Herschlag: Thoughts On The Concord City Budget

It appears threatening public safety services is the city’s equivalent to school districts cutting sports when hard decisions are required.

But paying tournament entry fees for the golf pros is a necessity that shouldn’t be and wasn’t cut.

We heard that keeping open the NEOCTIF District is more important than lowering your property tax burden. Even though closing the TIF District and paying off the remainder of the bond will free up over $2 million — $2 million that could cover the full cost of this year's tax increase.

Here’s what we didn’t hear.

We didn’t hear what the proposed cuts would be until they were discussed at the finance committee meeting. Hours into the meeting, a list of the mayor’s proposed cuts was posted on one of the screens in city council chambers, but it was not readable by anyone attending the meeting.

We didn’t hear what additional cuts the city manager will make to reduce the approved budget. In fact, even those voting for the budget aren’t privy to the additional cuts the manager will make. But members of the city council who make up the finance committee gave the city manager permission to do what he feels is best without any further approval from those who are responsible for spending our money.

We hear this is a transparent process. But proposed cuts from the finance committee were up for a vote fifteen minutes after they were recommended to the city council. No written copies are available to the public or those attending the meeting. Speak now without the ability to peruse the recommendations or forever hold your peace.

Not that what you have to say will make a scintilla of difference, for they, the city council, have already determined their votes before you speak.

Trust. Yet all too often, the information being told us isn’t accurate.

Trust. No need to have a public hearing on the latest iteration of the golf course clubhouse. No need to discuss how much money has been spent on all the previous clubhouse plans that have been tossed in the trash. Is it as much or more than the $200,000 we spent on a zoning plan update and was than thrown away, or the $200,000 we spent on a consultant for a bridge deck park over the Merrimack River that will never be built.

Trust. Is it the response a councilor gave to another councilor while misrepresenting the responsibilities of the golf course advisory committee? Even though the committee’s responsibilities are clearly spelled out under the Boards and Commissions section of the city’s website. Easily available for all to see, unlike the last minute amendments to the budget.

Trust. Is it the budget questions that councilors ask staff, not at public meetings but by filling out a yellow sheet questionnaire, that when answered is than distributed to all city council members. But not to you and me, unless you are savvy enough to ask for them.

By using this process to answer budget questions outside the public's view, is this a violation of our state’s right-to-know law? Should we have to ask to see the questions and answers? Shouldn’t they be part of the public record? Shouldn’t they be part of the record you and I can see before the budget is voted on and approved?

The finance committee and city council spent six hours attempting to reduce the budget. And at the end of the night they had reduced the budget by approximately $300,000 (slightly more than 0.5%) and then punted the remaining $200,000 to the city manger to further reduce the tax increase. A tax reduction that will reduce the propose 2026 budget’s 3.9% increase to 2.9%. Six hours to reduce the budget by 1%.

And after spending six hours to reduce the budget by 1%, I have a serious concern for our city councilors. They spent so much time patting themselves on their collective backs for the "great job" they had done that I fear they will all need physical therapy for the damage to their shoulder and wrist joints.

This was not an open and transparent process. The end result was devised behind closed doors. True, they did discuss those results publicly, but be assured, the vast majority of what was approved was a done deal.

The only thing transparent about this entire process is how opaque it is.

Is this the best we can do?