As reported on June 5 in the Concord Monitor: “(Concord School 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 is, does Dunn realize that the Monitor property is in the Merrimack Valley School District?

Two, would he suggest that the Monitor property be moved into the Concord School District?

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 is directed to the MVSD. That would mean a loss of over $77,000 for the district. And that doesn’t take into account future tax revenues from additional development on the over 100 acres of industrially zoned property the Monitor owns.

So just what the city and Penacook need: another tax-generating parcel taken off the tax roll. It isn’t as if the Concord School District doesn’t have enough property in the district 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.

Forty-one percent of the taxes generated for those living in the CSD come from commercial assessments, while commercial assessments in the MVSD make up 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 district’s fault?

When the planning board recommends and the city council approves zoning changes that allow CATCH to maximize the number of units to be built on Village Road, is that the school district’s 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, should the CSD be considering taking another 100 acres off the city’s tax rolls?

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 Rundlett Middle School. A position that would reduce the need for the Concord Police Department to pull their resource officer from Concord High. 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 Herschlag is Concord’s city councilor for Ward 2.)