Longevity
Which decisions provide the best sustained repairs, outcomes, and payment terms across the 20 to 30 year window the decision has to last through.
Public information, updated September 21, 2026
How the District arrived at a facilities decision
Since the 2022 STEAM bond vote, the Kearsarge Regional School Board has worked through a district wide facilities review, a Critical Needs assessment of all seven buildings, and a new state law that changes who votes on closing a school. This page collects the timeline, the source documents, and straight answers to the questions residents are asking most.
- Buildings reviewed
- 7
- Board discussions of facilities since 2023
- 275
- Separate meetings involved
- 93
- Schools authorized for closure to date
- 0
Discussion counts are as recorded in the September 3, 2026 approved minutes.
Start here
Where things stand right now
The short version
On September 3, 2026 the School Board adopted a two school elementary configuration as the District's long term operating goal, and directed the Superintendent to prepare transition plans for Sutton Central Elementary School and Simonds Elementary School. Preparation is not closure. The motions state plainly that final closure authorization requires a separate, separately noticed Board vote, and that the decision to close a school is ultimately made by voters, not by the Board alone.
Source: September 3, 2026 approved minutes.
The five questions the Board is using to decide
On July 23, 2026 the Board adopted a formal decision making framework by a vote of 7 to 0 (minutes). Every option is measured against these criteria.
Efficiency
Which decisions reduce operating costs, facility repair costs, and inefficient use of resources while producing the same or better results for students.
Property tax
What total tax impact the seven towns can carry, factoring bonds, trusts, unencumbered funds, contracts, and capital planning over time.
Student outcomes
More than assessment scores. Also the consistency and quality of the learning experience that facilities either support or degrade.
Equity
Whether opportunities meet student needs across the District. Equity means having what is needed, which is not the same as every building having the same thing.
Why a two school elementary configuration
The Board's action reflects its judgment that the critical needs costs across seven aging buildings are too large to absorb through the normal budget process, and that a two school elementary model best satisfies the five criteria above. Architects reported in April 2025 that simply refreshing current buildings would run roughly $60 million, renovating two elementary schools roughly $80 to $90 million, and a single new district wide elementary school roughly $90 to $100 million, with high school code work near $17.5 million and middle school work near $10 to $14 million. Those were early, pre tariff estimates.
In June 2025 the Board removed the single regional elementary school option from consideration by a vote of 7 to 1. In August 2026 it directed that consolidation planning move grade 5 to the middle school, Simonds to Bradford, and Sutton to New London.
One point that is often missed
All seven towns pay for all schools in the District. A local town does not fund only its local school. That is why the Board weighs equity and efficiency across the whole District rather than building by building, even though the impact of any decision is felt very locally.
Option figures: April 3, 2025 minutes; June 19, 2025 minutes; August 6, 2026 minutes.
The record
Timeline of decisions, 2022 to today
Every entry below is drawn from approved School Board minutes, published District annual reports, or official state records. Where the minutes record a vote, the tally appears in the form the minutes use: yes, no, abstain.
-
The STEAM bond article fails
Question 1, the STEAM Wing article, proposed renovating more than 33,000 square feet of high school instructional space, much of it original to the 1970 building, plus about 16,500 square feet of new construction. The vote was 1,652 in favor to 1,372 opposed. The article failed because a 60 percent majority was required.
-
The District intends to try again at the high school
Board discussion continues on pursuing the STEAM renovation, including inviting alumni in STEM fields to speak. At the January 7 deliberative session, residents are told that several building items were part of the STEAM project that was voted down, and that boilers are an immediate need.
-
From one building to all seven
The Superintendent raises delaying the high school STEAM renovation in favor of a comprehensive, district wide approach, noting that a comprehensive approach would likely miss the March 2024 ballot. This is the first recorded pivot from a single school project toward a full facilities review. No motion was made. STEAM was never ended by a single vote. It was redirected in stages, and its program areas reappear in the 2026 high school building aid application.
-
A district wide study goes out to bid
Roof problems that would have been addressed by the STEAM renovation are reported, along with roofing needs in all seven buildings. In September the Board discusses a district wide capital approach rather than a high school only bond, and the choice is framed as renovate, consolidate, or replace. A request for proposals is issued in October, five firms attend a pre bid meeting in November, and six bids are received by December.
-
The Comprehensive Facilities Review is awarded
The Board approves a purchase recommendation of $357,531.00 from Lavallee Brensinger Architects for a district wide comprehensive review of all facilities, carried 7 to 0 with 1 abstention, and approves a related budget transfer of $257,531.00 by the same tally. The work is scoped in two phases: information gathering, then development of options.
-
Site assessments and visioning sessions
The architects hold a kickoff on February 1 with monthly meetings. Condition assessments and community input follow. The first of three visioning sessions is held September 18, 2024. Facilities planning is named one of three Board focus areas for the year.
-
The first published cost ranges
Architects present option level estimates, described as pre tariff and likely to rise: refreshing current buildings about $60 million; renovating two existing elementary facilities $80 to $90 million; one new district wide elementary school $90 to $100 million; bringing the high school up to code about $17.5 million; middle school work about $10 to $14 million. Later in April the Board reviews state building aid figures and the two school concept first appears, keeping Bradford and New London, each of which has a preschool attached.
-
Four options presented, one removed
The options were repairs plus an elementary stopgap; repairs plus renovation of all four elementary schools; repairs plus consolidation to two elementary schools; and repairs plus one regional elementary school. The Board votes 7 to 1 to take the single regional elementary school option off the table.
-
The Critical Needs subcommittee is formed, and the bond moves to 2027
The facilities committee creates a subcommittee, known as Facilities B, to recommend on critical needs and long term investments. Membership includes existing members plus volunteers from each of the seven towns, with eight scheduled meetings beginning October 1, 2025, most held at the buildings themselves so the public can see the spaces. The Superintendent states that forming the subcommittee moves the bond hearing from March 2026 to March 2027. At its first meeting the subcommittee builds a triage system for judging whether a building component is a critical need.
-
Every building is toured in public
The subcommittee tours the high school in November with roughly 20 members of the public, the middle school in December, New London Elementary in January, Sutton Central in February, Simonds in March, and Bradford in April. Findings include roofs, boilers, air handling, a sprinkler and pump issue and a low energy score at Simonds, a portion of which dates to the 1800s, and septic and mechanical replacement needs at Bradford.
-
Two state building aid applications approved
The Board approves a middle school building aid application with a total estimated project cost of $13,901,823.60, and a high school application with a total estimated project cost of $42,321,560. The high school scope is reduced to roughly 5,000 square feet of new entry, administration, and cafeteria space, plus heavy renovation increasing STEAM program areas, accessibility work, mechanical, envelope, and site circulation. Each project, if selected for aid, would go to the voters.
-
The Critical Needs report is accepted
On May 21 the Board accepts the Facilities B report as written, 7 to 0 with 1 abstention. The report is posted publicly as the Facilities B Final Review and Facilities Project Roadmap. Earlier in the month the Board reviews draft figures, expressly labeled drafts, including a Simonds foundation and structural quote of $978,000 and draft avoided critical needs work of about $3.2 million at Simonds and about $1.4 million at Sutton.
-
HB 1374 becomes law, effective October 8, 2026
HB 1374 is approved as Chapter 303, Laws of 2026, and takes effect October 8, 2026. It changes how a school can be discontinued. On written petition of 20 or more legal voters, the school board must hold a noticed open public meeting at which a ballot vote using the checklist is taken, and closure is decided by a majority of voters present and voting from all municipalities served by the district. If a closure passes, the school must close no later than one day before the start of the following school year, unless its operation is preserved under the law's municipal preservation option. A separate ballot is required for each school.
-
A decision framework, a cost estimator, and community research
The Board adopts the facilities decision making framework, 7 to 0. It engages Jobin Construction Consultants at $15,000 as the architects' cost estimator, and the Hanover Group at $49,500 for community research. The Board is told the District is particularly exposed to the school closure provisions of HB 1374, and that a critical needs only path would put roughly $7 million into two schools that voters could later choose to close. The Superintendent presents a planning timeline including a possible move of grade 5 to the middle school and a contingency plan in case closure petitions are filed.
-
Planning is aimed at specific transfers
On August 6 the Board votes 7 to 0 with 1 abstention to direct consolidation efforts toward transferring grade 5 into the middle school, Simonds into Bradford, and Sutton into New London Elementary School. On August 20 it approves a $110,000 architect contract extension with a matching transfer, and votes to publish the review timeline on the District website. The petition contingency item is kept on every agenda.
-
A two school goal, and direction to prepare
Public comment is extended to one hour given the turnout. A motion to postpone the vote until community research results were available received no second and failed. The Board then took three separate roll call votes, and all three passed.
- Adopt a two school elementary configuration as the District's long term operating goal, and direct the Superintendent to bring forward plans, timelines, staffing and transportation implications, capital and operating budget implications, and community engagement steps. The motion states that nothing in it designates any school for closure, and that any school specific decision requires a separate motion, separate notice, and a separate roll call vote. Carried 7 to 2
- Begin preparation for the closure of Sutton Central Elementary School, subject to final closure authorization by the Board at a later noticed meeting, with a transition plan covering student reassignment and grade placement, transportation, staffing under the collective bargaining agreements, disposition of building and grounds, special education continuity, communication, and statutory notice. Carried 7 to 1, one member recused
- The same preparation for Simonds Elementary School. Carried 7 to 2
One member read a recusal statement before the Sutton motion because his spouse teaches at Sutton Central, and left the table for that vote.
-
Budget season and cost estimates begin
At the joint meeting with the Municipal Budget Committee, the September 3 minutes are approved as amended after two vote tallies are corrected, and the 2027 to 2028 building budget presentations begin. The Board directs that options be considered on September 24, with the Business Administrator drafting bond language. Suggestions raised in public discussion include reuse of a closed building for early childhood or community use. The September 17 joint meeting includes the facilities budget presentation and a facilities planning and budgeting discussion.
Looking ahead
Milestones from here to the deliberative session
Dates marked confirmed appear in Board minutes, published agendas, or state records. Items marked expected follow the District's normal annual budget cycle and have not yet been posted with a specific date.
| When | Milestone | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Sept 24, 2026 | Board considers options; bond language drafted by the Business Administrator | Confirmed |
| Oct 1, 2026 | Target for the architects and cost estimator to deliver a final cost estimate | Planned |
| Oct 8, 2026 | HB 1374 takes effect statewide, and the next regular Board meeting is held | Confirmed |
| Oct to Nov 2026 | Budget and warrant development with the Board and the Municipal Budget Committee | Expected |
| Dec 2026 | Municipal Budget Committee review and public hearing | Expected |
| Jan 2027 | Annual district meeting, deliberative session, where warrant articles are debated and amended | Date not yet set |
| March 2027 | District election, the expected ballot for a facilities bond article | Date not yet set |
| Before any closure | A separate Board vote authorizing closure, and the applicable voter process | Required |
Sources: September 10, 2026 minutes, September 17, 2026 agenda, August 28, 2025 minutes, and HB 1374, Chapter 303.
Explore a savings scenario
What could a reduction mean for your town?
Enter an annual, District-wide reduction and a property's taxable assessed value. Compare the estimated reduction in local school taxes across all seven towns. Example amounts are illustrations, not District proposals.
Planning estimate, not a final tax-bill forecast.
Uses proposed FY 2026–27 allocation shares from the District's 2026 annual report, PDF pages 48–49 and 2025 taxable valuations from NH DRA's tax-calculation workbook. These are not final 2026–27 tax-computation inputs.
Estimated annual property savings
Calculating…Seven-town comparison
| Town | Town-wide reduction | Rate reduction per $1,000 | Annual property savings |
|---|
All amounts shown are reductions, not remaining taxes owed. Figures are rounded for display; calculations use unrounded values.
Sources, baseline figures, and how the estimate works
The District report's FY 2026–27 estimate uses 60% average daily membership in residence and 40% equalized valuation, both from 2024–25. It predates the March 2026 vote and explicitly states that tax assessments are estimates subject to change.
The DRA workbook, sheet “Tax Rate Calcuation,” column S, supplies 2025 “Town Valuation Including Utilities.” This local assessed tax base is different from the equalized valuation used to allocate costs between towns. The DRA reports index was checked September 17, 2026; 2025 was the latest tax-rate calculation dataset posted.
| Town | Proposed FY 2026–27 share | 2025 local assessed tax base |
|---|
- Town reduction = entered net District reduction × town allocation share.
- Rate reduction per $1,000 = town reduction ÷ local assessed tax base × 1,000.
- Annual property savings = town reduction ÷ local assessed tax base × entered taxable assessed value.
The published shares total 100.00001% due to rounding. Each is divided by that total so the model allocates exactly 100% of the entered reduction. Aid, other revenues, tax bases, and allocation shares are held constant. Inputs that would make any town's estimated local school levy negative are not modeled.
This is a full-year, all-else-equal comparison against the planning baseline, not a prediction of when a reduction would take effect. It does not model municipal taxes, county taxes, state education property tax, revaluation, tax credits, refunds, or the timing of individual bills. Actual consolidation savings may arise in a later fiscal year. Official updated allocations and valuations should replace these inputs before the calculator is used to communicate final tax impacts.
Document library
Read the source material yourself
Everything the Board has worked from is public. Use the search box to filter, then open any document. Items marked draft are working documents and are labeled as such in the record.
Community reference
- PDF · 9 pagesWhy Consolidation Is NecessarySeptember 21, 2026 revision of the Board discussion handout on enrollment, staffing, operating savings, and estimated tax impacts. Uploaded PDF preserved without content changes. Opens in a new tab.
- PDF · 1 pageFacilities Decision Center: GlossaryA blue-and-gold reference sheet defining 18 terms about buildings, enrollment, costs, funding, and voting. September 2026. Opens in a new tab.
Facilities review and Critical Needs
- PDFFacilities B Final Summaries, May 18, 2026Per building critical needs summaries accepted by the Board on May 21, 2026. The document states its figures are early estimates rather than final engineering recommendations.
- IndexComprehensive Facilities Review materials and Board timelineThe District's posted review materials, including the planning timeline the Board voted to publish on August 20, 2026.
Key meeting minutes
- PDFSeptember 3, 2026, approved minutesThe two school configuration motion and the two closure preparation motions, with full roll call votes.
- PDFSeptember 10, 2026, unapproved minutesJoint meeting with the Municipal Budget Committee, building budget presentations, and direction to consider options on September 24.
- PDFAugust 6, 2026, approved minutesDirection of consolidation planning toward grade 5 to the middle school, Simonds to Bradford, and Sutton to New London.
- PDFJuly 23, 2026, approved minutesAdoption of the facilities decision making framework.
- PDFMay 21, 2026, approved minutesAcceptance of the Facilities B Critical Needs report.
- PDFJune 19, 2025, approved minutesThe four options, with cost ranges, and the vote removing the single regional elementary school option.
- PDFApril 3, 2025, approved minutesThe first published option level cost estimates from the architects.
- PDFJanuary 4, 2024, approved minutesAward of the district wide Comprehensive Facilities Review.
- PDFApril 6, 2023, approved minutesThe pivot from the high school STEAM project to a comprehensive district wide approach.
- IndexAll School Board agendas and minutesThe complete archive, including every meeting referenced on this page.
State law and closure process
- PDFHB 1374, Chapter 303, Laws of 2026, final textThe enacted law, approved July 10, 2026 and effective October 8, 2026, covering discontinuance of schools and withdrawal from a cooperative district.
- PDF · 2 pagesHB 1374: A New Way a School Can Be ClosedAugust 2026 community information sheet with a plain-language overview of the school closure process and a glossary of key terms. Opens in a new tab.
Enrollment, budget, and annual reports
- PDF · 1 page · PreliminaryElementary School Cost per StudentFour-school comparison using FY 2026–27 school-assigned budgets and September 1, 2026 K–5 enrollment. Compares Sutton Central, Simonds, Bradford, and New London. Not fully allocated operating costs; separate district-wide costs are excluded. Opens in a new tab.
- PDF · 2 pages · PreliminaryLocal School-Tax Contribution per Resident StudentSeven-town cost per student comparison using estimated FY 2026–27 local assessments and October 2025 resident enrollment. Measures local tax contribution, not actual educational spending per student. Opens in a new tab.
- PDF2025 Annual ReportNarrative of the facility needs study, and the condition of major building systems against their serviceable life.
- PDF2024 Annual ReportStudy phases and October 2023 enrollment by building.
- PDF2023 Annual ReportThe March 2022 STEAM ballot result and the decision not to seek a high school bond in 2023.
- PDF · 4 pagesEnrollment and capacity by buildingSeptember 2026 enrollment, Sutton and Warner birth cohorts, and existing receiving-school capacity. No renovation or expansion capacity is included. Opens in a new tab.
- ComingPreliminary recurring savings estimateA conservative floor value based on classroom staffing, being reviewed by the Board before publication.
- ComingFinal cost estimate and draft bond languageExpected after the cost estimator delivers, targeted for October 2026.
To request a document that is not posted here, see the contact information at the bottom of this page. Public records requests are handled under New Hampshire's Right to Know Law, RSA 91-A.
Questions residents are asking
Answers to the questions we hear most
These are the questions residents have raised most often. Where an answer depends on figures still in development, that is stated rather than estimated.
1Can the School Board close schools?
No. Under the District's normal process, closing a school follows the Articles of Agreement pathway. The Board may recommend closure, and then the town in which the school sits votes. That town vote is the controlling factor.
HB 1374 changes where that vote happens. Under the new law, the vote moves to the voters of all municipalities served by the District, so the District electorate controls the outcome, with an option for a municipal agreement under which a town may keep its school operating at that town's separate cost.
Either way, there is no mechanism for the Board to close a school on its own, independent of the voters.
See HB 1374, Chapter 303, and the closure preparation motions in the September 3, 2026 minutes, which reserve final closure authorization for a separate future vote.
2What exactly did the School Board vote on, on September 3, 2026?
The Board took three separate motions, each by roll call, and all three passed.
- Adopting a two school elementary configuration as the District's long term operating goal, and directing the Superintendent to bring back specific plans, timelines, staffing and transportation implications, capital and operating budget implications, and community engagement steps. The motion says expressly that it does not designate any school for closure, and that any school specific decision requires a separate motion, separate notice, and a separate roll call vote. Carried 7 to 2.
- Directing preparation for the closure of Sutton Central Elementary School, subject to final closure authorization by the Board at a later noticed meeting. Carried 7 to 1, with one member recused.
- Directing the same preparation for Simonds Elementary School. Carried 7 to 2.
Preparation is not execution. No school has been authorized to close. Assignments, programs, and daily routines for the 2026 to 2027 school year are unchanged.
Full motion language and roll calls are in the September 3, 2026 approved minutes. Note that some accounts refer to a September 4 vote. The minutes record the meeting as September 3.
3Is there a simple timeline of the milestones ahead of the deliberative session?
Yes. The milestones table above is the simplified version: options considered September 24, a final cost estimate targeted for early October, budget and warrant development in the fall, Municipal Budget Committee review and a public hearing in December, the deliberative session in January 2027, and the district election in March 2027.
Two more detailed plans also exist, prepared at the Board's request. One assumes an emergency consolidation driven by a citizen petition, and one assumes planned implementation. They document every required step and are comprehensive rather than simplified, so they are best read alongside the summary above rather than instead of it.
Confirmed dates come from the September 10, 2026 minutes and the September 17, 2026 agenda.
4Why did the School Board vote for a consolidation plan?
The Board voted to prepare for a two school solution to a problem with many parts. The central driver is that the critical needs costs across seven buildings are too large to address easily through the normal budget process. That required the Board to look for the indicators pointing toward the best long term outcomes for the District, in alignment with the Strategic Plan.
The five criteria used are longevity, efficiency, property tax carrying capacity, student outcomes, and equity. They are described in more detail earlier on this page. When the Board opted to prepare the District for consolidation, its action reflected a judgment that the most optimal outcomes across those five criteria align with a two school elementary model, particularly if the District ends up closing schools under HB 1374.
Two points are worth stating directly. Property tax impact is judged by what the seven towns can carry, and that range varies widely by town because of valuation and land use. And equity means students having what they need, which is not the same as every building having the same thing.
Framework adopted July 23, 2026; criteria recorded again in the September 3, 2026 minutes.
5When will we see the tax impact of consolidation?
Work is underway now, and figures will be released as the Board reviews them.
Tax impact is genuinely difficult to predict. It depends on when towns set rates, on revenues, on contracts, and on how any bond is structured. The Board directed the Superintendent to begin identifying potential reductions under the two school preparation directive only recently, so the analysis is new.
Preliminary reductions based on a two school configuration and a move of grade 5 to the middle school have already been provided to the Board. Discussions are also underway with special education leadership about continuity of services and the staffing that must be preserved, including related service providers and building based staff such as nurses. The most reliable figure available for public use is a conservative floor based on classroom teacher reductions alone. An apples to apples comparison against prior budget presentations has also been prepared, but it is highly sensitive to assumptions and should not be treated as settled.
Expect firmer numbers once the cost estimator delivers a final estimate, targeted for early October 2026, and through the budget and warrant work that follows.
6Will we see a tax impact if we do not consolidate?
Yes. Regardless of consolidation, the cost of repairs and the continued operation of buildings that are far outside efficient use of resources will substantially change tax implications for the District.
How much is open to debate. Repair costs combine with rising contractual and operating costs, and the outcome depends on what the community approves at the annual meeting, on potential tax cap effects, on property tax resistance, and on the risk that some communities pursue withdrawal from the District in response to costs.
One figure from the record makes the tradeoff concrete. In July 2026 the Board was told that a critical needs only path would put roughly $7 million into two schools that voters could later choose to close.
See the July 7, 2026 minutes.
7When will we know how consolidation affects transportation?
Route analysis is scheduled for October 2026 with the District's transportation provider.
The question was put to the provider last year in a preliminary way, and the expected impact was judged minimal given the split transportation model already in use. The provider has since been focused on resolving current route issues and on hiring and training drivers. The plan now is to model the existing student population against the proposed route structure and use the provider's routing technology to produce a ride time comparison. If a substantial concern appears, the District will look at adding or altering routes and estimate the effect on the budget under the current contract.
All of this stays framed by past practice: two tiers, rides of no more than one hour, and safe stops rather than door to door service.
8What happens if residents file a petition to close a school?
Beginning October 8, 2026, HB 1374 allows a written petition signed by 20 or more legal voters to require the School Board to hold an open public meeting to vote on discontinuing a school. Notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least seven days before the meeting. Voting is by ballot using the checklist, after a reasonable opportunity for public comment. If a majority of those present and voting favor discontinuance, the school closes no later than one day before the start of the following school year, unless its operation is preserved through the law's municipal preservation option. A separate ballot is required for each school.
This pathway is faster than the District's planning timeline, which is why the Board has kept a petition contingency item on every agenda and asked for an emergency consolidation plan alongside the planned implementation plan.
HB 1374, Chapter 303, final text. Note that some earlier District discussion referenced 25 signatures. The enacted law requires 20 or more legal voters.
Take part in the process
Every decision ahead happens in a public meeting with time for public comment. Meeting agendas and minutes are posted on the District website, and Board meetings are held at 165 Main Street in New London unless otherwise noticed.
- Attend a Board meeting and speak during public comment.
- Read the minutes and the source documents linked on this page.
- Contact the SAU office with a question, or request a record under RSA 91-A.