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