| September 4, 2008 Meeting Minutes |
|
City Council Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, September 4, 2008
City Council Chambers
37 Green Street
7:00 p.m.
Mayor Bouley explained that Council is meeting this evening (on a non-typical Council meeting night) in order to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the City of Concord Charter that would add a new section entitled 34-a Limitation on Budget Increase. He indicated that the public hearing that Council will hold shortly fulfills Council’s legal obligations in accordance with RSA 49B allowing the proposed limitation on spending to be considered in November by voters within the city if so approved by the Attorney General’s Office, the Secretary of State and the Department of Revenue Administration.
Mayor Bouley explained that City Council met on August 25, 2008, (last Monday) at which time Council voted to set this item for a public hearing this evening. He noted that the action that was taken last week and the public hearing notice posted thereafter met the city’s legal obligations, again under RSA 49B, requiring notice of this hearing be posted seven days prior to holding it this evening.
Mayor Bouley provided a brief explanation of the five – three – one minute rule for public hearings.
4. September 4, 2008 Public Hearing
A. 34-a Limitation on Budget Increase
I. Limitation on budget increase.
Recognizing that final tax rates for the City of Concord are set by the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration pursuant to RSA 21 J:35, I, the City Council shall develop its annual budget proposals and shall act upon such proposals in accordance with the mandates of this section.
Override Provision. Budgetary restrictions described in any part of section 34-a may be overridden upon a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of all elected members of the City Council. Such override expires following adoption of the annual budget. Subsequent budgets or supplemental appropriations require additional two-thirds (2/3) override votes, or the limitations expressed in this section will apply.
In establishing a municipal budget, the City Council shall be allowed to assume an estimated property tax rate in an amount not to exceed the tax rate established during the prior fiscal year increased by a factor equal to the change in the National Consumer Price Index - Urban as published by the United States Department of Labor for the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the budget adoption.
II. Exception to budget increase limitation. Capital expenditures, and the total or any part of the principal and interest payments of any municipal bond, whether established for school or municipal purposes, may be excepted from being included in the expenditures that are subject to the prior limitation upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the City Council. The exception made under this section shall expire upon adoption of the budget for the next budget year, unless two-thirds (2/3) of all members of the City Council vote to renew the exception for the next budget year.
III. Budget limitation in a revaluation year. When the City Council accepts an increase in real estate values as the result of a city wide revaluation, the City Council shall adhere to a maximum increase in the real estate tax revenues as follows: The real estate taxes raised from the prior budget year shall be increased by a factor no more than the change in the National Consumer Price Index - Urban as published by the United States Department of Labor for the calendar year immediately preceding budget adoption, then this figure shall be used in establishing the new municipal budget.
IV. Budget limitation with annual changes in assessments. When annual changes in real estate values occur as a result of State of New Hampshire assessing requirements, the City Council shall adhere to a maximum increase in real estate tax revenues as follows: The real estate taxes raised from the prior year shall be increased by a factor of no more than the change in the National Consumer Price Index - Urban as published by the United States Department of Labor for the calendar year immediately preceding budget adoption, plus real estate taxes calculated by applying the prior year real estate tax rate to the net increase in new construction. “Net increase in new construction” is defined as the total dollar value of building permits less total dollar value of demolition permits issued for the period of April 1-March 31 preceding budget adoption.
V. Total Expenditures. Total expenditures for any given budget year shall not exceed the amount of funds reasonably calculated to be derived by the tax rate established herein, increased by the other revenues generated by the municipality.
Explanatory Note: This amendment places a cap on the level of City spending based on the National Consumer Price Index. Capital expenditures and debt expenditures are included in the cap. The cap may be overridden by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the City Council.
Action: Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Melissa Bernard, 20 Fayette Street, spoke in opposition to the revenue cap. She explained that what is special about Concord are the clean streets, well maintained parks and planned development that allows residents easy access to enjoy rural areas. She noted that she feels that funding for city services needs to be maintained so that people enjoy living in the city and will stay here. Ms. Bernard indicated that she has heard horror stories on communities needing to cut public services, including vital ones, in order to keep within the bounds of tax caps like the one being proposed. Referencing a document about Massachusetts from the Non-Partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, she read that in 1980 Massachusetts voters approved proposition 2 ½ which mandates that property tax revenues not exceed 2.5 percent of a communities’ assessed value and that a communities’ property tax revenue not grow by more than 2.5 percent a year. She stated that because proposition 2 ½ lowered property taxation in Massachusetts, advocates of limited taxation often cite it as a model for reform explaining that it is more complicated than this because state aid has helped fill in some of the gaps in local funding that the law created but not all of them and not reliably over time. Furthermore, she indicated that the local overspending that proponents claim that proposition 2 ½ could curb did not exist in the imagined quantities and necessary public services have been jeopardized and across Massachusetts, a number of communities have been forced to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees and have also closed fire stations, shut libraries, senior centers and recreation centers or sharply reduced their hours. She stressed that one town had to turn off their street lights to save money and pointed out that this is something that Franklin, NH recently had to do, one of the few existing tax cap towns in the state. Ms. Bernard indicated that the organizers say that there is a safety measure in case the Council needs to override the cap to keep something in the budget but when those same organizers promise to slam public officials with ads it makes it much harder for Councilors to do what is right. She highlighted some occurrences that happened in some communities within Massachusetts: Chelmsford – after an override failed in April 2008 the town was expected to close an elementary school and fire station and lay off four firefighters, two police officers and fourteen teachers; Bridgewater – severely cut its library budget after an override failed in the fall of 2007 reducing its hours of operation from fifty two to fifteen hours per week; Tyngsboro – after a series of overrides failed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 town employees received a ten percent pay cut and a ten percent reduction in their working hours, eliminated two police officer positions, cut the highway department budget and depleted its reserve funds; Saugus – closed its library after an override failed in 2007. She listed several other communities in which there were failed overrides. According to the center, she stated that these examples vividly demonstrate that proposition 2 ½ did not simply streamline bloated local governments rather it forced cuts in valued local services. Referencing a recent incident within her neighborhood, she indicated that residents need the police department to be available and ready to respond to situations and that city officials need to have the resources to protect the residents of the city. She urged the residents of the city to protect the community and reject the initiative and noted that she would like Council to release information about the possible impact before asking voters to vote on this.
Brent Todd, Penacook resident, spoke in opposition of the tax cap indicating that he feels that it is a bad idea for Concord. He noted that he assumes that the tax cap is being proposed as the solution to some problem but he has not been able to identify that problem. He indicated that he feels that the proposed tax cap tells the Council that they no longer have an important tool at their disposal which is economic discretion to set budgetary recommendations based on the needs of the community and the desires of the residents who live in Concord. He pointed out the rising cost of fuels, insurance and county tax rate. He noted that he feels that there are three good reasons why the tax cap doesn’t work specifically for Concord: Concord School Board will be exempt from the cap because they have budgetary authority separate from the Council; he wants his vote for Councilors to mean something; the cap assumes that the Council is not already being as fiscally conservative as they can be but on the contrary the Council and City Manager are doing a fine job vetting proposals and carefully examining the best options. In closing, Mr. Todd asked residents to join him in voting against the tax cap.
Tammy Simmons, Manchester resident and Executive Director of the NH Advantage Coalition, spoke in support of the spending cap. She pointed out that Franklin has had a spending cap in place for twenty years and from what she can gather, Franklin is financially healthier now than they were prior to the spending cap. She explained that they went from being the sixth worse tax burden in the state prior to the spending cap and came up to the state’s average noting that she doesn’t know how this can be construed as a bad thing. She noted that the spending cap has been put forth to the voters in Franklin four times with the last time being 2002 when eighty percent of the people voted to support the spending cap. She indicated that she knows that some have questions about how this is going to affect the city or how Council is going to do the job of managing the city and fully supports anyone asking the questions and getting the answers just as she urges the residents of the city to do before they make the decision in November but before getting to the learning phase to talk about the pros and the cons, the state law requires placing it on the ballot. She pointed out that this is not a partisan issue but just a taxpayer issue. She stated that she feels that if this amendment passes, she feels that Council should be able to step up to any challenges they face and find ways to work within the cap and if not or if Council feels that there is something that they need to do that would be outside the limits of the cap, that is what the 2/3 override provision would allow for. Ms. Simmons indicated that she does not feel that this ties Council’s hands but rather gives them a guideline that allows the taxpayers to smooth any increased tax burden over years rather than all at once. She stated that Council would have a hundred percent discretion on budgetary items and still would be all completely up to Council and would have the option to override every single item in the budget. She explained that this cap would limit how fast the city can increase its spending and not about cutting spending.
Referencing Ms. Simmons not being a resident within the city, Councilor Keach inquired as to what her interest is to seeing this spending cap passed. Ms. Simmons responded that she was present on behalf of the NH Advantage Coalition because they are the organization that had the language drafted on behalf of the citizens in Concord who wanted to petition to have this placed on the ballot. Councilor Keach questioned whether the interest was specific to Concord. Ms. Simmons replied no indicating that petitions for spending caps were being done in more than one community including Manchester, Rochester and Somersworth.
Councilor Coen pointed out that the Council is a non-partisan group. Referencing Franklin, Councilor Coen explained that years ago they had a heavily increased tax rate which prompted the tax cap. He further explained that in Concord, the schools are not included within the city’s budget and inquired as to why the group did not include the schools. Ms. Simmons responded that this would have taken two entirely separate petitions being signed.
Referencing Franklin, Councilor Blanchard indicated that she had been told that they had faced very large increase in property taxes two years in a row that prompted them to petition for a tax cap. She pointed out that Concord has never had tax increases such as Franklin.
Referencing the tax cap proposal, Councilor Stetson pointed out that it is targeting everything based on the consumer price index urban explaining that this is a market basket of all types of goods and services that a municipality doesn’t obviously buy. He explained that the city’s costs include energy and health insurance which are growing faster than the consumer price index. He inquired as to how the coalition decided to use the consumer price index urban and how would they suggest that Council deal with those items that are higher than that when they come before Council. Ms. Simmons responded that the consumer price index urban was recommended by the Attorney Generals office a few years ago in Manchester explaining that a petition drive had been done for a spending cap and the Attorney Generals office rejected the language because in part it did not specify which consumer price index they were referencing. She pointed out that the language for Concord’s amendment was drafted after the Laconia language in which the Attorney Generals office passed. As far as how Council deals with their expenses and how they are going to balance their budgets, she explained that this is why residents elect them. Councilor Stetson agreed that residents elect Council because of this and that they do their best to keep the tax rate down and have succeeded fairly well. He noted that what bothers him about the petition is that Council can only go up in the city’s tax rate in a rate that really doesn’t reflect the needs of the city. Ms. Simmons replied that registered voters within Concord according to state law signed the necessary petitions to put this on the ballot.
Mayor Bouley indicated that tax cap and spending cap has been used interchangeably and noted that it is his understanding that there is a significant difference between the two. He questioned whether she believes there is a difference between the two. Ms. Simmons responded that there is a difference when there is only a tax cap and not a spending cap but not a spending cap without a tax cap. She explained that spending can be raised without raising taxes. Mayor Bouley further inquired as to the differences between a tax cap and a spending cap. Ms. Simmons responded that if spending is not limited, taxes can still go up. She explained that if spending is limited it would, in essence, limit taxes but just because taxes are limited doesn’t necessarily mean spending is limited. Mayor Bouley questioned whether what the coalition drafted achieve what was just stated. Ms. Simmons indicated she believed so. Mayor Bouley inquired whether any of original five petitioners are consultants, paid or employed in any way to the organization. Ms. Simmons could not verify whether the five petitioners were linked. Mayor Bouley pointed out that an individual from the coalition was quoted in the newspaper as saying that one of the reason for this was that spending has gone wild and inquired whether she could speak on his behalf as to where in Concord has spending gone wild. Ms. Simmons responded that she was unaware of the article and would not speak on somebody else’s behalf.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to why the organization proposed a fix without identifying what the problem is or whether there is a problem. Ms. Simmons responded that maybe the petitioners committee would have a better grasp of exactly what the tax rate in Concord is stressing that she does not live in Concord. She explained that all the organization did was to supply them with the tools and are not the driving force behind the Concord petition.
Referencing the organization, Councilor McClure indicated that she would like to know more about the organization inquiring whether they had a mission statement, membership information and board of directors. Ms. Simmons responded that the organization is a 501-C4, non-profit and can not advocate on behalf any candidate or political party. Councilor McClure questioned the organization’s mission. Ms. Simmons responded that it is to protect the New Hampshire advantage and the ideals of the state. Councilor McClure noted that she feels that this information is vague. Ms. Simmons indicated that she could visit their website, thenhadvantage.com, and read about the organization. She noted that she feels that the public hearing this evening is about the spending cap and the taxpayers in Concord and not about the mission statement of NH Advantage Coalition.
Councilor Nyhan inquired as to how many members the coalition had. Ms. Simmons responded that there are approximately 3,000 to 3,500. With regard to the five petitioners, Councilor Nyhan questioned whether any are residents of Concord. Ms. Simmons responded that the five must be residents of the city by state law.
Sarah Chase Warner, 29 Fisherville Road, spoke in opposition of the spending cap. She indicated that she was asked to sign the petition and chose not to explaining that she was aware of what the ramifications of this would be. Referencing a report by the National Tax Journal, she indicated that it makes it clear that limitations on local governments’ ability to raise revenue cause them to have less revenue compared to other local governments. She noted that she feels that this is more than just a small ballot initiative and feels that this is an attack on the New Hampshire way of life. Referencing her move to the city, she noted that what she feels is wonderful about the state is that it has an engaged citizenry, citizen based legislature, and the ability for the government to be flexible. She indicated that this initiative offers the city’s government a one size fits all plan and is not something that Concord needs or that New Hampshire is built on. She noted that she feels that this cap would “handcuff” the city’s local officials and community. She noted her concern with cutting vital city services and indicated that she has full faith in the city’s elected officials. Ms. Warner indicated that residents need more questions answered before voting on this spending cap explaining that one public hearing in the midst of everything that is going on is a little insufficient to Concord voters. She pointed out that the coalition is a 501-C4, a non-profit, explaining that a 501-C3 is a non-profit non-partisan organization and a 501-C4 is a non-profit that can engage in partisan issues.
Gary Smith, Portsmouth Street, indicated that he is satisfied with the public services that are offered and happy with the job that the city public employees are doing. He stated that the city is very distinct from the town of Franklin and noted his concern with Franklin turning off their street lights to save money and inquired whether this is something that would fit here in Concord. He noted his concern with the initiative going on the November ballot indicating that he feels that it is more appropriate on a municipal ballot He thanked Ms. Simmons for giving guidance but noted that in Concord, the tax rate is protected through a vote and this is how it has been historically done and how it should be continued. He thanked Council for their services and expressed his confidence in them.
Seth Hipple, Penacook resident, indicated that with the economic downturn his family is having trouble making ends meet and having to make sacrifices and prioritize spending. He noted that the city should be doing the same thing that his family is having to do. He noted that he feels that the spending cap will encourage efficiency and encouraged Council to place this on the November ballot because the voter turnout is high and ensures that the maximum number of voters get a chance to speak on this issue. He emphasized that this is a cap and not a cut.
Councilor Lemieux pointed out that Council prioritizes and that there are many needs that are not met because this Council and many Councils before do prioritize the city’s needs during numerous budget hearings.
Councilor Blanchard explained that Council before every budget sets their own tax cap and pointed out that at the last budget, the small amount that the taxes did go up was a result of revenues being down.
Mayor Bouley explained that many are struggling and making tough choices and everyone around the table feels the exact same pains that Mr. Hipple does. He explained that Council does prioritize and at the last budget cycle, in terms of spending, Council increased the budget by .07 percent. He asked whether this was a reasonable amount considering the services residents receive. Mr. Hipple responded that this sounds reasonable and that it would be well within the cap being proposed so that there should be no problem as far as constraining spending. Mayor Bouley inquired why it is necessary that this artificial cap be implemented when the Council is already achieving what is being looked for. Mr. Hipple responded that he does not feel that the cap is artificial and that the increases in inflation is the increases in prices in which his family faces. He indicated that this merely says to the residents of Concord that they can be secure that this kind of prioritizing is going to continue. Mayor Bouley explained that the city is approximately one-third of the tax bill and the rest is the school and the county. Mayor Bouley inquired whether it was his understanding that the school district is not included within this. Mr. Hipple indicated that he was not sure about this.
Irena Goddard, Redington Road, spoke in support of the spending cap. She noted that she was before Council this evening as a representative of the people and to listen to what twenty percent of the constituents have put before Council and to listen to what is important to them as opposed to what the City Council thinks should be important to them. She indicated that she participated in the process of getting the signatures for this petition having to get one-fifth of registered voters to sign. She pointed out that it was not difficult to get signatures when they heard about the opportunity to give a guideline to the Council. She explained that the initiative before Council this evening is whether to have this initiative included on the November ballot or to have a special election. She noted that she feels that a special election would be wasteful of taxpayers’ money. She urged Council to be frugal and to place this on the November ballot. Ms. Goddard indicated that in reviewing the 2008-2009 Council priorities on the web the first item that is listed is expanding the tax base and noted that she does not feel that getting more tax money should not be the first priority. She noted that she does not feel that this is a priority of the constituents and knows that Council wants to do many more projects to improve the livelihood of the residents. Referencing Czechoslovakia, she indicated that that was the line that they were fed that “it’s for the common good”. She stated that she feels that the only responsible and democratic option for Council is to give the residents a voice on the November ballot.
Referencing the priority of expanding the tax base, Councilor Stetson explained that this does not mean increasing the tax rate what this means is attracting more businesses to build in Concord. Ms. Goddard responded that expanding the tax base means to her how the city can get more money in. Councilor Stetson explained that expanding the tax base means that the city brings in more new businesses that build new buildings so that the tax base goes up and the rate for everybody either goes down or stays the same. Councilor Stetson indicated that it was stated that the petition needed one-fifth of residents. Ms. Goddard replied that one-fifth of registered voters were needed. Councilor Stetson indicated that it was not one-fifth of all registered voters. Ms. Goddard clarified that it was one-fifth of registered voters that voted in the last municipal election.
In follow up to defining the expansion of the tax base, Councilor Coen explained that what is being done is bringing new companies in to bring in new jobs and increase the city’s tax base meaning that they are going to pay more taxes so that the average resident’s tax rate would decrease. Ms. Goddard inquired as to how the city attracts these businesses. Councilor Coen responded that this is done by making Concord a very livable city and making it attractive for companies to locate here.
Michelle McCord, 3 Beacon Street, noted that she is very appreciative of the services that the city provides. She urged Council to keep the tax cap off of the November ballot until residents can find out more information about it. Referencing a former testimony, she noted that she feels that the residents of Concord needs to make decisions about Concord.
Representative Jessie Osborne, Fisk Road, explained that Franklin has had a cap for quite awhile and every time there is a budget in the county they come to them asking that their taxes are not raised and the reason is because they are caught in a squeeze. She noted that as the county taxes goes up, the Franklin money that is available for the city portion gets smaller and smaller until it gets to a point in which they can’t do their infrastructure and start firing police officers and firefighters. She indicated that she does not see this as a solution to the property tax problem and does not feel that this is necessary at this time. She noted that she feels that a lot of people are unaware of the ramifications of this.
Councilor Keach questioned whether it is felt that this initiative is perhaps going to push a question of a statewide income tax or some other tax. Representative Osborne responded that what this will do is hurt the basic city services.
Charles Russell, Concord resident, noted that he signed the petition and on later reflection he feels the tax cap is a sleeping giant and is not entirely sure whether everyone is aware of the implications. Referencing the late 90’s, he explained that Council had pulled in the reins on former City Manager Jim Smith to cut down the spending and there had been a proposal to close the Heights Fire Station. He indicated that this had brought out the people and the shopping center that was being built had noted that they were not sure they wanted to build there if there wasn’t going to be essential services. He explained that these are the types of things that could come to be or at least in consideration. He pointed out that limiting taxes or keeping taxes from increasing there are a lot of downsides. He noted that he wonders as an alternative whether it is time to put together another Mayor’s citizen’s budget task force.
Mayor Bouley inquired whether it was his understanding that the school budget was included within this tax cap. Mr. Russell responded that he knew they were separate and knew it wasn’t include.
Kris MacNeil, Ward Three resident, pointed out that many residents that signed the petition did so knowing full well the limitations of the control of the Council’s spending and understand that the school budget is separate. She indicated that it is understood that the city pays 25.8 percent of the county tax and look each year at the mandatory costs and increase in insurance, benefits, retirement, poor investment returns and fuel bills. She indicated that twenty five percent of the city’s property is tax free and that the legislature should be focusing of this so that more of these specific activities can be changed. Ms. MacNeil explained that the citizens have plenty of mandatory costs themselves and times are rough for many of the same reasons that the city’s budget is not healthy. She pointed out that it is worse for retirees and small businesses with no bargaining powers. She noted that she hopes that Council allows this initiative to go before the voters and hopes that with each budget hearing Council can separate the needs from the wants.
Elizabeth Hipple, Penacook resident, spoke in support of the tax cap. She noted that she is confident that Council will not spend extra money to hold a special election to decide on this budget cap. She indicated that she feels a lot of good points have been raised both in support and in opposition of the budget cap but feels that everyone can agree that it makes sense to place it on the November ballot rather than spending the extra money to hold a special election.
Councilor Coen questioned whether it was known that the county and school was not included within the cap. Ms. Hipple indicated that was her understanding. Councilor Coen pointed out that the city portion is approximately thirty three percent. Ms. Hipple responded that she feels that it is significantly helpful.
Jack Winn, 8 Celtic Street, noted that he feels that the biggest selling point of living in Concord versus other communities is that it is a livable community. He indicated that the individuals that are pushing the tax cap have not shown any evidence or attempted to make a case that this will benefit the community. He noted his concern with residents not knowing what the impact of this measure is and doesn’t feel that many who signed the petition are aware either. He urged Council not to place this on the November ballot and that it should be voted on later so that voters can consider the impacts of this.
Ken Roos, North Curtisville Road, pointed out the impacts of hard economic times including welfare cases and crime increase and because of the cost of home heating the risk of fire and EMS rises. He referenced others referring to this as a cap and not a cut in services that it will probably result in cuts in services. He indicated that he is not in favor of this tax cap and ask that others be given a longer time period to research this and that it be put off of the November ballot to a later date.
Kathy Corkery, Penacook resident, noted her agreement with Representative Osborne and emphasized that the cap is not going to make the residents lives any easier and doesn’t make any sense explaining that she feels that there would be quite a bit of detriment to the services that residents take advantage of. She noted her opposition to the tax cap and feels that there has to be more discussion in regards to this within the community. She noted that this November’s election is going to be occupied by other issues and pushing this back is appropriate.
Three Minute Public Testimony
Tammy Simmons clarified that the coalition cannot engage in partisan activities and could had they filed that way with the IRS. She explained that they are a non-partisan group and did not file in the manner which would allow them to engage in partisan activity. Referencing the concerns that ten weeks is not enough time for voters to digest this, she hopes that people watching at home realize that she thinks that the voters are smarter than a lot of people are giving them credit for. She feels that the voters in Concord are of a high enough intelligence that they can actually process the pros and cons of this spending cap and make a decision within ten weeks. She noted that the concept that people want Council to push this off to a future date and spend additional tax dollars to have a special election on a spending cap seems like an oxymoron. She indicated that she hopes that viewers at home think about the ramifications of prolonging the process and putting it off. To the references made to put this off until the next municipal election, Ms. Simmons indicated that by state law this could not be done.
Mayor Bouley asked for the cite on this law. Ms. Simmons responded that it is either within 49-B3 or 49-B5 and limits the sixty day window and the end window explaining that the only regular election within this window is the November election.
City Manager Tom Aspell inquired whether the coalition plans to provide an informational package. Ms. Simmons responded that there are currently no specific plans at this time.
Councilor Blanchard noted that she feels that there has been confusion created with the discussion of the .07 percent increase explaining that this was the increase in the budget and as she tried to point out earlier, the taxes went up more than that because the revenues were down so this was not the increase in the taxes and it would handicap Council to have a tax cap because Council may not be able to keep a level spending budget because of the decrease in revenues.
Mayor Bouley indicated that Council cut $3.9 million from the budget, increased it by .07 percent in spending and the tax rate on just the one-third the city was responsible for was increased by 5.4 percent because the revenues from motor vehicles were down and interest income is down.
Referencing Ms. Warner’s comments, Councilor Shurtleff indicated that her comments were correct in that a 501-C3 non-profit cannot engage in partisan politics and that a 501-C4 non-profit could engage in partisan politics. Ms. Simmons responded that it could to a certain degree if that is the way they filed with the IRS. She indicated that the coalition did not file this way and does not engage in partisan activities. Councilor Shurtleff clarified that Ms. Warner’s statement was correct. Ms. Simmons indicated that it was inferred that the coalition engages in partisan politics.
Councilor Bouchard questioned whether the coalition would be helping to fund the local five petitioners to provide information to the residents. Ms. Simmons responded that the coalition does not distribute money to other organizations but whether or not it’s decided that they print materials and pay for the cost or provide informational meetings has not been put forth at this time.
Councilor Keach inquired as to the source of the coalition’s funding. Ms. Simmons responded that they had in and out of state donors and do not disclose those individuals. Councilor Keach questioned whether they would be willing to disclose this information. Ms. Simmons responded no.
Councilor Nyhan questioned whether the coalition is interested in educating the voters about this topic and willing to putting something together. Ms. Simmons responded that she would imagine that they would be interested in educating the voters on the topic but cannot unilaterally make decisions regarding this since there are other members involved in this decision.
Irena Goddard noted that she believes that based on the process the question is not whether it’s going to go out to the voters but the question is when it will go out to the voters. She indicated that in her opinion, she feels that ten weeks is more than sufficient to get this information. She stated that she feels that it is important that this is included on the November ballot because of the voter turnout and that the voter turnout for a special election will be a lot lower.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether Ms. Goddard had ever experienced a public hearing process in Czechoslovakia. Ms. Goddard replied no.
Gary Smith inquired as to why this initiative could not be placed on a municipal ballot next November without it being a special election.
Ken Roos referenced the comments made to place this on the November ballot due to the high voter turnout. He indicated that it is his impression that voters coming out for the November election are more interested in the national election but at a municipal election, though there may be fewer voters, the voters are more interested at what is going on at the municipal level and will look at the question in more detail.
One Minute Public Testimony
Irena Goddard indicated that to make assumptions as to what type of voters will go to the polls this year versus next year is very difficult to do. She noted that she does not want to make the assumption that the voters that come out during municipal elections are necessarily the people that care more for their local government.
Mayor Bouley inquired whether Ms. Goddard was one of the original five petitioners. Ms. Goddard indicated that to be correct.
Representative Osborne indicated that she feels that it would be wise not to vote on this in the November election because people will be concentrating more on the president. She explained that some voters do not vote when they get down to representatives or lower on the ballot. She noted that she feels that this could be a political situation because she feels that there isa party involved and feels that this is wise to keep as a non-partisan issue.
Tammy Simmons indicated that this initiative cannot be put off until the next municipal election based on state law guidelines indicating that the RSA requires that it be within a certain window of time and the only election during this time is the November election. She explained that there are two options: spend more of the taxpayer’s money and delay this to a further date because too many people think that Concord taxpayers are too stupid to process information in ten weeks to be able to make an intelligent decision; or put it on the November 4th ballot. She indicated that it is true that there will be one of the highest turnouts in November and more people will probably be voting in November than have voted in at least four years. She noted that she would not necessarily disagree that more people who vote in municipal elections maybe have more interest in their municipal government than those that only vote in federal elections. She pointed out however that the November election can only be compared to a special election in this case and everyone knows that whenever there is a special election, very few people come out to vote and if this is what Council feels is best for Concord to have fewer people vote on behalf of the entire city rather than give the broader amount of people the opportunity to vote on a petition or on an amendment then that would be their decision.
Councilor Blanchard inquired that based on how the state statute is written, if Council wants to put this off until the municipal election whether another petition would need to be created next year. Ms. Simmons explained that Council does not have the authority to put this off and that it either needs to be on the November ballot or on a special election ballot by state law.
Mayor Bouley noted that this Council welcomes all opinions and try to make people feel as warm as possible. He indicated that he does take offense to being called stupid. Ms. Simmons indicated that she did not call him stupid explaining that she feels that too many people are inferring that the voters in Concord can’t process the information in ten weeks to make an intelligent decision and feels that this is an insult to the voters of Concord.
Councilor Bouchard explained that the citizens of Concord have come forward to ask for more time for more information which shows they are citizens that are very engaged in the process and would like to have all the information and all the pros and cons and they are just asking for the time to make an intelligent decision and not inferring that they cannot absorb what the issue is. She noted that she does take offense in what Ms. Simmons had stated indicating that she feels that it was very negative. Ms. Simmons asked how many residents spoke indicating that they would like additional information. Councilor Bouchard responded that it doesn’t matter and noted that she feels that the issue is that Concord is a very engaged population and asking for more information and time to absorb the pros and cons doesn’t reflect on anybody’s intellect. Ms. Simmons indicated that a small number of individuals this evening would like more information but over 1,100 individuals had signed the petition thinking that it would be on the November ballot. She noted that she does not know whether it is wise move for Council to vote because ten people would like additional information versus the 1,100 who signed the petition to be on the November ballot.
Councilor Keach noted that there appears to be an urgency to get this initiative on the November ballot and inquired whether this urgency is driven by the interest in democracy i.e. the maximum number of voters or is it more driven by a more favorable outcome. Ms. Simmons responded that she has no way of gauging what the outcome will be in Concord. Councilor Keach pointed out that she seems to be strongly advocating for the November election. Ms. Simmons responded that a special election will cost the city more money and to spend more money when it can be placed on the November ballot is not wise to many taxpayers especially when they signed the petition thinking that it would be on the November ballot. Referencing Representative Osborne’s statement that there is a party involved, Ms. Simmons noted that she takes offense because the coalition is a non-partisan organization. Councilor Keach explained that it is difficult for the Council and the residents to figure out who the coalition is affiliated with when they are not forthcoming about who the funding comes from. Ms. Simmons responded the coalition is not a stealth organization and that members of the coalition are from the State of New Hampshire.
Gary Smith inquired whether there will be a municipal primary in September 2009. Mayor Bouley responded that there is not a municipal primary held. Mr. Smith inquired to the cost of a special election. City Clerk Janice Bonenfant responded that her best guess estimate is approximately $20,000 for a special election including opening all polling locations, paying election officials, paying staff, paying rental fees, advertising, printing and programming the machines. Mr. Smith indicated that as a resident of Concord, he would like more time to process the information and asked Council to give residents the opportunity for more information and more absorption of the material.
Referencing the cost of a special election, Seth Hipple asked what kind of city services is the city going to have to forego in order to pay $20,000 for something that could be done for free. He urged Council to continue to be fiscally responsible and to place this initiative on the November ballot.
Mayor Bouley recognized another one of the five original petitioners within the audience, Chris Wood, and asked whether he wanted the opportunity to speak.
Chris Wood thanked Janice Bonenfant and Michelle Tiffany from the City Clerk’s Office indicating that he knows that the clerk’s office did a lot of hard work to verify the signatures and didn’t want to give people the idea that this was an easy task.
Irena Goddard noted her agreement indicating that the clerk’s office did a very good job.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Mayor Bouley indicated that during the break, a resident, Mr. Baker, had driven down to give public testimony. He asked whether Council would consider allowing him to speak since the hearing had been closed.
Councilor Bouchard moved to reopen the public hearing to allow Mr. Baker the opportunity to speak. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Mr. Baker thanked Council for allowing him to speak before them this evening. He explained that he had been called approximately a week ago by someone asking if he was interested in signing a petition for a tax cap and indicated that he had responded that while this is an interesting idea he wasn’t sure how city services would be paid for if a cap was instituted. He noted that he found it interesting that nobody had come to his door. He indicated that he feels that there needs to be a good discussion within the city regarding a tax cap. Mr. Baker explained that he wants the city to be fiscally responsible and to make spending decisions appropriately but is not sure that he is prepared that the city needs a tax cap. He noted that from the testimony that he had seen this evening, he feels that it is prudent to give the time for a discussion to occur within the community. He asked Council to allow residents the time to receive more information and to delay this initiative for a special election.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether Mr. Baker was aware that this particular petition does not impact the school taxes. Mr. Baker responded that he did not indicating that he feels that this is one of the issues, what does it actually impact.
Councilor Lemieux questioned whether Mr. Baker was aware that a special election would cost approximately $20,000. Mr. Baker responded that he feels that it is worth spending the money to have a special election because it is an important decision.
Public Hearing Action
Action: Mayor Bouley indicated that Council has heard debated this evening whether this question could be placed on the next municipal election ballot. City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh responded no explaining that if it does not go on the November ballot the statute reads “otherwise municipal offices shall order a special election be held not less than sixty days from the date of the order for the purposes of voting on the proposed amendment”. He indicated that if Council orders that this evening, they will have to hold a special election within sixty days and would be approximately at the same time as the November election. Mayor Bouley asked whether it is not less than. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley questioned when the clock would start ticking. Mr. Cavanaugh replied that it would begin from the time that Council orders the clerk to place the proposal on the ballot. Mayor Bouley questioned whether Council orders the clerk to do this. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley asked what authority the Council has and whether they can vote yes or no and if Council could vote no to keep it off the November ballot. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that Council cannot keep it off the ballot if the three state offices say that it is, in fact, constitutionally legal then Council would have to put it on. He indicated that the question is only when it needs to be put on the ballot. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that Council is here this evening because when this was reviewed before, it was concluded that it would have to go on the state election or a special election would need to be held. Mayor Bouley read that “an election not held not less than sixty days and no more than 365 days thereafter”. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct reading “municipality with a biennial election will place it on at the next state biennial election if such election is held not less than sixty days and no more than 365 days thereafter”. Mayor Bouley, referencing the no more than 365 days, inquired whether this is what prevents waiting until the next municipal election. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Keach noted his concern with Council holding a public hearing this evening given that there are three state agencies that have yet to accept the language. He asked that in the event those agencies come back with modified language would that require a new public hearing. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that it may depend upon the extent to which they modify it explaining that the statute is not completely clear as to what a lot of these procedures are. He indicated that if they come back with a technical amendment that is substantial then he believes that Council will need to hold another public hearing and proceed to another election.
Councilor Nyhan noted his confusion and indicated that he is going to make the assumption for the sake of argument that the language that has been sent to the state having been based upon the same language that went to Laconia is likely to be approved. That having been said, Councilor Nyhan asked if he was correct in understanding that Council has an option before them being to: place it on the November ballot or the option of holding it within sixty days from this evening or 365 days in which Council has a window of opportunity beginning this evening that is roughly ten months. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that he did not believe so. Councilor Nyhan asked whether it was the Solicitor’s opinion that Council has to do it within sixty days of this evening. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether Council needs to make a decision this evening on placing this question on the November ballot. Mr. Cavanaugh responded yes. Councilor Nyhan inquired that if Council chose not to place this question on the November ballot, between what months must a special election be held. He indicated that he is interpreting is that if it is not less than sixty days but no more than 365 days that a special election would occur sometime between November and September of next year. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that may be a possibility.
Mayor Bouley asked if a decision is made this evening would it go on the November ballot meeting all the statutory obligations. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley asked if the only thing that Council is waiting for is to hear back from the state. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Referencing what if the state changes it, Mayor Bouley indicated that Council hasn’t received a clear cut answer as to what happens then. Mayor Bouley further questioned as to what if Council chooses not to make a decision this evening noting that it is his understanding that Council has seven days following the public hearing to make the decision. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley indicated that if Council takes up those seven days and doesn’t act this evening, then Council is making the decision to hold a special election because it will no longer be able to be on the November ballot. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley inquired whether the special election would need to held somewhere prior to the next 365 days from the point in which Council makes that decision. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that the statute reads “otherwise municipal officers shall order a special election to be held not less than sixty days from the date of the order” and explained that if the opinion is received back from the state then he supposes that it could be ordered after that. Referencing the state taking the full 30 days to respond, Mayor Bouley asked if it was being stated that a special election must be held no less than sixty days. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that it is not less than sixty days from the date Council orders it to be placed on the ballot. Mayor Bouley inquired as to when the clock would start ticking and asked if it would be when the Council decides. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that it would begin when the Council decides. Mayor Bouley noted that it was his understanding that if the public hearing was held this evening, Council would need to take action within seven days.
Councilor McClure indicated that it was her understanding that Council would have to act within seven days and questioned that if Council does not act within seven days whether another hearing would need to be held if it’s decided upon having a special election. She inquired whether the clock would start ticking at the point of the next hearing. She asked if Council was allowed to have another public hearing and allowed not to decide within the next seven days. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that he feels that the problem is the fact that the opinions have not been received back from the state. Councilor McClure indicated that her understanding is that there are two and possibly three potential options: Council can make a decision this evening to place this on the November ballot; if Council chooses not to make a decision this evening, a special election can be held if decided within seven days and that election would need to be held no less than sixty days from the time that Council makes that decision. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Councilor McClure inquired whether Council can choose not to make a decision within seven days and decide at a later point in time to have a special election on this initiative and would probably need to have another public hearing at that time. She asked if Council has two options or three options. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that if it is approved by the state, Council has the option of placing the question on the November ballot or holding a special election. He noted that the question then is when would that special election have to be held.
Councilor Stetson questioned that if Council voted not to do anything this evening and voted to wait until the opinion is received back from the state whether there is a period of time after receiving the opinion to have another public hearing. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct. Referencing receiving the opinion back from the state on the 28th and Council having another meeting on the 29th with Council scheduling another public hearing in seven days, Councilor Stetson inquired as to when the special election would need to be held, between what date and what date. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that as he sees it, the statute gives three possible dates “that it would be placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election or at the next regular state biennial election if such election is held not less than sixty days and no more than 365 days thereafter”. He explained that if there was a regular municipal election within the not less than sixty and not more than 365 days it could be placed on the ballot or if there was a state election within this same period of time. He pointed out that it does state “otherwise the municipal officers shall order a special election to be held not less than sixty days from the date of the order for the purpose on the proposed amendment” meaning that Council orders it placed on the ballot and the state provides an opinion that it is legal, Council has no choice but to order that. He explained that Council would need to hold a special election within sixty days.
Councilor Stetson indicated that it reads not less than sixty days. Mr. Cavanaugh clarified that it be not less than sixty days from the date that Council orders it placed on the ballot. Councilor Stetson asked if it’s not less than sixty days then how long can it be. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that he believes that it would be no more than 365 days.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to the maximum time after Council receives notification from the state that Council needs to take action. Mayor Bouley indicated that under RSA 49-B:5, IVb states that within seven days after the public hearing the municipal officers or the committee appointed by them shall file with the municipal clerk a report containing the final draft of proposed amendment.
Councilor Shurtleff inquired whether this public hearing could be adjourned to a later date. Mayor Bouley responded that it is his understanding that if Council makes a decision this evening they make a decision to place this on the November ballot and if Council fails to make a decision this evening then Council has seven days to make a decision and by doing so, make the decision to have a special election. Referencing waiting for the opinion from the state, Councilor Shurtleff questioned whether this meeting could be adjourned and reopened at a later date. Mayor Bouley indicated that Council would have until September 11th to make a decision but the state agencies have until the 25th to get back an opinion.
Councilor Lemieux questioned the consequences of not making a decision based on this evening’s hearing. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that if Council does not make a decision this evening and they get the reports back from the state indicating that it is valid, there has to be an order from Council to place the question on the ballot. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether there would need to be another public hearing. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that he does not believe there needs to be another public hearing and that Council can just vote to place it on the ballot. Councilor Lemieux asked whether a decision needs to be made within seven days of this evening. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that he feels that the reason within the statute for the public hearing is not completely clear because it give individuals the opportunity to be heard and to discuss with Council the petition but the Council has no discretion because if the state indicates it is valid, the Council has to order it on the ballot. He added that the discretion that Council has is as to when it goes on the ballot.
Councilor Blanchard moved that Council do nothing and wait to hear from the state. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley asked the City Solicitor whether the motion conforms with the statute in that Council would go beyond the seven days. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that he believes the motion is valid. Mayor Bouley asked that if Council waits for the state and they come back with an opinion on Monday, would the question go on the November ballot. Mr. Cavanaugh referred to the City Clerk as to whether this would be enough time. City Clerk Janice Bonenfant explained that in order to get the question on the ballot, she would need a final answer by September 19th in order to get the machines programmed for the November election. She noted that she is confident that she will hear back from all three state agencies in time for the production of the ballots because they are well aware of the deadlines that clerk’s face.
City Manager Tom Aspell pointed out that more and more people are voting absentee so that the ballots have to be printed and available early in the process. Ms. Bonenfant indicated that absentee ballots are usually available a month before the election.
Councilor Keach indicated that he is interested in pushing this out as far as it can because he feels that the implications for Concord are significant.
Councilor Blanchard explained that if her motion passes this evening the question is not going to be on the November ballot. Mayor Bouley indicated that is his understanding explaining that if the motion is adopted, Council will be holding a special election. Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that to be correct.
Mayor Bouley noted that he is torn explaining that he feels that it is very important that there is as much time as possible to have a healthy debate on this question. He pointed out that he feels that this is more of a municipal question and would be far more appropriate on a municipal ballot but there isn’t an option for that. He noted his concern as to where the city will get the additional money for a special election putting Council in an awkward position. Mayor Bouley indicated that it frustrates him that this process took so long to come forth. He noted that he will be voting against the motion before Council.
Councilor Coen indicated that he will be voting against the motion. He noted that he has the confidence that voters will be able to make a decision within two months. He indicated that he is personally against a tax cap but that he is looking at the cost of $20,000 for a special election.
Councilor Keach explained that during a Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee meeting this afternoon it was brought to their attention that a tax cap could implicate the city’s bond rating. He indicated that he would be curious to see if those bond rating implications could possibly exceed $20,000.
Councilor Blanchard indicated that based on the public testimony this evening there is a lot of confusion even among some of the signers of the petitions as to what the implications and ramifications are.
Councilor Bouchard noted that she will be voting against the motion. She noted her agreement with a lot of confusion on the tax cap and that she feels that there appears to be a lot of interested individuals that may be able to get the information. She explained that she prefers having this question on a ballot later but understands the concerns of the costs of a special election.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that there are many references made to the amount of confusion surrounding this issue and that he feels that the more confusion there is, the more that it argues for taking more time to sort it out.
There being no further discussion, Councilor Blanchard’s motion passed on a voice vote.
Adjournment
The time being 9:50 p.m., Councilor Nyhan moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk