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 October 26, 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
October 22: a three-school planning goal
The Board voted 5–1 by roll call to revise its long-term consolidation planning goal to a three-school elementary configuration, keeping Simonds open and preparing for Sutton's potential planned closure in 2028 through the Articles of Agreement voting process. A separate motion to cease planning for Simonds' closure through that process in 2028 carried 6–0.
Neither vote changed the Superintendent's direction to prepare for emergency closure of either Sutton or Simonds under HB 1374. The planned 2028 pathway is separate from any affirmative HB 1374 petition vote. The Board also discussed warrant articles and is still awaiting information from Bond Counsel.
District administration update, October 23, 2026. See the new timeline entry. Earlier explanations below are retained as historical planning context, not the current two-school goal.
The short version
Historical September 3 direction. The planned consolidation goal was revised October 22, as noted above.
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
Historical rationale for the September 3 goal, retained for context. The October 22 three-school planning direction supersedes that planned 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 initially directs that options be considered on September 24, with the Business Administrator drafting bond language. The projected bond discussion is subsequently deferred to October, as noted below. 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.
-
Bond discussion deferred to October
The projected bond discussion did not occur at the September 24 meeting. It was deferred to October to allow time to review repair-cost information provided by Lavallee Brensinger Architects. At that point, a specific October discussion date had not been confirmed. The October 1 committee review and October 8 Board consideration are noted below.
District administration update, September 25, 2026.
-
Facilities A recommends rejecting the Bradford addition and preparing one bond
Historical status as reported October 2. See the October 8 entries below for subsequent Board action.
The Facilities A Committee reviews the proposed Bradford addition budget and district-wide critical-needs repair costs. It decides to recommend that the Board reject the Bradford addition as proposed and prepare a single bond with contingency language to account for the impact of potential consolidation.
The full estimator report records all critical-needs repairs identified by Lavallee Brensinger Architects; it is not the District's prioritized repair list. The separate prioritized list identifies the highest-priority repairs for immediate bond consideration. Remaining items from the full report will form the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) moving forward.
The Board is scheduled to hear the recommendations at its next meeting on October 8, 2026. These are committee recommendations, not Board approvals of a project, bond, or final bond language. The three supporting documents are available in the library.
October 1 Facilities Committee agenda lists review of estimator figures. Committee outcomes and October 8 Board consideration: District administration update, October 2, 2026.
-
Sutton petition received; Board schedules December 5 Special Hearing
The District receives an HB 1374 petition seeking a District vote on the closure of Sutton Elementary, identified in the petition as Sutton Central School. District administration reports that the petition was validated and determined to be legally sound.
At its October 8 meeting, the Board votes 5–4 to schedule a Special Hearing for Saturday, December 5, 2026, for District voters to vote on the petition. The date is intended to remain within the 60-day timeframe advised by District legal counsel. The 5–4 vote schedules the hearing; it is not a vote to close the school.
The hearing's time and location are not yet provided here. Those details will be added when confirmed.
Receipt: October 8 petition and receipt. Validation, legal status, counsel's timeframe advice, and Board action: District administration update, October 9, 2026. The receipt itself acknowledges delivery only, not legal validity; this summary does not treat the receipt as validation or as Board minutes.
Meeting record now available: October 8, 2026 unapproved minutes. These record the December 5 scheduling motion as 5–4–0 and describe signature validation as underway at the meeting; the later validation status above is attributed separately to District administration.
-
Board sets a repair-focused direction and continues bond review
The Board discusses bond options for critical-needs costs following the October 1 and October 8 Facilities A Committee meetings. It agrees not to pursue the approximately $22 million Bradford addition and to reconsider closing Simonds Elementary, instead investing in critical-needs repairs.
The Board will continue working with Bond Counsel to determine the impact of a $59 million bond over 20 years, as well as a $35 million bond. A term for the $35 million alternative has not been specified in this update. These remain options under review, not approved borrowing or final tax-impact estimates.
The eventual bond decision is significantly tied to the results of the HB 1300 tax-cap vote. No result of that vote is reported here. The full estimator report, prioritized repair list, and Bradford proposal remain available as part of the planning record.
District administration update, October 9, 2026, describing the October 8 Board discussion and direction. Official minutes govern the formal record.
Read the October 8 unapproved minutes for the detailed bond discussion, including differing financing-term assumptions. The earlier summary is retained; discussed amounts and terms are not adopted borrowing terms.
-
Board revises planned consolidation; HB 1374 emergency planning remains unchanged
The Board reviews the Superintendent's existing preparation directives related to the legally received Sutton closure petition and the vote scheduled on that petition. It also revisits the September 3 direction to prepare for a two-school elementary configuration through potential community votes on Sutton and Simonds under the Articles of Agreement.
- Revise the long-term operating goal to a planned three-school elementary configuration: Keep Simonds open and prepare for Sutton's potential planned closure in 2028, subject to the Articles of Agreement voting process. The roll-call vote is 5–1; the motion carries.
- Cease planning for Simonds' planned closure under the Articles of Agreement in 2028: Direct the Superintendent to stop that planned-closure preparation. The vote is 6–0; the motion carries.
These are planning directives, not votes to close a school. Sutton's potential planned 2028 closure would be determined through the Articles of Agreement voting process, not by an affirmative closure vote on an HB 1374 petition.
Neither motion changes the Superintendent's directive to prepare for emergency closure of either Sutton or Simonds under HB 1374. That separate contingency planning remains in place; the October 22 votes do not establish a petition-vote outcome or authorize a closure.
The Board also discusses warrant articles and notes that it is still awaiting information from Bond Counsel. No final bond or warrant-article outcome is reported in this update.
District administration update, October 23, 2026, describing the October 22 Board meeting. Motion summaries are not verbatim minutes; official minutes govern the formal record.
Looking ahead
Milestones from here to the deliberative session
Current direction following October 22
The planned long-term goal is now a three-school elementary configuration. The 5–1 roll-call vote keeps Simonds in that plan and directs preparation for Sutton's potential closure in 2028 through the Articles of Agreement voting process. The separate 6–0 vote ends planned Simonds closure preparations under that process in 2028.
HB 1374 emergency planning is unchanged for either school. The previously scheduled December 5 Sutton petition hearing remains a separate process; neither October 22 motion changes that directive or reports a closure-vote result. Warrant-article work continues while the Board awaits Bond Counsel information.
District administration update, October 23, 2026. Earlier snapshots and milestones remain below to preserve the decision history; the October 22 direction controls the current planned consolidation summary.
Historical snapshot: status reported following October 8, retained below.
Current status following October 8: The Board has scheduled the Sutton petition Special Hearing for Saturday, December 5, 2026, by a 5–4 vote. It will not pursue the approximately $22 million Bradford addition, will reconsider closing Simonds in favor of critical-needs repairs, and will continue reviewing the $59 million / 20-year and $35 million bond alternatives with Bond Counsel. Bond decisions remain tied to the HB 1300 tax-cap vote.
Earlier planning language is retained below for transparency. Where an earlier “scheduled” or “pending” status differs from the October 8 update, read it as the status at that earlier date, not as the current position.
Previous planning snapshot, October 2, 2026:
Following the October 1 Facilities A review, the committee's recommendations will be heard by the Board on October 8, 2026. The committee recommends rejecting the Bradford addition as proposed and preparing one bond with contingency language addressing potential consolidation. Board action is still pending. Dates and status reflect the cited records and District administration updates; items marked expected follow the normal annual budget cycle.
| When | Milestone | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Sept 24, 2026 | Projected bond discussion did not occur; time is needed to review repair-cost information provided by Lavallee Brensinger Architects | Deferred to October |
| Oct 1, 2026 | Facilities A reviews estimator information and recommends rejecting the Bradford addition as proposed and preparing a single bond with consolidation contingency language | Committee review completed |
| Oct 8, 2026 Earlier planning entry | Board hears the Facilities A recommendations at its next meeting; HB 1374 also takes effect statewide | Scheduled; Board action pending Historical status; see outcomes below |
| Oct 8, 2026 Reported outcomes | Sutton petition received and validated; Board votes 5–4 to schedule the December 5 Special Hearing. Board declines the Bradford addition and reconsiders Simonds closure in favor of critical-needs repairs | Board direction reported |
| Following Oct 8, 2026 | Bond Counsel review of a $59 million bond over 20 years and a $35 million alternative; bond outcome significantly tied to the HB 1300 tax-cap vote | Options under review |
| Oct 22, 2026 | Revise long-term planned consolidation to a three-school elementary configuration, retaining Simonds and preparing for Sutton's potential 2028 closure through the Articles of Agreement | Carried 5–1, roll call |
| Oct 22, 2026 | Direct the Superintendent to cease planning for Simonds' planned closure through the Articles of Agreement voting process in 2028 | Carried 6–0 |
| Following Oct 22, 2026 | Continue preparation for potential emergency closure of either Sutton or Simonds under HB 1374, separate from the planned 2028 Articles of Agreement pathway | Directive unchanged |
| Following Oct 22, 2026 | Continue warrant-article discussions while awaiting information from Bond Counsel | Counsel information pending |
| October 2026 onward | Highest-priority repairs proceed for immediate bond consideration; remaining items in the full estimator report form the CIP plan moving forward | Planning direction; not bond approval |
| Oct to Nov 2026 | Budget and warrant development with the Board and the Municipal Budget Committee | Expected |
| Saturday, Dec 5, 2026 | Special Hearing for District voters to vote on the Sutton school-closure petition, scheduled within the 60-day timeframe advised by District legal counsel. Separate from the annual budget hearing | Date set by Board Time and location to be confirmed |
| 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 |
| 2028 planned pathway | Prepare for Sutton's potential planned closure only through the Articles of Agreement voting process. Retain Simonds in the three-school plan. This is not the outcome or timetable of an HB 1374 petition vote | Subject to voter process Not closure authorization |
| Before any closure | A separate Board vote authorizing closure, and the applicable voter process | Required |
October 8 outcomes and December 5 scheduling: District administration update, October 9, 2026. See the petition timeline entry and bond discussion entry for scope and source qualifications. The earlier general closure-process row is retained as historical planning language, not as a new legal determination about the petition process.
Sources: September 10, 2026 minutes, September 17, 2026 agenda, October 1, 2026 Facilities Committee agenda, August 28, 2025 minutes, and HB 1374, Chapter 303. The September deferral and October committee recommendations reflect District administration updates dated September 25 and October 2, 2026, respectively; the October agenda is not a record of meeting outcomes.
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.
Updated October 26: FY2027 apportionment, with 2025 local tax bases.
The calculator now uses the town allocation shares and local tax assessments in the NH DOE FY2027 apportionment worksheet dated October 15, 2026, supplied to the District. Total local assessment is $40,226,795. The worksheet does not provide updated local taxable assessed values, so the existing 2025 DRA tax bases are retained. This remains a planning estimate, not a final 2026–27 tax-bill forecast.
Previous calculator notice, retained for the record
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 October 2026 FY2027 worksheet, page 2 allocates current expenses using 60% ADM and 40% equalized valuation. Its inputs are 2024–25 ADM, as reported October 1, 2025, and 2024 equalized valuations. This model uses the detailed “Combined % for Current Exp” values, not the rounded six-decimal “Rate” values.
The worksheet reconciles $57,620,685 budget less $7,136,138 local revenues and credits to $50,484,547 to apportion. Subtracting $7,011,630 state education tax and $3,246,122 equitable education grants yields $40,226,795 local tax assessment. Those funding components are not additional savings. The supplied copy is dated October 15, has signatures dated October 15–16, and leaves the DRA Assistant Director review line blank; it is not presented here as a final certified tax-rate calculation.
The 2025 DRA workbook still supplies the local assessed tax bases. The new worksheet's equalized valuations allocate costs between towns; they must not replace the assessed-value denominators used for a property's estimated tax reduction.
| Town | FY2027 allocation share | FY2027 local assessment | 2025 local assessed tax base |
|---|---|---|---|
| District total | 100.00000% | $40,226,795 | See town figures above |
- 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 detailed worksheet shares sum to 100%. The code divides each by their sum to avoid floating-point drift. Aid, other revenues, allocation shares, and local tax bases are held constant; shares are not calculated from each town's net assessment. The local assessments set the input ceiling so that no modeled remaining town assessment becomes negative. The revised ceiling is $39,069,113, limited by Bradford; it is a mathematical boundary, not a proposed or feasible savings amount.
The small changes in allocation shares have very little effect on ordinary savings examples; changes in the baseline assessments must not be interpreted as consolidation savings. This is a full-year, all-else-equal scenario, not a bill, refund, approved budget reduction, or forecast of when savings would occur. State education property tax, municipal and county taxes, revaluation, tax credits, and individual billing schedules are not modeled. Updated local assessed values are still needed before communicating final property-tax impacts.
Historical baseline and method: annual-report estimates used before October 26
Historical only, not the inputs used in the calculator above. The earlier source explanations and figures are retained below. The prior local assessment estimate totaled $41,635,281; the October worksheet replaces that estimate with $40,226,795, a decrease of $1,408,486. This source-to-source change is not an estimate of consolidation savings.
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 | Earlier estimated local assessment |
|---|
- 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
- Word · DOCXNew Hampshire Grades 5 to 8 Middle Schools: Directory and Curricular InventoryDirectory covering school locations, SAUs, enrollment by grade, and Unified Arts, specials, and electives. Original document preserved as supplied. Download the Word file.
- PDF · 17 pagesRural School Closures and Related Data on ConsolidationEnrollment trends, New Hampshire case studies, and research on property values, tax rates, and local business activity. Opens in a new tab.
- 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.
Hanover Research studies
- PDF · 29 pages · September 2026Hanover Research: Operational Planning AnalysisQuantitative analysis prepared for Kearsarge Regional School District covering enrollment, staffing, student services, facilities, and resource allocation. Includes methodology, descriptive analysis, and building-level appendix tables. Original report preserved as supplied. Opens in a new tab.
- PDF · 57 pages · September 2026Hanover Research: Community Engagement Survey AnalysisCommunity survey results prepared for Kearsarge Regional School District, examining family, staff, and community perspectives on educational opportunities, school identity, equity, communication, and potential consolidation. Includes methodology, recommendations, key findings, and charts. Original report preserved as supplied. Opens in a new tab.
Facilities review and Critical Needs
October 8 Board update: The Board agreed not to pursue the approximately $22 million Bradford addition. It is reviewing critical-needs bond alternatives with Bond Counsel. The proposal and earlier descriptions below are preserved as historical records; references to October 8 being “scheduled” reflect the earlier October 2 status, not a still-pending meeting.
Read these documents together: the full estimator report is the complete inventory of identified critical-needs repairs, not the District's prioritized repair list or an approved bond scope. The prioritized list identifies the highest-priority repairs for immediate bond consideration; the remaining full-report items will become the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Bradford addition is a separate proposal that Facilities A recommends rejecting as proposed, with Board consideration scheduled for October 8, 2026.
- PDF · 31 pages · Bond considerationPrioritized Facilities Critical NeedsHighest-priority repairs selected from the full estimator report for immediate bond consideration. Remaining full-report items will form the CIP plan. Not an approved bond. Opens in a new tab.
- PDF · 182 pages · Complete inventoryFull Estimator Report: District-Wide Critical NeedsCompleted cost report for all critical-needs repairs identified by Lavallee Brensinger Architects, dated September 30, 2026. This is the full record reviewed for prioritization, not the District's prioritized repair list or an approved bond scope. Opens in a new tab.
- PDF · 1 page · Draft proposalBradford School Draft Addition and Renovation BudgetLVB's proposed addition and renovation budget, dated September 23, 2026 and reviewed by Facilities A on October 1. The committee recommends that the Board not approve the addition as proposed. Board consideration is scheduled for October 8. Opens in a new tab.
- 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
- PDF · Unapproved minutesOctober 8, 2026, unapproved minutesDistrict-posted record of the Sutton petition hearing-date vote and facilities bond discussion. Marked unapproved and subject to Board approval or amendment. Opens in a new tab.
- 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 the original September 24 planning direction. The projected bond discussion was later deferred to October.
- 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.
- Bond language pendingFinal cost estimate and draft bond languageThe completed full estimator report and prioritized repair list are now available above. Draft bond language remains pending; the committee's single-bond recommendation goes to the Board on October 8, 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.
Watch the discussion
School Board meeting videos
Watch the District's meeting recordings for the discussion behind the timeline. Choose a meeting by date in the Kearsarge Regional School District School Board Meetings playlist, then read the corresponding minutes alongside the recording.
Kearsarge Regional School District School Board Meetings
The District playlist includes the October 8 and October 22, 2026 meetings. Use the playlist to select a recording; availability and titles are maintained on the District's YouTube channel.
Links open in a new tab. No video loads or plays automatically on this page. The October 8 minutes are currently marked unapproved; the District's agendas and minutes page is the reference for posted meeting records.
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.
Latest planning update, October 22: The Board has revised the planned configuration to three schools and ceased planned Simonds closure preparations for 2028 under the Articles of Agreement. HB 1374 emergency planning remains unchanged for either school. Read the October 22 votes and distinctions alongside the historical answers below.
October 9 update: The answers below are retained from the earlier planning record. For subsequent Board direction, including the December 5 Sutton petition Special Hearing, Bradford addition decision, reconsideration of Simonds closure, and bond alternatives, see the October 8 timeline entries. Earlier references to October 8 as an upcoming meeting are historical.
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. Following the September 24 deferral, Facilities A reviewed the cost information on October 1 and recommended rejecting the Bradford addition as proposed and preparing a single bond with contingency language addressing potential consolidation. The Board will hear those recommendations on October 8, 2026; no Board approval is implied. The full estimator report and prioritized repair list are now in the document library. Budget and warrant development continues in the fall, followed by 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.
Earlier planning dates come from the September 10, 2026 minutes and the September 17, 2026 agenda. See the October 1 Facilities Committee agenda for the estimator-review item. Committee outcomes and the October 8 Board hearing of recommendations reflect the District administration's October 2, 2026 update.
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.
The completed full estimator report and prioritized critical-needs list are now available in the document library. Neither is a final tax-impact forecast. Firmer tax-impact figures depend on the Board's review of the committee recommendations, the scope and financing of any proposed bond, and 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.
9How many New Hampshire middle schools use the grades 5–8 model, and how do they compare with Kearsarge's proposed model?
The District-provided New Hampshire Middle Schools Directory and Curricular Inventory identifies 29 public schools or programs serving grades 5–8, using a stated 2024–25 data basis. Its list includes traditional district and regional middle schools, charter middle-school divisions, and a specialized alternative program. It is a reference group, not 29 identical comparisons to Kearsarge.
Kearsarge's working proposal shares the grades 5–8 span and access to specialist-led programs described in the directory, while retaining an elementary-style structure for Grade 5. The comparison is about how the program would serve students, not simply where fifth graders would attend school.
- Grade 5 transition: Kearsarge's planning approach preserves more self-contained core instruction and fewer classroom transitions for fifth graders, rather than placing them into the same departmentalized day as older students.
- Unified Arts and electives: The directory describes offerings such as art, music, physical education, technology, computer science, and family and consumer sciences. Kearsarge's proposal would organize access to its specialist teachers across all four grades.
- World languages: The directory describes both introductory language rotations in the younger grades and more sustained study in later grades. Kearsarge's planning explores language opportunities beginning in Grade 5, with the sequence and staffing still to be finalized.
- Student support: Kearsarge's draft design includes protected WIN (“What I Need”)/Advisory time, staggered so specialists can support different grade levels.
The directory offers examples of how other schools organize this grade span; it does not establish that the grade span alone produces better outcomes or guarantees savings. Kearsarge's final schedule, staffing, course access, and transition supports remain implementation decisions to be developed and reviewed.
Read the full middle-school directory and curricular inventory (Word download). Statewide descriptions above are attributed to that document; the Kearsarge comparison reflects the working program-design proposal, not a final approved schedule. The broader planning direction is recorded in the August 6, 2026 approved Board minutes.
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.