Rep. Aylward: The True Cost Of Ambulances, Anti-Sanctuary Cities Bill

Standing Corrected!

Oh! Mea culpa, mea culpa! In my article “Danbury’s Phantom Firehouse’ I misheard at the bond hearing and wrote that the budget committee ‘did not recommend’ the article pertaining to the $3.2 M bond, when indeed the Draft 2025 Warrant Article 2 indicates the budget committee DID recommend! I stand corrected and my most humble apologies are in order.

However, as of today, Feb. 5th, at 3:00 p.m., I find ZERO information by way of budget committee minutes on the Town website that addresses when a vote to “recommend” was taken, who voted in the affirmative or the negative, but more importantly ‘why’ members voted the way they did. The budget committee minutes stop at Dec. 19th, 2024 on the town web site.

My goodness! Why would the minutes of the meeting at which such an important decision was made not be posted to the Town website for the public’s benefit well in advance of the Deliberative Session being held (weather permitting) on Feb. 6th? Though not compelled by law to post on the website, I would think it would be the chairperson’s responsibility to assure the minutes are kept updated online. . .and posted as soon as they are ready.

There is currently no posted schedule, or indication of ‘when’ Budget Committee meetings occurred to determine when the "five (5) days" after a meeting the minutes of this particular meeting must be made available to the public.

I often hear from citizens that they are highly frustrated when minutes are not timely posted to the site — or not at all. I mean, why are the people often forgotten in the process of conducting the people’s business?

And about those minutes that ARE posted regarding board and committee meetings, I find that the ‘deliberations’ (or discussion) that precede an official vote are rarely included in the minutes. More often than not, minutes are devoid of substantive explanations from each and every board member for ‘why’ they voted the way they did, especially when a matter is not unanimously passed.

As for this Draft Article 2 “recommendation", I want to read detailed description of the discussion that allowed budget committee members to arrive to such a decision. I want to know exactly what each committee members' ‘reasoning’ was for voting the way they did! I say this because if not giving their respective explanations about whether in favor or opposed, and if not duly recorded in the minutes, it gives the appearance of pre-determination, in other words, the act of deciding or determining something beforehand, and outside of a public forum.

I want to know if the Budget Committee considered future ‘population’ of approximately 2,200+ (75 years from now) based on census or other statistics, that do not support a ‘career' or even a ‘partly career’ fire department, and ‘affordability’ based on an aging population that will be living on fixed incomes, with the median assessed value of homes in New Hampshire being $485K, and in which case, at $1.64 per thousand of assessed value, the 2026 tax bill(s) would reflect an additional $795.00 total for the year, or $397.00 bi-annual additional cost tacked onto the regular (and ever increasing) property tax ! And if not, exactly what did the committee consider before arriving to a vote to recommend? In other words, I want to know what facts the members relied upon for making their decisions to ‘recommend’.

It is my understanding, but not confirmed, that both Tracy Feinauer and James Phelps voted ’NO” to ‘recommending' the $3.2M proposal, and for which they are to be highly commended for allowing their good judgement and reasonableness to prevail.

To all the members of the various public bodies in Town, disclose your discussions, and tell the people why you voted the way you did when conducting the people’s business!

HOUSE BILL 265

AN ACT requiring that a public body's meeting minutes include start and end times of the meeting and the printed name and signature of the recording secretary.

I just learned from the bill’s co-sponsor that Nashua (and some other city/town boards) do not indicate when meetings commenced and adjourned. Say what?? I mean, indicating these times is a requirement from Minutes-Keeping 101. . . it is believed that these boards do not want to have to justify ‘why’ their minutes only contain a few sentences — for a meeting that actually lasted an hour or more, and that this bill, if passed, will alert citizens as to the length of meetings and allow them to demand disclosure of what actually occurred for the duration, we hope.

To Danbury board(s) credit, the minutes do indicate these times.

THE TRUE COSTS OF AMBULANCE SERVICES

HB 725 is relative to ground ambulance services.

METHODOLOGY:

"This bill prohibits balance billing for ambulance services under the managed care law and establishes criteria for payment of ambulance services provided by nonparticipating ambulance service providers."

As explained to me by Co-sponsor Katelyn Kuttaub (R), many towns with ambulance services and private ambulance services are going broke, with some shut down because insurance companies are claiming the services are ‘out of network’ and won’t pay 3rd party claims. Un-reimbursed costs can be shifted to the taxpayers.

Rep. Kuttab relayed a story about a woman needing ambulance services to Boston for her baby. She received a bill for $100K after being told the ambulance service was ‘out of network’, and not covered. However, she wasn’t informed of this before using the service.

So before needing an ambulance, it may be prudent to contact your insurance company to see if the private or town-provided service you'd likely use -- is indeed covered.

Anti-Sanctuary Cities Bill

The House passed HB 51, an anti-sanctuary city bill, by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote (351-6) with amendment. It is an AN ACT relative to cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The Amended Analysis reads:

This bill:

I. Requires law enforcement agencies to comply with immigration detainers of inmates if safe to do so and prohibits state and local government entities from adopting sanctuary policies to prohibit or impede the enforcement of federal immigration law.

II. Prohibits New Hampshire law enforcement agencies from investigating an inmate's citizenship status unless subsequent to an alleged violation of New Hampshire law or pursuant to an authorization by law.

III. Prohibits blanket policies against compliance with immigration detainers for inmates and prohibits any government entity or law enforcement agency from restricting the use and transmission of inmate immigration information used in compliance with the chapter.

IV. Provides exceptions for certain witnesses to or victims of crime.

In part the Methodology reads:

"This bill prohibits state and local government entities from adopting sanctuary policies to prohibit or impede the enforcement of federal immigration law, and provides the Attorney General may file suit against a local governmental entity or local law enforcement agency in a court of competent jurisdiction for declaratory or injunctive relief for a violation."

Also upcoming for consideration is SB 771:

“. . .[E]xcept as otherwise expressly prohibited by state or federal law, local governmental entities may not prohibit or impede any state or federal law enforcement agency from complying with title 8 of the United States Code."

I am a staunch supporter of both bills after observing what happened to neighborhoods in Northern Virginia, where undocumented individuals were harbored in single-family homes, sometimes thirty or more individuals at a time. Not feeling safe, abutters ultimately moved out of homes that were instantly taken over by landlords who were trafficking illegally-present individuals. This activity invited overt drug-dealing and prostitution, and with the dwellings falling into serious disrepair, caused surrounding property values to plummet.

Neighbors reported individuals walking around with machetes attached to their hips; the keeping of aggressive, incessantly barking dogs; Mariachi music blaring at all times of day and night; holiday inflatables left deflated in yards year-round, and if there is a front yard fence, it was used to dry laundry.

Deborah Aylward is a resident of Danbury, NH since 2006; a state lawmaker, and citizen activist.