated to run the district in a responsible manner. We'll see what happens.

It took four and a half hours to go through most of the 13 warrant articles (ballot questions), including four added by citizen petition.  Attempts were made to amend five of the warrant articles, three successfully: Article 4 (operating budget) was amended to add $519K, Citizen Petition Article 12 was amended to make the proposed tax cap 15%, more like a tax ten-gallon hat, and Citizen Petition Article 13 (performance audit) was amended to appropriate only $100.

The queue for Durham voters went around the room

We knew it was going to be a long meeting when it took about 45 minutes to check in all the Durham folks.  I have no idea why the attendees were so disproportionately from Durham. I initially guessed maybe they were angry about their taxes going up. Perhaps they were erroneously told there would be snacks.  They turned out to be most of the substantial majorities that voted for more spending by the district, and voted against the various attempts to restrict spending in the district.  [That's my glib characterization of the four citizen petition articles, perhaps mistaken: please see Colin Butler's* comment below.]

Kenneth Stuff moved to amend Article 3, the $9.5M elementary school construction project bond, with an amendment changing the bond amount to $3.9M.  [Although it was not very clearly presented at the DS, the proposers had a justification for this number, also detailed in Colin Butler's comment below.]  The board implied if it passed, this would waste the half million dollars already spent on planning, and at minimum delay the project, perhaps forever.  Colin Butler had the requisite five signatures for a secret ballot, which took forever to cast, collect and count; that would be nice to fix.  The amendment failed with 42 (15%) in favor and 237 (85%) against.  I'm having flashbacks to the similar fate I suffered at the 2022 DS.

Citizen Petitioners

Articles 10 through 13 are the four citizen petitions, presented by a group of four people: Rita Mason, Eric Mason, Daniel Day, and Colin Butler. Kenneth Stuff and Peter Johnson also commented in support.

Daniel Day is son of board member and former chair Denise Day, who is retiring after 12 years of service, thanks Denise! I fondly remember then recent graduate Daniel Day from a school board meeting around 13 years ago where he said he'd be fired from his job had he tweeted the stuff board member Kach had.

A few of the amendments were by the proposers to fix defects in the language to accord with state law.  Those were uniformly thwarted by the voters, presumably on the theory that an article cannot be enacted even if passed if it does not obey state law.  It was a tough crowd; the group learned the hard way to do their homework and get the wording right the first time. 

Amendments passed effectively neutering Article 12 (tax cap) and Article 13 (performance audit).  Article 10 (statutory budget committee) remains intact.  Article 11 (end retaining of fund balance) attempts to end the power the voters granted to the board to divert some appropriated but unspent money at school year end into various funds.  Instead, if passed, the unspent funds will be used to offset next year's taxes. This was one of the articles where the voters prevented a language fix; not sure of the consequences if it passes.

The presenting group was not uniformly against all spending; Mr. Butler was the one who seconded the motion to add back the $519K.   

Kudos to moderator Michael Williams, who did an excellent job keeping this unwieldy meeting moving forward.  One suggestion: while counting secret ballots in public, it is best not to have one of the counters appearing to stick a few in her pocket. These turned out to be non-ballots in the ballot box, voter cards of frustrated voters who had apparently fled in search of a shorter meeting. Still, appearance is important.

The district is playing some games as well.  Article 9 asks the voters to raise and appropriate $0 for funding ORCSD Open Enrollment.  The money would be used to pay tuition for students from the district to attend other schools.  The district believes the $0 appropriation will prevent the state from imposing the cost on us later.

The meeting began with a presentation of the Distinguished Service Award.  Congratulations to 2026 ORCSD Distinguished Service Award winner Daniel Couture, who was honored for his many years of volunteer service with our ORCSD F.I.R.S.T. Robotics program.

This is the first time I've written about the district since last March, so let's not stretch it out.  Future topics include: the school board election, the elementary school project, the budget, the various contracts and funds, and the four citizen petitions.  No need to do it all today; I've have another meeting report to write, for my actual job. Talk to you all soon.

*Full disclosure: (1) Krista Butts and I are the ORMS MATHCOUNTS co-coaches; the Seacoast Regional Competition is at UNH this Saturday, go Bobcats!  (2) I've exchanged a few texts with Colin Butler about what I thought about the warrant articles and DS procedures, as I would be happy to with anyone interested in participating in our school governance.  

References:

Warrant as proposed 

District Handout at DS

District Slides at DS

YouTube of DS

Elementary School Project

I asked Colin Butler to comment on this article. He shared it with Daniel Day who straightened me out when I said he worked for Rite Aid; sorry about that, Daniel, I've corrected the post. Colin also helped me with some names, which I've incorporated above.  He further replied:

To provide some context on the $3.9M figure: it wasn't an arbitrary number intended to stall the project. The analysis utilized a 'Total Impacted Square Footage' methodology (encompassing demolition, construction, and renovation) to establish a baseline cost per building. This base rate was then applied to specific functional areas, including classrooms, the cafeteria, and 'art on a cart' spaces. The objective was to quantify the project’s original scope prior to its expansion by the administration. Notably, this figure aligns closely with the baseline estimates previously cited by Dr. Morse during the June 5, 2024 Meeting. While this high-level calculation differs from a construction firm's detailed line-item build-up, it serves as a directionally accurate benchmark for the initial project scale.

For what it’s worth, none of the articles were intended to be anti-spending. On the contrary, they were designed to promote smarter spending and more disciplined decision-making utilizing the same tools that now higher-ranked NH SB2 districts and $60M organizations use as standard practice. We aimed to make that distinction clear in our presentation and slide; however, I'll take the note that the "group is not uniformly against all spending" as feedback that we need to be much more effective in communicating that nuance. If you have any suggestions as to how we can do that I'd love to hear them!

Article 13: The district’s actions were equally questionable. Legally, the district does not have the authority to unilaterally cherry-pick portions of a petitioned warrant article. We were denied our right to have the article restored to the original language authorized by the signers, which undermines the very purpose of the petition process.

Thank you for the extensive comment, Mr. Butler. - Dean