Hudson held the School District Deliberative Session for the 2026-27 School Budget on a snowy Saturday morning, Feb. 7, drawing a fairly large turnout, despite the weather, giving residents the opportunity to weigh in on spending priorities for the coming year.
The proposed operating budget, which will appear as Warrant Article 1 on the March 10 ballot, totals $72,166,427, while the default budget stands higher at $73,252,680. Because the operating budget is lower than the default, the School Board voted not to recommend the article.
School Board Chair Maureen Dionne explained that the Budget Committee made a series of reductions during its December and January meetings, ultimately arriving at the amount now before voters. She argued that the cuts went too far, pointing to statewide comparisons.
“The state average cost per pupil is $22,700 for fiscal year 2025. The cost per pupil in Hudson is $19,704,” Dionne said. “This is significantly under the state average, and it’s lower in comparison to many other surrounding communities.”
Budget Committee Chair James Lawrence described the proposed budget as “prudent,” acknowledging that rising costs and a growing tax rate have left many Hudson homeowners concerned. That concern was echoed by resident Edward Thompson, who introduced an amendment seeking to cut an additional $3 million from the budget.
“Over the last 10 years I’ve watched spiral costs, especially on the school side of my tax bill, and I’m not seeing a huge return in that,” Thompson said. “I’ve watched budgets far outpacing inflation rates and, as you know, people are struggling, and I’m one of them.”
Resident Peggy Huard also criticized what she viewed as a lack of transparency in the budget process and questioned how the School Board manages year-end surpluses. She argued that “there is room for improvement” and called for stronger oversight.
Others pushed back strongly against the proposed cut. Alvirne High School Principal Steve Beals warned that removing $3 million from an already lean budget would have severe consequences.
“Cutting $3 million from a budget that I already personally think is too low will decimate the school district,” Beals said. “Class size, the impact on students, the impact on programs will be vast.”
Resident Gary Gasdia agreed, arguing that such a reduction would send the wrong message about the community’s priorities. “If you slash $3 million, then send the message – and there should be a billboard in front of the SAU – that says we don’t care about our kids,” he said.
The amendment to cut $3 million was ultimately rejected by a wide margin.
In response, resident Patty Langlais introduced a counter-amendment to increase the budget by $700,000, arguing that the focus should remain on student needs.
“For me, this all goes back to the students,” Langlais said.
The discussion then shifted to broader concerns about academic performance, declining enrollment, and whether spending increases correlate with improved outcomes. Budget Committee member Shawn Jasper argued that the district should consider “performance-based contracts” in the future.
“The one thing that we should be concerned about is what we are getting in return for our money. Are we getting a good education?” Jasper asked. “We’re paying a lot of money, and we’re not getting the results. The School Board needs to be focused on results.’
After extended debate, Langlais’ amendment to add $700,000 to the budget passed, setting up a revised proposal for voters to consider in March. The final version of Warrant Article 1 will now reflect the additional funding, and the community will ultimately decide whether the district receives the increase or defaults to the higher default budget.