Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board explores flashing beacons as partial alternative to crossing guards at high‑traffic crosswalks

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members discussed installing push-button flashing beacons at high-traffic crossings where the district has struggled to recruit crossing guards, and directed staff to develop a formal proposal to present to the city’s traffic committee next month.

At the Feb. 3 meeting the Concord School District Board of Education discussed pursuing push-button flashing beacons at several high-traffic crossings as an alternative when the district cannot recruit crossing guards.

The board member who introduced the item told colleagues the district has struggled to recruit people for crossing-guard shifts and that flashing beacons could be a longer-term, lower-maintenance option. She said initial research indicated a payback or break-even period of about five years when comparing the capital cost of beacons to ongoing pay for crossing guards, and that similar installations exist in other New Hampshire communities.

Board members and staff identified priority locations for further study: Center Street (where the previous crossing guard recently retired), Beaver Meadow, McKee Square and the Abbot‑Downing area. The board member said she had discussed the idea with City Manager Tom Espel and that she would follow up to locate an existing city‑installed unit she had been told about.

Members pressed for additional detail before any formal decision. Several board members emphasized they did not want flashing beacons to become a permanent replacement for crossing guards where human presence provides safety and morning routines and requested a comparative cost analysis and total-cost estimate. Board members also asked staff to identify which crossings would require city approval or collaboration and whether partial approaches (a beacon plus a person at the busiest site) were feasible.

The board directed staff to bring a formal proposal next month so the board can consider a motion to forward a request to the city’s traffic committee and city council. That proposal should include the locations under consideration, estimated costs, break-even calculations and options for combined person-plus-beacon coverage.