My Positions | MacKenzie for Nottingham School Board

My Positions on the 2026 Nottingham School Warrant Articles

Warrant Article 2

Operating Budget

Shall the Nottingham School District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by the vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling Seventeen million, Eight hundred forty-nine thousand, nine hundred fifty dollars (17,849,950)? Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be Seventeen million, Six hundred sixty-three thousand, seven hundred thirty-six dollars (17,663,736), which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Nottingham School Board or by law: or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.

Estimated tax impact if article passes: $9.56 per thousand

Estimated tax impact if article fails (Default Budget): $9.44 per thousand

School Board recommends (5-0)

Budget Committee recommends (9-2)

My Position

I support Warrant Article 2 because it reflects careful planning and a responsible approach to maintaining the day-to-day operations of Nottingham’s school.

This budget accounts for known and unavoidable costs, including contractual obligations, increased special education needs, rising insurance rates, reduced state aid, and higher food and utility expenses. It also prioritizes stability by maintaining appropriate staffing levels as students move through grades, helping avoid disruption to classroom structure and learning.

I appreciate that the School Board and Budget Committee worked through this proposal thoughtfully, making adjustments to limit increases where possible, using reserve funds appropriately, and removing or delaying items when other funding sources were available. That approach shows respect for taxpayers while recognizing that schools require planning, not last-minute fixes.

The difference between the proposed and default budgets is relatively small, but the impact on school operations is meaningful. Passing Warrant Article 2 allows the district to plan responsibly for the year ahead and avoid short-term decisions that could create larger challenges later. Strong schools depend on steady, thoughtful planning. That’s why I support Warrant Article 2.

Warrant Article 3

Collective Bargaining Agreement – Nottingham Teacher’s Association

Shall the Nottingham School District approve the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Nottingham Teachers’ Association and the Nottingham School Board, which calls for the following estimated increases in salary and benefits at current staffing levels over those paid in the prior fiscal year:

Contract Year : Estimated Increase

2026-2027 : $ 247,585.96

2027–2028 : $ 192,505.00

2028–2029 : $ 195,687.34

To raise and appropriate two hundred forty seven thousand five hundred and eighty five

dollars and ninety six cents ($247,585.96) for the 2026–2027 fiscal year, representing the

additional costs attributable to increased salaries and benefits over those in the prior year’s

appropriation at current staffing levels.

(Majority vote required)

Estimated tax impact if article passes: $ 0.17 per thousand (2026 – 2027)

Estimated tax impact if article passes: $ 0.13 per thousand (2027 – 2028)

Estimated tax impact if article passes: $ 0.13 per thousand (2028 – 2029)

School Board recommends (5-0)

Budget Committee recommends (9-2)

My Position

I support Warrant Article 3 because I want our kids to have stable classrooms and great teachers they can count on year after year. Warrant Article 3 supports that stability by approving a negotiated contract between the School Board and the Nottingham Teachers’ Association.

This agreement lays out the costs over the next three years so families and taxpayers know what to expect and the district can plan responsibly. It also helps Nottingham stay competitive in retaining educators, which matters in a small school where turnover can really be felt by students and families.

I want Nottingham to stay the kind of place where people want to live, work, and thrive in our community, including the people who teach our kids every day, and I believe supporting Warrant Article 3 can help us get there.

Warrant Article 4

Special Meeting if Article 3 Fails

Shall the Nottingham School District, if Article 3 is defeated, authorize the School Board to call one special meeting, at its option to address Article 3 cost items only.

(Majority vote required)

School Board recommends (5-0)

My Position

I support Warrant Article 4. If Article 3 is defeated, it gives the School Board the option to call one special meeting to address only the Article 3 cost items, so the district isn’t left without a clear path forward. I support it because good planning means having a process in place before we need it.

Warrant Article 5

Tuition Agreement with Coe Brown Northwood Academy School District

“Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 32:5-b, and implement a tax cap whereby the governing body (or Budget Committee) shall not submit a recommended budget that increases the amount to be raised by local taxes (this year’s base), that is higher than the prior fiscal year’s actual amount of local taxes raised (last year’s base), adjusted for inflation using the inflation index, Consumer Price Index and the change in attendance, in accordance with the RSA 32:5-b, I-b?

(Majority vote required)

School Board does not recommend (5-0)

Budget Committee does not recommend (9-2)

My Position

I do not support Warrant Article 10 as amended because it creates a permanent tax cap that may sound simple, but does not reflect how school costs actually work and could weaken local decision-making over time.

This citizen-petitioned article would limit how much the local school tax can increase each year to last year’s amount, plus inflation, plus enrollment changes. The School Board and Budget Committee could recommend more only with a three-fifths supermajority vote, creating a higher barrier even when additional funding is needed.

School costs often rise faster than standard inflation. Transportation, building maintenance, staff contracts, and special education mandates do not neatly track an index. State aid has also decreased over time, which puts additional strain on the school budget. When funding cannot keep up with real costs, cuts happen, often to the programs, staff, and services students rely on.

This article includes no financial modeling and does not account for predictable obligations and unavoidable needs like special education costs, emergency repairs, safety upgrades, or new state and federal requirements. New Hampshire schools are legally required to meet those obligations. If a cap makes that harder to do, it creates real risk for the town and could lead to legal challenges, state intervention, or forced budget changes later.

I trust the School Board, Budget Committee, and school administration to work through these challenges thoughtfully and make responsible decisions, as they have in the past.

As a parent and a taxpayer, I want affordability and predictability. I also know we need flexibility and forward-looking planning that reflects real conditions on the ground. I believe local voters should be able to make decisions based on clear information and actual needs, not be locked into a rigid formula. For those reasons, I do not support Warrant Article 10.