Special Meeting of the Board of Aldermen: Harriman Facility Study Presentation – June 5, 2026

The Board of Aldermen held a special meeting on Thursday, June 4, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber (adjourned at 9:08 p.m.). The sole agenda item was a presentation by Harriman on the citywide school facilities master plan. After a motion and roll call vote, a public comment period was added at the end of the meeting. The presentation included data on declining enrollment, building conditions, repair costs, and five long‑term options. No votes were taken on the study itself.

Roll Call and Opening

• 11 aldermen were present, establishing a quorum. Mayor Jim Donchis and Corporation Counsel Steve Bolton also attended.
• The prayer was offered by Alderman Tebow; the pledge was led by Alderman Senate.

Consent Calendar

• None.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jen Bishop (Board of Education President) urged alignment between the Board of Education and Board of Aldermen, stressing that the school board cannot finalize a plan without understanding the aldermen’s budget priorities.
• Mather Raymond (Board of Education Clerk) provided enrollment data: Nashua public schools have ~9,500 students, down from 13,000 fifteen years ago; 6,000 charter students statewide (~1,000 from Nashua); ~2,900 private‑school students from Nashua, with 600 receiving vouchers costing $2.2 million annually. He noted that declining birth rates, not charter schools, are the primary driver of enrollment loss.
• Rob Johnson (Board of Education member) expressed concern that closing schools would lower property values and leave vacant buildings for extended periods (e.g., Elm Street). He advocated for more options in the study.
• Megan Lampier (Board of Education member) emphasized that children’s needs should come first; she cautioned that busing costs could offset savings from school closures.
• Sandor Salvi (Board of Education member) stressed the need to invest in public schools to compete with charter schools and to increase enrollment to lower per‑pupil costs.
• Chesley Marvin (resident, 10 Mary Lane) opposed school closures, arguing that neighborhood schools and outdoor play are more important than technology. He called for a clear vision of what the city gives back to communities when it takes away a school.
• Unnamed resident (22 Mary Lane) advocated for New Searles Elementary, noting that the repair‑cost data did not account for a recent $1.8 million security vestibule investment, which would lower New Searles’ repair cost from $8.3 million to ~$6.5 million ($114/sq.ft.). He argued this data discrepancy inappropriately placed New Searles on the closure list.

Discussion Items

A. Motion to Add Public Comment

• Alderman Sullivan moved to add a public comment period at the end of the meeting. Some aldermen opposed, arguing the meeting was only a presentation and that public comment should be directed to the Board of Education, which will make the decision. Others noted that not all wards were notified in advance. The motion passed 7–4 (Aldermen Ravan, Sullivan, Senate, Johnson, Morgan, Lopez, Wilshire voted yes; Smith, Tebow, O’Brien, Dowd, Kelly voted no).

B. Harriman Facility Study Presentation (Lisa and Jamie Willet, Harriman)

• Enrollment & Demographics: Nashua’s school enrollment is declining. The 2025‑26 K‑12 enrollment was 9,526; projected drop of 680 students (10.6%) over the next three years. The highest projected enrollment (8,876) is in 2026‑27, after which continued decline is expected. Elementary schools are 78% utilized (4,224 capacity vs. projected 4,185 high); middle schools 80% utilized; high schools near capacity (99%).
• Facility Conditions: A comprehensive assessment of all schools identified $144.8 million in repair costs over 10 years (in today’s dollars). Critical repairs are concentrated at Amherst and Mount Pleasant (highest totals); Bicentennial, Charlotte, Fairgrounds, Ledge Street, and New Searles also showed higher costs. Cost per square foot was used to normalize comparisons.
• Energy Use: Most schools have Energy Use Intensity (EUI) above a new‑construction benchmark of 25–30. Charlotte, New Searles, and the administration building have the highest EUI. Data may not yet reflect recent energy‑efficiency upgrades (e.g., solar panels at McCarthy and Pennichuck).
• Educational Visioning: Workshops with 40+ stakeholders identified priorities: hands‑on/project‑based learning, flexible classrooms, safety, special‑education spaces, and community use. The educational specification will guide future design.
• Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): The current CIP allocates $2 million/year for repairs, yielding only $20.1 million over 10–12 years—far below the $144.8 million total need.
• Options Presented (Elementary Schools):
  • Option A: Keep all 12 schools open; perform repairs and program updates. Estimated cost: $176–257 million (includes ~$114 million for elementary work plus $62 million for middle/high schools).
  • Option B: Close Mount Pleasant and New Searles; redistribute students. Cost: $175–218 million.
  • Option C: Close Amherst and Mount Pleasant; build one new northern school. Cost: $211–284 million.
  • Option D: Close Amherst, Bicentennial, Mount Pleasant, and New Searles; build one northern and one southern school. Cost: $297–324 million.
  • Option E: Close Amherst, Charlotte, Fairgrounds, Ledge Street, and Mount Pleasant; build two new schools (northern + central). Cost: $276–313 million.
  • All options assume $62 million for middle/high school repairs; high‑school programmatic needs not yet fully assessed.
• Cost Savings from Closures: Roughly $1.6–1.0 million per year per closed school (operational savings), but new construction and busing costs are not fully accounted for in these figures.

C. Aldermanic Questions and Discussion

• Alderman O’Brien asked about state bus‑ride duration limits, noting that longer busing could offset savings. Harriman acknowledged this is not yet studied.
• Alderman Kelly clarified that the cost estimates for Option A cover 10 years of needed repairs, not ongoing lifecycle costs.
• Alderman Morgan requested data on charter/private school enrollment trends and their impact on public school projections; Harriman said that was outside their scope.
• Alderman Johnson compared the new study to a past redistricting study (by Mr. Preston) that had similar enrollment projections. He raised concern about preserving neighborhood schools but acknowledged some closures may be necessary. He also asked about “open concept” schools (Sunset still has open classrooms).
• Alderman Lopez urged Harriman to consider citywide impacts (transportation costs) in future narrowing of options. He also asked about Harriman’s experience with new vs. renovation projects; they reported a 50‑50 split, noting new buildings “reset the clock” on maintenance.
• Alderman Sullivan praised the objective data. He noted that the age‑of‑facilities slide had caused confusion (Birch Hill’s recent renovation should show a dot at zero years; Harriman clarified that dots represent the age of each renovation, not the original building).
• Alderman Dowd pointed out that the condition data for Nashua High School South should reset to the same timeline as North because the building was essentially rebuilt. He also noted that New Searles recently received significant upgrades (fire alarm, power distribution, partial renovations) that should be reflected in the cost analysis. He raised the concern that closed schools (like Elm Street) still cost the city until repurposed, which is not included in the savings estimates.
• Alderman Smith asked about technology costs and flexibility for future upgrades. Harriman said they plan for adaptable pathways and include current infrastructure costs, but cannot predict future technology. She also emphasized the need for special‑education spaces; Harriman confirmed each remaining school would have flexible special‑ed spaces as outlined in the educational specification.
• Alderman Morgan (follow‑up) reiterated the need for an appendix with external data (charter/private schools).
• Alderman Senate asked about the square footage of new builds; Harriman answered that new schools are designed for efficiency based on projected student numbers, typically 140–160 sq.ft. per elementary student.
• Alderman Marvin asked about feasibility ranking of options and inclusion of transition costs for students (e.g., busing, community disruption). Harriman said these factors have not yet been incorporated but will be considered in next steps.
• Alderman Kelly (second round) asked about modeling for state open‑enrollment legislation (tabled for 2026); Harriman said it is too uncertain to model.
• Alderman Tebow noted the upcoming decision belongs to the Board of Education, but expressed concern that closing multiple schools would leave vacant buildings for the aldermen to manage (e.g., Elm Street still empty after two years). He supported having public comment on the agenda for all future meetings.
• Alderman Dowd (final) corrected that Nashua High School South’s original building age should be reset because only one wall and staircases remain; Harriman agreed to update.
• Alderman Smith (final) stressed the need to plan for future renovations from day one and to use closed schools for trade training or other community needs.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to allow public comment passed 7–4. Public comment was held at the end of the meeting; speakers included Board of Education members and residents.
• Harriman Facility Study was presented; no vote was taken. The presentation is informational. Harriman will further narrow the options based on feedback and present a recommended long‑term option to the School Board. The Board of Education will make the final decision on facility changes.
• Aldermen requested that Harriman provide: (a) a clearer, more readable copy of the slides; (b) data on transportation impacts, bus ride times, and state standards; (c) an appendix with external enrollment factors (charter/private schools); and (d) updated cost data for New Searles and Nashua High South to reflect recent investments.
• Next Steps: The Board of Aldermen and Board of Education will continue joint discussions to align on budget priorities. The school board is expected to decide on a facility plan after considering community input and further analysis from Harriman.