The Hudson School District held its Deliberative Session on Saturday morning, Feb. 8, and saw the formal presentation to the public of the 2025-26 proposed school budget. It also featured a rather lengthy debate on why the proposed budget should be cut by nearly $1.3 million.
“The School Board voted to send to the Budget Committee, the general fund operating budget of $69,577,219,” explained Budget Committee Chair James Lawrence. “After careful consideration and review, the Budget Committee recommends a general fund operating budget of $68,467,088.”
That number is outlined by Warrant Article 1, which includes a default budget of $68,864,328 if Hudson voters reject the proposed operating budget in March.
“The estimated tax impact is a reduction of 30 cents,” said Town Moderator Paul Inderbitzen, referring to the proposed budget and the tax impact compared to the 2024/2025 budget. “The default tax rate is a reduction of 19 cents.”
The Budget Committee overwhelmingly approved the proposed budget, but it was unanimously rejected by the School Board.
“The cost per pupil in Hudson is $18,577 for 2024, where it was $17,375 in 2023. This is significantly under the state average, and lower in comparison to other surrounding communities,” said School Board Chair Maureen Dionne.
New Hampshire’s average per-pupil spending rate is $21,545. Despite spending cuts compared to the originally proposed budget, several members of the public pushed for lower spending levels, including a proposed amendment lowering the operating budget to $67,577,219.
Resident Craig Powers spoke in favor of the proposal with a very extensive slide presentation on why the cuts shoud be made. He said the purpose of the amendment was to create “an environment in Hudson that maximizes the opportunity of achieving academic excellence.”
He also expressed concern over the growing tax rate, saying local taxpayers were “getting crushed financially on all fronts.”
“What the School Board proposal is, writ large, is a 10.4 percent increase over the budget two years ago,” said Powers, noting that some of the spending increases from earlier years reflected COVID-era federal funding that no longer exists. “The federal money is drying up, and any legacy, lingering scope that was covered by that is now finding its way into the general fund.”
Combined with higher salary bids to fill perpetually empty positions, he argued the school budget was consistently being set too high and that increased spending did not lead to “an increase in some evident achievement.”
“Is what has been tried working or not?” asked Powers. “If not, what do we need to stop doing, continue doing, and start doing?”
He claimed no teachers would be fired even with the proposed cuts.
During the presentation for the amendment, one resident asked why this was being presented here and not during public hearing.
Poers responded that he tried to get it on the School Board agenda, but was denied.
Worried about the tax rate, several attendees agreed with the proposal.
“Every year we seem to budget as though we’re going to fill all of those positions and then no one’s going to retire and the salaries remain the same. I think that concerns me a great deal,” said resident Ted Trost. “I’m not saying don’t fill the open positions, I just ask that we accurately forecast the spending that we expect to have, don’t expect to fill all positions.”
However, support for cutting the school budget was far from universal, with resident Joyce Wise urging people to be “cautious with what we decide to cut.” She worried that already overworked teachers may decide to leave SAU81, which currently suffers from high turnover.
“As we keep turning teachers over, it doesn’t make for student achievement and success,” she argued. “I’m very cautious when I hear that we want to cut the budget like that and that cut is going to come from educators.”
Resident Gretchen Whiting worried the proposal to cut the budget could only come from salaries and benefits.
“I am adamantly opposed to this reduction, it will end up hurting the entire school district,” said Whiting. “By reducing the salaries and benefits you are reducing the positions that are needed. Whether or not they are filled, they are needed, and by reducing those positions, you are reducing the support the teachers give themselves.”
“What it comes down is what we get from our budget is we keep the lights on and we make progress going forward,” School Board member Gary Gasdia. “At some point, you have to say if we want to stop teachers from leaving, yes we have to pass their contract, but we also have to ease their burden.”
After extensive debate, the amendment to reduce spending to $67,577,219 was defeated. A separate amendment to increase spending by $75,000 to support extracurricular activities was also defeated. The original $68,467,088 proposal will appear on the upcoming March ballot.