Recap – Hampton Falls School Board Work Meeting

17:10pm – Chair Lane started the discussion with the board acknowledging the recent election results with respect to Article 1 performance, and laid out other options that are available at this time and how the board would like to proceed in the coming year. Options discussed are a) keep the same plan and update it, b) take out the new gym but build a separate kitchen, eating space, classroom space, c) looking at a plan from three years ago where we kept the current kitchen where it is and change the 4th grade classrooms across the hall from the cafeteria into the eating space and build new classroom space.

17:23pm – Chair Lane shared an experience that he had going to East Kingston where there is a school that uses a similar floor as the one that Principal Deblois had suggested. He indicated some pros and cons with that configuration. Chair Lane discussing various other floor options that are available for consideration. Lane and Greg discussed the outcome of the vote and Lane mentioned engaging the community such as a public hearing to discuss configurations and options that might be considered. Also discussed was the need to get more outreach to the people in town–it was suggested through mailers 4-5 times a year and to start early in the process.

17:31pm – Parish indicated there was $1.3M still needed in repairs. Lane stated that he was interested in focusing on the needs of the school only and not to include a community center in the plan. Greg Marrow offered the view that a community center option may just be a byproduct but not the focus.

17:37pm – John Bailly supports pressing on with Article 1 saying to “take of the gas” to pursuit Article 1. Unless a better idea comes up, to not engage with the architects because they have already been engaged to date. Bailly also supports engaging the public in particular those who have previously been opposed. Parish inquired to Deblois if in the previous iterations if 3, 4 and 5th grades could be together in the main school building.

17:43pm – Parish inquired to Bailly regarding the community center idea. It was referred to as a “fringe benefit”. Parish indicated that the key to the community center space is the need to lock it off from the rest of the school.

17:45pm – Discussion moved to the “classroom plan” and the costs associated with changing the orientation of the cafeteria. Deblois indicated that as a compromise there are ways to have a configuration like that work with the existing space and time and current demographics.

17:50pm – Discussions around space planning, what’s currently in the CIP, how many classrooms were needed. The number Deblois indicated was approximately six new classrooms. Additional discussions around various configurations of new classroom in combination with changes to existing classrooms. Deblois raised the issue of the stage and the costs involved with that.

17:55pm – Greg Marrow suggested the need to bring people in the community into the discussion instead of an approach of the school board saying what it is going to be. He did mention the name Will Lojack and his construction background would be an option for a resource to tap. The focus to be still on education. The possibility of a committee with an equal seat at the table.




Categories: School

4 replies »

  1. Thanks for pointing that out Shelley. Can you add some details on what you heard that isn’t listed here? Happy to make any corrections to make sure that any points that were raised and discussed are captured as this is intended to provide a broad swath of information and not opinion piece.


  2. Are you planning a separate post for the actual board meeting George? I don’t see anything here but your title is specific to the “work meeting” which was renovation specific…the conversation about the letter from Hampton SB would be great information to share with your readers.


    • Anthony, on April 10th, 2017, the Observer had posted ( that the letter was sent by SAU90 with some brief excerpts. I also reached out to the school board myself to inquire about that letter, with the response back from Chair Lane also included in that article. The goal was to make the public aware that this had happened. It disheartened me to hear someone yesterday say that they just heard of this letter as of “4pm on Thursday” and something to the effect of rushing to make sure that they came to speak on that topic.

      Unfortunately, it was at times during the second non-working meeting, it was difficult to hear what was being discussed. I’m currently going through the video and there will be a separate post along with a full copy of the letter for those who were not able to make it to the second meeting yesterday. You are correct, it is an important topic which is why getting that out to the public in a non-partisan way is important to help ease any tensions and mistrust.

      You’ve raised an interesting point and I wonder if that’s where Shelly’s comments were coming from as this post was intended only to cover the work session and not the second School Board meeting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s