What it means: The proposed operating budget (excluding appropriations in any other warrant articles) is actually below the FY 2024-2025 budget by almost a million dollars (-$957,258), or down by 2.88%.  The savings occurred as follows:

• Bond Expiration – The principal and interest payment for the 20-year bond for the school building project has been fully paid.
• Personnel Reduction – Proposed reduction of 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) teacher position (anticipated retirement).
• Personnel Reduction – Proposed reduction of 1.0 FTE assoc. principal position (currently unfilled).
• General reductions – Prioritized departmental requests on all discretionary accounts to reduce costs.

The proposed Operating budget is +$119,386 higher than the Default budget of $32,117,244, or .37% (less than one-half of one percent) over the Default.  (Note, the Default budget has the bond payments removed automatically.)

Those in favor say: The Board and staff worked hard to keep expenses reasonable for taxpayers. There were increases in many budget areas due to the cost of salary adjustments for union and non-union staff; health insurance premiums; and cost escalation for supplies, vocational programs (higher participation and increase in outside tuition rates), special education expenses due to higher transportation.

What it Means: The School Board proposes to raise and appropriate $2,587,361 to complete the final two phases of the roof replacement project per the roofing plan, and five-year capital improvement plan (CIP).

Those in Favor Say:  The replacement of the 20-year old main school building and gymnasium roof began in the summer of 2024 and will continue through the summer of 2027. This final phase of funding was planned to coincide with the building bond expiration, such that the decrease in one line item will offset the increase needed for the replacement roof. The newer materials planned for the new roof should last 30 years.

Those Against Say:  No one spoke against this Article, but questions were asked, including whether the roof could incorporate solar panels to reduce energy costs in the future. The reply was that the roof will be installed so that it is “solar-ready” and can be updated later, but solar panels are not in the budget for now.

Fiscal Impact: The net effect of the decrease in the Operating Budget (due to the retirement of debt service and other reductions), and the addition of the funds for this Article is a net increase of $255,103 or a 0.76 % (less than one percent) for the current year.

For a Hampton property valued at $650,000, the additional cost impact versus last year would be $15.60 (at Hampton’s share of 47.3%).  Take your property valuation, divided by 1000 and multiplied by .024 to get a number that would reflect your increase.

What it Means: Petitioners are asking that SAU 21 officials start with a zero expectation for all budget items, and build up from there, justifying each expense.

Those in Favor: No one was at Deliberative Session to explain their intent or justify the request.  One person asked – What is the point of this petition?  But no one supporting the Article was there to respond.

Those Against: The school already uses a zero-based approach, assessing each department and line item from the ground up to determine exactly what resources, materials, supplies and staffing are necessary to support the operations, but also the vision and goals. The School Board and Budget Committee then review each line item to make sure they are reasonable, and that they recognize the interests of the school, the town and the taxpayers. Those against say that the added regulation of  this Article would not add any sense of fiscal responsibility that is not already present.