Bert Cooper lives in Concord.

In 1574, citizens of a Dutch city, as reward for holding off the Spanish, were offered the choice of a university or several years without taxes. They chose the university. Like those Dutch citizens, we in Concord value education.

Reviewing the Sept. 9 school board meeting, I watched earnest parents and former school board members, speaking in opposition to amendments I helped draft, expressing opinions similar to mine in 2022, before I started attending the middle school project meetings. Back then, I felt certain that the board, addressing a project affecting the next sixty years of Concord families and taxpayers, had dutifully considered all critical issues.

That certainty eroded upon learning the board wanted to co-locate the new school with a new YMCA, and prepared designs. Collaboration added complexity and delay to the middle school project, and significant financial risk. The YMCA pulled out, in part because the school board floated two project locations. In spring 2022, after five years of presenting designs for rebuilding at Rundlett, the board decided it “needed” to buy land on Clinton Street. The district stated it had evaluated many locations, including Broken Ground, and the two best locations were the CenterPoint Clinton Street property and the existing Rundlett parcel. Initiation on the Rundlett project was delayed so that they could pursue the Clinton Street property (where walkability was touted as one of its advantages), creating more complexity and delay, both with the purchase and with the state regarding sidewalks and traffic.

At the July 1, 2022 deadline, the district filed a State Building Aid Application for a middle school at either Rundlett or Clinton Street (site location being required).

When CenterPoint Church rejected the sale, the board again chose complexity and delay, seeking a site other than Rundlett, despite multiple designs already prepared for Rundlett.

Their reasons included “expansion space,” cost, and “equity for the East Side.” Prior building designs at the Rundlett site anticipated 1,050 students, versus current BG plans for 900. The Davis Demographics student population and distribution study, last updated in 2019, stated that it should be updated with current information. No update was done. Instead, the architects added estimated students from planned construction to an uncorrected 2019 estimate from Davis to arrive at 900 students, yet Davis estimated 830 students for Rundlett this year, versus actual attendance of 780.

The board does not know how many students live within the 1.5 mile walking distance of Rundlett, nor the corresponding number for BG students living within 1.5 miles but north of I-393 (a barrier). The district has not shared these numbers with the public or the board. The number of families eligible for free and reduced lunch within those 1.5 mile walkable areas may be much larger near Rundlett. Would it matter that they benefit the most affluent students in Concord (BG Census Tract) to the detriment of a larger group of financially-strapped families within walking distance of Rundlett? The board ignored a million dollar expense for buses to service BG versus Rundlett.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Study says New Hampshire’s ‘civic health’ is declining as we get more isolated and suspicious

Construction begins on commercial portions of Manchester Street development

Thousands scramble for health coverage as Medicare Advantage firms leave N.H.

Federal judge rules Bow parent can attend school games after protesting transgender athletes

High schools: Concord football beats previously undefeated Manchester Memorial, MV volleyball wins first set in program history, plus more results from Thursday

Legislators override 2 vetoes, three others clear House but not Senate

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

The board never obtained proper traffic studies recommended by their own traffic consultants (VHB) before choosing BG. The board ignored the testimony of residents personally aware of existing traffic problems at BG. The board had no solid, factual basis on which to determine necessary traffic and pedestrian infrastructure, and the related construction timing, cost, and complexity. You can’t do a cost comparison when you don’t know the true cost of infrastructure improvements (including traffic) at BG.

The related issue is that the board can’t be sure it will be able to commence and complete work at BG as quickly as it could at Rundlett. It promises BG could open sooner than Rundlett, without actually knowing what infrastructure will be necessary, the timing, nor whether trying to simultaneously complete water and sewer improvements, traffic and sidewalk improvements, and accommodate construction traffic, all on the same small roads, will be quick and delay-free.

While the board may downsize the building to cover a $17 million shortfall in State Building Aid, the current school design could be tweaked to fit Rundlett by architects who have worked with the Rundlett site since 2017.

The board claims, despite contrary state comments, that the approved State Building Aid Application for the Rundlett location might be lost if the board has to build at Rundlett! A board member worried an emergency requiring a temporary relocation of the school might be prevented by the amendment, yet courts often deal with emergency circumstances, and would not prevent a temporary move to keep school in session. Siting a school, or selling school land, are “generational decisions” that shouldn’t be forced through at the last minute at a special lame duck school board session in December, after school board elections.

Threatening “litigation delays” if the charter amendments pass, the board demonstrates they prefer to litigate and delay instead of accepting the guidance of a majority of the voters.

School board members shouldn’t mislead the public by claiming that public ratification of a once-in-a-lifetime decision is the same as depriving the board of its fiscal autonomy or general operational powers.