Herschlag: Does This Make Sense To You?

With the start of the New Year, some thoughts on city and state issues and maybe from time to time even some issues outside our state’s borders. So here goes.

City employee contracts. In the past the city council voted on employee contracts at the end of their meetings. It was a two step process. First they went into a non-public session to discuss the contract, than they would come back into public session and vote on the the contract. Rarely was anyone from the public or press left in the room when the vote was taken.

The city council now places employee contract information on the consent agenda. The public (you) has an opportunity to view the full agenda on the Thursday before a city council meeting. If you have the time to find the information on the consent agenda, you can contact a city councilor or send a note to either a councilor or the city clerk.

But unless the item is pulled from the consent agenda (by a councilor), there is no public discussion and no public testimony is taken.

Do you know that the city administration testifies on bills pending before the state legislature?

Do you know that the administration takes a position on these bills without (in most instances) informing the city council? Shouldn’t the administration inform the city council (you) what issues they are testifying on and whether they are testifying for or against the bill? I do.

The next issue relates to special tax districts and tax abatements. Remembering that Tax Increment Finance (tif) Districts are different than properties that receive tax relief from RSA 79E.

The bottom line is both (tif districts and RSA 79E) take taxes that normally would pay for city, school and county services and are now used to pay for costs associated with development (tifs) or for a tax break on the new value of a property (79E). Is this fair to the rest of those who pay taxes for all city, school and county services?

There are a number of bills before the legislature and at least one issue with our new form based zoning that has also caught my attention.

The bills will impact your right to know, planning and zoning boards, rules for special tax districts and increasing the number of years projects will be eligible for tax abatements.

Briefly, HB1307 allows municipalities to charge a fee to individuals making a right to know request under RSA-91A. This bill will create two separate classes of citizens. Those who can afford to make the request and those who can’t. The NH constitution doesn’t separate access to government records by your financial position in the community, neither should a bill before the legislature.

HB1629 initially appears to be innocuous. Who doesn’t believe planning and zoning board members should have some level of training? But as you get into the text of the bill, communities that adopt Innovate Land Use Controls, would lose control over which projects could receive special consideration.

Further, standards that apply to market rate housing (while in some cases they should be waived) now allow a planning board to waive or modify those standards for affordable housing to make the project economically feasible for the developer. Who determines if a project is economically feasible? The developer, the planning board, the courts? The bill doesn’t appear to address how economic feasibility is determined.

HB1632 makes it easier to set up tif districts for eligible residential housing projects and would provide for certain residential projects to be exempt from paying property taxes on the increased value of those projects for as long as 20 years.

While the bill states there is no additional cost to communities, the bill provides for reductions in business profit and real estate transfer taxes for qualifying projects and individuals. It appears to me, a reduction in tax revenues to the state will have an impact on contributions from the state to local communities.

The line in the bill that really caught my attention:

The Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) indicates there is no fiscal impact on local revenues pursuant to the proposed changes to municipal economic development and revitalization districts for housing construction. The property tax burden could shift but overall revenues would not change. (underline mine)

Of course revenues won’t change and neither will the sources of revenues change. There won’t be additional revenue from projects in tif districts and from projects receiving tax abatements, to pay for community expenses for years to come.

Additionally it is unrealistic to believe that more residents in a community won’t add costs. In addition to the unfairness of shifting a greater percentage of a municipals costs to those already paying property taxes, it is folly to believe that more people, more services and rising costs won’t add to a communities expenses.

The last issue (for now) comes from the city's consultants for the proposed form based zoning codes. It appears the zoning is intended to limit the interior square footage of a residential property to encourage more multi development properties in all residential zoning districts.

If the goal is for more housing, pass an ordinance that defines the requirements for additional units. But let’s make it clear, our zoning should not prevent you from converting your basement or attic for additional livable space in your home.

I’ll be posting more on the above issues and many other issues that I find interesting.

A Happy New Year to all and hope that even when we disagree we can do so without disparaging each other.