By: Karen Keane and other voters

Vote NO on School Articles 2 and 3

On March 5 @ 6 pm, Lyme voters will gather at the Lyme School gym to consider and vote on the proposed school budget and related warrant articles. I encourage every resident to attend, listen carefully, and ultimately vote NO on Article 2, the proposed school budget and vote NO on Article 3, the bond-spending request.  You must be in attendance to vote.  The formal steps for paper ballots are underway and possible. 

• This is not a vote against our children.
• It is not a vote against teachers.
• It is not a vote against public education.
• It is a vote for fiscal responsibility, transparency, and long-term sustainability.

We Value Education — and Sustainability

Lyme is proud of its public school. Many of us have supported public-school funding long after our own children graduated. Strong public schools are central to a healthy community.

But strong schools do not require unchecked spending growth. Over the past decade, our school budget increases have outpaced inflation by roughly two to one. While inflation has averaged near 2%, school spending has risen closer to 6%. Over time, that gap has already compounded significantly, and will continue to do so.

In 2025, about 66% of our property-tax rate is attributable to the school, compared to roughly 23% for town government. The number of full-time employees (FTEs) has grown from 39 to 49, at a time when enrollment has decreased.  School-budget decisions are, in practical terms, decisions about two-thirds of our property-tax burden.

If school spending continues to grow at double the rate of inflation, property taxes will keep rising faster than many residents’ incomes. That trajectory is not sustainable, nor healthy for our community.

What a “No” Vote Means for the School Budget — Article 2

A vote “no” on Article 2 does not shut the school down.

It does not eliminate essential services.

A “no” vote would default the school to this current-year budget — $9.403 million rather than the proposed $9.857 million, a difference of $454,000 (roughly 5.5%).

Holding spending flat for one year is not drastic. Many households make similar adjustments when expenses outpace income. It is reasonable to expect similar discipline in public budgeting — especially when the school already receives 66% of our tax rate.

Enrollment, Staffing, and Cost

Enrollment has declined modestly in recent years, yet staffing has increased over the past decade from 39 FTEs to 49 FTEs. Today, about 50 FTE staff serve 185 K–8 students.

Administrative staffing has also grown, from 3.45 FTE administrators in 2016 to 4.6 today, with total administrative costs near $1,084,000 for 284 students, which equals $3,817 per student (>10% of the total school cost).  Since 100 of these students are in high school, this is too high.

The total cost per student in this budget is now $34,708 per year.  (K-12)

While fixed costs explain part of this increase, they do not explain all of it. Research consistently shows that the strongest correlator to student outcomes is household income — not per-pupil spending beyond a certain threshold. More money does not automatically produce better results.

Some parents and receiving high schools have expressed concerns about Lyme students arriving at high school with lower core competencies in math and reading. If increased spending has not clearly improved outcomes, it is reasonable to ask whether staffing and programming are optimally aligned.

Administrative Structure and Transparency

Expanded state reporting requirements are a positive step toward transparency. But transparency should also include benchmarking. If we are an outlier in administrative spending compared to similar districts, we should ask why.

This is not about eliminating required roles. It is about ensuring our structure fits our size.

Recent budget practices — including shifting expenditures between categories and using reserves in ways that blur true cost reductions — have raised questions among residents. Sound budgeting requires clarity: if funds are not needed for current obligations, returning them to taxpayers should be balanced alongside other uses.

This is not about bad intent. Administrators naturally advocate for programs. Fiscal stewardship requires equal attention to cost containment.

What a “No” Vote Means for the Bond Issue — Article 3

Several years ago, voters approved a significant bond to fund much needed upgrades and repairs to the building.  With the project complete, there is $241,000 yet to spend.

Article 3 asks voters to use the unspent balance for replacing Univents, upgrading student bathrooms, and renovating the science room.  The Superintendent stated that the Univents will cost ~$100K.  As of this writing, we’ve heard of no budget or plan for the science room or bathrooms.

Few dispute that building maintenance is necessary. The question is whether proposals for work are written, whether costs have been fully vetted and whether current reserves or prior operating surpluses could fund some or all of the work.

Could these unspent bond funds be used instead to pay the principal that is due this year? That would remove $237,550 from the total in Article 2.

Voting “NO” on a bond does not reject maintenance. It insists on careful planning and tax relief for voters when appropriate.

The Bigger Picture: Lyme’s Future

This conversation is not only about numbers. It is about who can afford to live here and what each person contributes to our community.

When people move, their investments are lost:

• They lose equity built in their homes and social networks built here
• Moving is a strain and costly

The community also loses:

• PTO leadership
• Volunteers on town committees
• Coaches and mentors for teams and groups
• EMTs and Fire Fighters, and those who come out in town-wide emergencies to offer help, funds and equipment
• People who staff the polls

When property taxes rise faster than inflation and faster than incomes, the consequences follow:

• Retirees on fixed incomes feel squeezed, and some move away
• Young families struggle to buy homes
• Farmers, tradespeople, and moderate-income workers are priced out
• Even teachers cannot afford to live in town

A community affordable only to the most affluent families risks becoming, in effect, a financially gated community. That is not the Lyme many of us value.

Economic diversity strengthens both the town and the school. Fiscal discipline helps preserve that balance.

Why This Matters Now

This coming year the School Board will negotiate a contract with teachers for the next three years. Decisions made now will influence spending and taxes for years ahead.

Difficult conversations about staffing and compensation are never easy. But they are the responsibility of the School Board, which was elected to represent the town — all of the people in the town, not just the people with children in the school. The voters’ role is to set sustainable expectations. The current budget proposal and bond article deserve a NO vote.

A Call to Participate

The annual district meeting is one of the few opportunities where voters directly shape outcomes.

Please attend on March 5. Listen respectfully. Ask thoughtful questions. Consider both educational quality and long-term affordability.

A “NO” vote on Article 2 is not a rejection of education. It is a call for balance — a pause to realign spending with inflation, enrollment, and the financial realities of our community.

A “NO” vote on Article 3 is not a rejection of maintenance and program-equipment needs. It is a call for balance — a pause to explore options that balance needs of the school and the tax payer.

We can have a strong public school and a sustainable tax base. But only if we insist on both.

By Lynne Parshall and Kristin Kelley 

At Lyme Little Town Meeting on March 3, 2026, voters can learn more about Warrant Article 2, a proposal that will be voted by paper ballot on March 10. It deserves a “YES” vote. 

Warrant Article 2 proposes to amend the town’s zoning ordinance to allow “Adaptive Reuse” in the Lyme Center, Lyme Common and Commercial Districts. Adaptive reuse is the purposeful conversion of an existing building into a new, viable use while preserving its structure and character and meeting the community’s needs. Adaptive reuse is a solution that honors Lyme’s character while allowing the Town to evolve responsibly. It addresses many of the concerns and reflects much of the will expressed in the Housing Survey that was conducted in late 2025. It is the least intrusive way to increase affordable and attainable housing while preserving the qualities of Lyme that we care about most. 

What the Lyme Community Told Us 

The recent Housing Survey revealed that 72% of respondents are comfortable with at least doubling the rate of new housing construction in Lyme. Among the most popular initiatives were those that help seniors remain in town and those that create housing with a mix of price ranges. 

Residents recognize that Lyme needs housing options — not sprawl or large-scale development — but thoughtful opportunities that serve real community needs. Warrant Article 2 does exactly that. 

What Warrant Article 2 Does 

Warrant Article 2 proposes an amendment to the town’s existing building conversion rules. It would allow buildings in the Lyme Center, Lyme Common, and Commercial Districts to be subdivided into multiple residential units — such as apartments or condominiums — based on what can reasonably fit within the existing structure. Adaptive reuse simply allows optimized, continued use of buildings that already exist. 

It does not allow new buildings, it does not open new land for development, it does not require new roads or infrastructure, it does not bypass Planning Board review, and it does not override septic, parking, fire, or safety requirements. Outside the named districts, nothing changes. 

What Could This Look Like? 

A large older home in the Lyme Common district could become several apartments. Upper floors of commercial buildings, such as Stella’s, could be converted to housing. An inn or short-term lodging property, such as Dowds Inn, could transition to long-term residences. 

There are current community-driven efforts to help create housing for those the community would like to see housed: seniors who wish to downsize, workers in Lyme’s restaurants, businesses and schools, and others who want to remain in Lyme. Those efforts would stall if Warrant Article 2 does not pass. 

Addressing Concerns 

The Planning Board voted 3–1 to not recommend this amendment, but agreed that adaptive reuse is important for increasing housing stock. The concerns of those who voted “no” were focused on integration with existing ordinances. Importantly, however, the zoning ordinance already says that when provisions conflict, the more restrictive standard applies. Nothing in the proposed amendment overrides these existing protections.  

Some members of the Board expressed interest in developing a more detailed proposal over the next year. But in the meantime, Lyme’s Planning and Zoning Administrator confirmed that the amendment as written can be administered within the current framework. Waiting has consequences. Potential community-led projects exist now that may not exist later. Passing the amendment now does not prevent refinement in the future. We can always adopt improved language at a future Town Meeting. Waiting forestalls thoughtful progress. 

Concerns that Lyme’s entire housing stock could gradually convert to apartments are unfounded. This amendment applies only to the Lyme Center, Lyme Common, and Commercial Districts. Moreover, suitable properties rarely become available, and structural and market constraints naturally limit what is feasible. 

Learn More and Vote 

We invite you to learn more at Little Town Meeting on March 3. Ask questions, voice opinions and engage in thoughtful discussion with the community. Then vote YES on Warrant Article 2. 

By: Jan Williams

Out of curiosity I took all the text from Question 20 of the Planning Board Housing Survey and pasted it into ChatGPT, which I think did a remarkable job! Who knew AI might actually do something helpful. 

Jan Williams originally posted this message to the Lyme Listserv on 22 January 2026:

---

Below is a ~500-word synthesized summary that reflects the full range of perspectives expressed across the survey responses, without privileging any single viewpoint.

Summary of Survey Responses on Housing, Growth, and Community Character in Lyme

Survey respondents expressed deeply held and often contrasting views about housing, growth, and the future of Lyme. Across responses, there is strong shared affection for Lyme’s rural character, natural beauty, historic village centers, and sense of community. Many residents moved to Lyme precisely because it is less developed than neighboring towns, and a common concern is that rapid or poorly planned growth could permanently erode these qualities. Protecting open space, maintaining visual character, avoiding suburban sprawl, and preserving the scale and design of buildings—especially in Lyme Common and village areas—were repeatedly emphasized.

At the same time, a substantial number of respondents expressed concern that Lyme has become increasingly exclusive and unaffordable. Rising housing costs, restrictive zoning, and high property taxes—largely driven by school funding—are pushing out long-time residents, seniors seeking to downsize, young families, and workers essential to the Upper Valley economy, including teachers, nurses, tradespeople, emergency responders, and service workers. Many noted that Lyme increasingly feels like a “gated” or retirement-oriented community, with declining socioeconomic diversity and limited opportunities for younger or moderate-income households to remain or settle in town.

Housing affordability is closely tied, in respondents’ minds, to tax sustainability. Some argue that expanding the housing stock—particularly through modest, well-located development—could broaden the tax base and help stabilize taxes over time. Others counter that additional housing, especially multi-family or rental units, would increase school enrollment and demand for municipal services, ultimately worsening the tax burden. School costs were consistently identified as the most significant fiscal pressure, and many respondents stressed the importance of carefully analyzing service, infrastructure, and education impacts before encouraging growth.

There was broad interest in “smart,” “slow,” or “thoughtful” growth rather than large-scale development. Many respondents supported targeted approaches such as infill development, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), duplexes, cluster housing, co-housing, barn or building conversions, and small-scale multi-unit projects—particularly in areas that already have infrastructure, such as the Lyme Common, Commercial District, Route 10 corridor, or near paved roads. Concentrating development in these areas was seen as a way to preserve open land, reduce environmental impacts, and improve access to services and emergency response. Conversely, there was strong resistance to scattered rural sprawl, high-density buildings out of scale with the town, or development that strains water, septic, road, or emergency systems.

Another recurring theme was the role of zoning and land-use policy. Many respondents described current zoning—especially large minimum lot sizes, restrictions on multi-unit dwellings, and extensive land in Current Use or conservation—as a major barrier to housing options and a contributor to high taxes. Others viewed these same policies as essential tools for preserving Lyme’s character. Several called for zoning reform that allows flexibility without abandoning design standards, environmental protection, or community values.

Overall, the survey reflects a community wrestling with how to balance preservation and adaptation. While there is no consensus on the pace or scale of growth, many respondents agree that inaction carries its own risks: continued loss of affordability, shrinking diversity, aging demographics, and escalating taxes. The prevailing message is a desire for intentional, transparent planning that weighs fiscal, environmental, and social impacts and seeks a future in which Lyme remains both distinctive and livable for a broader range of residents.

On January 5, Lynne Parshall posted this note to the Lyme Listserv:

Lyme’s Planning Board met on December 11, 2025 to address the Housing Survey, which had been completed by residents in November. As I was interested in the results, I attended the meeting.

Unexpectedly, the Board decided at that meeting that (my words, not theirs) there were irregularities with the conduct of the survey, and that therefore they would decline to review the results. They described the Survey results as potentially “tainted,” and they decided to throw away the Survey.

The video of the entire meeting is available. This link leads to the beginning of the discussion of the Survey: https://youtu.be/Ba2vjdqM1DU?t=4968

Lyme residents’ participation in the survey was robust. There are about 950 households in Lyme, with approximately 1,440 registered voters. The survey garnered 342 responses: 188 online, and 154 on paper. That is about a 24% response rate — a terrific sampling of the sentiments of Lyme.

Given the strong response and my interest in these potentially important results, I submitted a Public Records Request and received the complete unanalyzed Survey results from the Planning Board. Neither the online nor the paper results have been officially reviewed by the Planning Board, and their view of the value of them is on record.

Several of your neighbors, private individuals rather than an official Town board, entered the information from paper surveys to the electronic online results. The results appear on the Lyme Gazette at: LymeGazette.com/LymeHousingSurvey2025/ That page includes a summary of each of the questions, as well as all the comments from the survey participants.

The level of discourse started with this survey is heartening to me. There appears to be an overwhelming interest in increasing our levels of affordable/attainable housing, while also preserving the unique culture of Lyme we all value. I am hopeful that, even though this is no longer an “official” town survey, it can be the foundation for a productive and action-oriented dialog about sensitive and sensible changes to the Planning Board’s upcoming Housing Plan along with comparable changes to our zoning laws. I have requested that the Planning Board include a discussion of the Survey at their January 22 meeting and hope that, if they agree to do so, we will have strong participation from folks who care about these issues. 

Lynne Parshall

Update: The January 22, 2026 date has been confirmed on the Planning Board agenda.

On Tuesday morning, 30 September 2025 at 10:00am, the Lyme Select Board will hold two public hearings regarding Veteran's tax credits and the Town's Conflict of Interest policy. See the Agenda for details.

In addition, the Select Board has drafted a Refuse Control and Wildlife Protection ordinance and will ask for public comment on its wording. You can attend in person, by Zoom (see the link in the Agenda), or email comments to selectboard@lymenh.gov.

The draft ordinance follows. Note: This text was scanned from a paper document: any errors arise from the scanning process. 

———

Town of Lyme, New Hampshire
Refuse Control and Wildlife Protection Ordinance

Draft – For Discussion Purposes Only

This ordinance is adopted to assist residents and guests in the Town of Lyme, New
Hampshire to coexist peacefully with wild animals in and around the Town. For the welfare
and safety of both wild animals and Town residents and guests, it is hereby enacted by the
Board of Selectmen that:

1. All domestic and commercial refuse containing food or otherwise likely to be
attractive to wild animals must be stored in one of the following:
   a. A building, house, garage or other structure that is inaccessible to wild life;
   b. A wildlife resistant container, such as a commercial dumpster secured with a
locking mechanism designed to prevent access by wildlife;
   c. An appropriate container at a Town disposal site.

2. Any refuse that is put out for curbside pickup shall not be placed at the curb until 5
am or later on the day pickup is scheduled to occur.

The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all persons and businesses located within
the Town of Lyme except those licensed by the State of New Hampshire, Department of
Fish and Game.

Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a
violation and subject to a fine of not more that [$250].

A person may choose to pay a civil forfeiture of $25.00 to the Town Clerk/Tax Collector
within 48 hours of the issuance of a notice of violation and shall thereby waive the right to
be heard in district court and shall not be prosecuted for the noticed offense. For each and
any subsequent offense by the same person or business, the amount of civil forfeiture shall
be increased to $50.00. Notwithstanding the foregoing, civil forfeiture shall be unavailable
for the balance of any year in which a person or business has more than three violations of
this ordinance; rather, any such case shall be disposed of by district court proceedings and
fines as set forth above.

This ordinance shall take effect on [January 1, 2026].

The Lyme Town website notices a public meeting tonight, 7 May 2025 at 6:30pm:

The Select Board is holding a public meeting to discuss the possible option for the use of the Pike House by the Town or to consider selling the property.
Please come and share your thoughts
Date: Wednesday, May 7th, 2025
Time: 6:30PM

Location: The Town Office Conference room at 1 High Street or by zoom-see link below.
Feel free to send an email to selectboard@lymenh.gov if you can not make it and would like to share your thoughts.
Topic: Public meeting-Pike House
Time: May 7, 2025 06:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84030976148?pwd=DKDgQyto7WndFvtww2tQXv5eDBv8lx.1

The property under discussion is outlined in purple:

Some commenters on a recent post to the Listserv and article in the Lyme Gazette about the School budget have suggested that the increase in the SAU budget is because various positions have been transferred to the SAU from the School administrative lines.

The graph below shows the changes in budgets for the different components of the administrative total. If a position is transferred from the School to the SAU, one would expect to see the increase in the SAU budget matched by a similar decrease in the School budget. This has not occurred.

The bottom line is that since 2022, the total administrative budget has increased by almost 70%, is more than $3500 per student, and represents more than 10% of the total School budget.

David Avery
david.l.avery@dartmouth.edu

The upcoming Lyme School District meeting (Thursday, March 6 at 6pm) is our annual opportunity to provide feedback to the hardworking representatives on the school board, to our SAU superintendent, and to our K–8 school principal.

So, I want to point out a worrying trend. Have you noticed that our SAU costs have tripled since 2022? With administration costs for the K–8 school increasing 11% over the same period, educational administration in Lyme will cost over $1 million during the coming year.

That is about $3,772 per student, or $1,250 per household. The number of students has not increased.

This graph shows the details:

I’m a lifetime fan of public education, and have always supported both our budget and building renovation projects. Lyme values education, and wants to provide the very best. The great reputation of our school (and high schools) show that we are willing to pay for it. But the trend over the past few years is simply not sustainable for a town that is not growing.

You will see here that our SAU cost about $200k in 2022. The budget that we will approve next week shows $600k for the SAU. Are you wondering how this has happened? I certainly am!

Our Town budget has increased by a comparatively restrained 11% over this period. Those who have paid attention to the budget process have seen first hand how hard the various Town boards and committees are working to keep costs under wraps, so that our property taxes don’t drive precious long-term residents away.

My hope is that going forward our School Board, along with the new superintendent and our principal, will recognize that this upward trend isn’t sustainable, will demonstrate real concern for our taxpayers, and will take clear steps to implement cost-saving reforms.

Jan Williams
jlwlyme@icloud.com

The Lyme Gazette solicits signed, thoughtful, original, and truthful articles of interest to the residents of Lyme, NH. You can contact the Editors at this page.

Editorial Board: David Avery, Susan MacKenzie, Jan Williams

For a couple years around 1995, Michael Whitman worked with a few others to produce a print(!) Lyme Gazette that was mailed to Lyme residents. Here’s a sample issue, or click this link to read the full document.

LymeGazette-V18-1