Is the Concord School District Considering Seizing Commercial Property From The Merrimack Valley District And Making The Property Tax Exempt

For those of you who missed Allan's piece here it is:

As reported on June 5th, in the Concord Monitor, from the Concord School District business 
administrator “…district business administrator Jack Dunn said a third option could be the 
Monitor’s current site off Sewalls Falls Road. Dunn said the District has looked at the site, 
saying, “When 100 acres are for sale in Concord, you take a look at it.””

The first question to ask, does Dunn realize that the Concord Monitor property is in the Merrimack 
Valley School District?

Two - Would he suggest that the Concord Monitor property be moved into the CSD?

Three - What would those who live and pay their property taxes to the MVSD think about losing the 
property taxes from a site assessed at $4.08 million?

Of the $33.60 per thousand in property taxes paid by those living in the
MVSD, $18.93 are directed to the MVSD. That would mean a loss of of over
$77,000 for the MVSD. And that doesn’t take into account future tax revenues from additional 
development on the over 100 acres of industrially zoned property the Concord Monitor owns.

So just what the city and Penacook needs, another tax generating parcel taken off the tax role. It 
isn’t as if the CSD doesn’t have enough property in the CSD to build a new middle school.

Broken Ground and Mill Brook Schools are sited on 35 acres and the district owns an additional 59 
acres abutting the two schools with access from Curtisville Road. And yet they would consider 
buying additional property outside their current district boundaries and take needed revenues away 
from the MVSD.

41% of the taxes generated for those living in the CSD come from commercial assessments, while 
commercial assessments in the MVSD makeup less than 25%.  The city council would have you believe that the reason Penacook’s taxes are so high is because of MVSD. But don’t the policies the city council and planning board approve impact school district costs.

When the city buys the old Tannery site that is zoned for commercial uses and sells it to a 
developer of low income residential apartments, is that the school districts fault?

When the planning board recommends and the city council approves zoning changes that allows CATCH 
to maximize the number of units to be built on Village Road, is that the school districts fault?

When the city administration is unwilling to take into account the impact new residential 
development without additional commercial development has on the MVSD, is that the fault of the 
school district?

When the city administration creates tif districts and uses not only the city portion of the tax 
rate to pay off bonds but also sequesters the school portion of those new taxes and diverts those 
funds from the school district for 20 years, is that the fault of the MVSD?

With tax exempt properties approaching 30% in Concord, nearly twice as high as the next nearest 
community in the State should the CSD be considering taking another 100 acres off the city’s tax 
roles?

And let’s not forget the State’s complicity in all this. While a bill was introduced this 
legislative session to restore partial funding from the state for retirement costs, that bill is 
currently retained in committee.

The Concord School District refuses to cough up $75,000 for a school resource officer at RMS. A 
position that would reduce the need for the Concord Police Department to pull their SRO from CHS. A 
position that would reduce the need to pull patrol and other officers from their assigned duties, 
making our community less safe while attending to the Middle School. But they are willing to 
consider a purchase with an asking price of $6.5 million.

If the CSD is unwilling or unable to spend $75,000 for the safety of their students and staff, why 
would the CSD feel it is okay to take more than
$77,000 from the MVSD.

​Allan Heschlag  Ward 2 ​