At a February information meeting at Hooksett Memorial School, the Hooksett School Board and Facilities Subcommittee presented the details behind a proposed $7.25 million bond aimed at addressing priority infrastructure needs at Memorial, Cawley, and Underhill Schools.
The proposal is the result of several years of audits, public feedback, and revised planning. Officials emphasized that while the district’s schools are generally in “really good shape,” aging mechanical systems and deferred maintenance have led to increasing emergency repairs and rising costs.
Hooksett School Board Vice Chairman and Chairwoman of the Facilities Subcommittee Jillian Godbout summarized the situation bluntly when referring to how federal COVID relief funds were used in recent years: “We put out fires with the monies.”
Now, voters must decide whether to move forward with a long-term capital solution — or continue addressing issues as they arise.
The $7.25 million bond focuses primarily on Memorial School, where Priorities 1, 2, and 3 were selected for correction. At Cawley and Underhill, only Priority 1 items are included.
At Memorial, the plan includes:
• Full roof replacement (with improved sloping to drains)
• Replacement of all eight rooftop units
• Replacement of seven energy recovery ventilators
• Replacement of heating system boilers, pumps, and associated electrical
• Replacement of domestic hot water heaters
• Associated ducting, balancing, controls, and electrical work
At Cawley:
• Replacement of four rooftop units
• Replacement of a heating ventilator
• Replacement of split system air conditioning
• Associated electrical and controls
The existing glycol system at Cawley will remain in place. While not ideal, officials said a full replacement would be significantly more expensive and structurally uncertain.
At Underhill:
• Replacement of one rooftop unit with associated balancing, ducting, controls, and electrical
Officials acknowledged that Underhill, a 1950s-era building, will likely require a larger community discussion in the future due to ADA compliance issues, parking congestion, and building age.
The budget also includes a 5% contingency in case unforeseen conditions arise during construction.
Supporters argue that approval would:
Stabilize Aging Systems: Memorial has already lost multiple heat pumps in recent months. Boilers are estimated to have 5–10 years of life remaining, but replacement now may prevent larger emergency failures.
Reduce Emergency Spending: In recent years, repair budgets have been exceeded by tens of thousands of dollars annually, forcing administrators to pull funds from supplies and professional development.
Lower Financing Costs: A bond issued through the New Hampshire Municipal Bond Bank typically carries lower interest rates than lease financing.
Address Health and Safety: Roof drainage improvements, ventilation upgrades, and heating system replacements are framed as health and safety priorities.
Create Predictability: Rather than reacting to breakdowns, the district would operate under a structured capital improvement plan.
Opponents may argue that:
It Increases Taxes: Even a targeted bond adds to the tax burden during a time when residents are already facing rising costs.
It Does Not Solve Everything: The $7.25 million addresses selected priorities but does not cover the full $20 million identified in updated assessments.
Future Requests May Follow: Officials acknowledged that additional capital cycles may be necessary within five years for other systems nearing end-of-life.
Underhill Remains Largely Unaddressed: Larger structural and ADA concerns at Underhill are not part of this bond.
If voters approve the bond by the required two-thirds majority:
The district would seek bond issuance in July through the Municipal Bond Bank.
Final interest rates would be locked at that time.
Projects would go out to bid individually.
Work could begin within approximately one year.
Full implementation could take up to 18 months.
Supporters say passage would shift the district from emergency response mode to long-term infrastructure management.
If the bond does not receive two-thirds approval:
Emergency repairs will continue to be funded through annual operating budgets.
Repair lines may continue to be exceeded, requiring transfers from other educational accounts.
The maintenance trust fund will continue to be tapped.
Larger system failures could require future special warrant articles or another bond proposal.
Costs could increase as systems continue to age and inflation impacts materials and labor.
In short, the district would continue managing issues reactively rather than through a comprehensive capital plan.
While final figures depend on the interest rate secured in July, school officials have indicated that the estimated tax impact for a homeowner with a $500,000 assessed value would likely range between $80 and $120 per year, depending on final borrowing terms and bond duration.
That equates to roughly $7 to $10 per month for the average homeowner in that valuation range.
(Residents are encouraged to review the official warrant article and district tax impact statements for precise figures.)
“This is the right project at the right time,” Godbout told attendees.
Voters now face a choice: invest $7.25 million to address prioritized infrastructure needs and reduce emergency spending, or continue addressing system failures as they arise through annual budgets and future proposals.
The outcome will determine not only the condition of Hooksett’s school facilities in the near term — but also how the community chooses to balance long-term capital planning with tax sensitivity.
