City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Legislative Sub Committee, 8 Sep 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 9.8.2022 Legislative Subcommittee

Description

9.8.2022 Legislative Subcommittee

A

Yes, all right well uh welcome everybody to.

A

The uh thursday september 8th 2022 legislative subcommittee session.

A

We will quickly do a roll call for attendance.

A

Gene, would you please do a roll call for us um mayor uh here, assistant, mayor kelly here.

B

Counselor cook here, counselor taber, yeah city manager- yes here and I'm here, james.

B

Rainey assistant city attorney, thank you and I hope everybody's enjoyed the summer.

A

Next up on the agenda, we have the approval of the march 28 2022 minutes. I would.

A

Await a motion to approve those uh so move your honor I'll. Second, all in favor, aye.

A

And then uh we have the review and discussion of new hampshire and municipal associations, 2023 2024.

A

Proposed legislative policy positions and proposed legislative principles in order to present.

A

Recommendations regarding those policy positions and principles to the city council- and I guess I.

A

Would pass it to uh jean ferrini to highlight any changes this has been distributed before.

A

Of any changes that you would specifically call out um so I'll first draw your attention to the.

B

Proposed legislative principles and that's the one-page document um that was sent out. um I just.

B

Have a few little explanations on a few of the points they haven't varied too dramatically from.

B

Year to year, similar to what this committee does, in fact, we copied it from the from the new.

B

Hampshire, municipal association, they adopt these broad principles so that when legislation comes.

B

Up under these broad principles, they have, the ability, to um you know, take a position for their.

B

Membership, which is pretty much most of the cities and towns in new hampshire, with a few exceptions.

B

um So, just by way of explanation, because I had to look a few of these things up myself um number one.

B

The part one article 28a is uh the provision of the new hampshire constitution. That says no tax.

B

Shall be levied without the consent of the people? So that's that's just obviously a a you know. We.

B

We oppose uh any mandate that would violate the constitution and the taxing principles set.

B

Forth therein, um the other, um the other provision that I would like to bring to your attention is.

B

That the revenue sharing in number two, just by way of background rsa 31a.

B

Provides a particular percentage of the general revenue that should be returned to cities and.

B

Towns and it gets suspended frequently and in fact it was suspended again through june of 2023. So.

B

That's why that position is, is one of those that nhma opposes, because it doesn't funnel the money.

B

To the to the cities and towns as as required by statute, and there are statutes similarly.

B

uh Crafted for meals and rooms, distribution and particular uh monies for bridges and water.

B

And um let's see um most of these, are you know, self-evident and really need no further.

B

Explanation uh again, they're broad brushes uh so that the nhma can can take positions.

B

And I'll answer any questions: if there are any questions on the principles, one through eleven.

A

C

um I guess this is more of less within the council and more within a personal view of some of the.

C

Things they oppose um the big one sounds funny to say, but the big one for me, um because I know.

C

There's there's conversations about it in the state um is the cannabis. So I know that there's.

C

Some obviously there's the decriminalization of it to a certain degree in the state of new hampshire.

C

But then, uh when we look at other states that have you know really helped their coffers in in cities.

C

And municipalities, especially when you look at um elliott and and right over the border in those.

C

Border towns- um and I think you know it seems to be the way that it's going federally. I would.

C

I would be interested to see um it seems like they're just looking for more legislation that.

C

Will help funding you know, so it seems like it's more. The distribution of any funding that comes in.

C

Seems to be what they oppose it from what I was trying to understand.

B

Yes- and um I can explain that a little bit further when we discuss the policy position, um but I agree.

B

With it's more about, if we're going to allow it, we want to make sure that the state helps fund.

B

Some of the impacts of allowing it so you're exactly right that that's that's! How I review.

B

Their positions, as far as what they're trying to um accomplish accomplished by these policies.

B

But um getting back to the legislative principles, I don't think I explained the background so much.

B

um Nhma has a policy conference on friday uh in september. I think it's the 23rd, 23rd and.

B

A delegate from the city- I think it may be the mayor- are you able to go to that 23rd on friday.

B

Votes on behalf of the municipality, to support um the principles and then votes or doesn't vote.

B

For these other policies and that's why we're going to go through these.

B

Details: okay, so um the first order of business would be whether this committee would recommend.

B

The legislative principles um to the council to approve at the next city council meeting.

B

So that we could then go to the conference and and participate in the in the voting.

B

With the membership, I would move that we approve this. Second, any discussion.

A

All in favor, oh, is there a discussion? um No all in favor, aye.

A

Any opposed okay, so now we can move on to the more detailed uh policy positions which.

B

uh Oftentimes, um you know again are more, are more uh in detail and it's the same principle. However,.

B

Certain topics over the years have have been. You know the subject of interest from the membership.

B

um What we typically would do is we'll go topic by topic and.

B

See if anyone has any questions on any of these and if you would recommend to the council to not.

B

Approve a particular position when the vote is taken at the nhma conference.

B

Then our membership would, you know, do whatever, whatever the council ultimately approves for.

B

Each of these positions and um that's how it's that's been run over the years so.

B

I think probably just topic by topic might be the best way to sure to address that, so the.

B

Local authority and efficiency. um Obviously we saw a lot of that last session right and uh that's why.

B

This principle is probably number one when they, when they uh set forth their uh policy positions.

B

Basically, you know keeping the integrity of local decisions from from from the state usurping that.

B

Several of these really only apply to towns, and but you know, we saw a lot of legislation on these.

B

So I think that it's clear what they support: they support local autonomy and.

B

They support collaboration um in in their in their um bills and conceptually so and they obviously.

B

Oppose anything that detracts from from local authority, so does anyone have any questions or.

B

Are not in agreement with any of these provisions under local authority and efficiency.

B

No, so then I guess there would be a motion to recommend to the city council to approve.

A

So why don't we- um I guess one motion would be at the end of this: let's uh do each one, a discussion.

B

And then one motion at the end, okay, we haven't marked any under local authority and efficiency.

A

Okay, so next step, I guess would be the right to know this has evolved as well. You know over the.

B

Years these particular policies every year, you know get further refined as the right to know.

B

Law gets further refined, and these I think this is really just practical application of the right to.

B

Know law, I know every year there is a request to have sort of an um arms. I can never say that word.

B

Buds to kind of vet and and oversee issues relative to right to know, rather than going.

B

To court it fails every time, but it's something that nhma constantly supports: to try to clarify.

B

And simplify for everyone's benefit. You know what the process is and and how to address the right to.

B

Know so any of those provisions, um something that this committee would not recommend to the council.

A

Council tabor, as a paper man, that's right, contort myself to oppose right to know.

D

I think the only one that I questioned was you know right now. We need a quorum in person.

D

And we learned in covid that that's a limiting factor at times for small committees.

D

I don't know how the rest of you feel about that, but.

B

So then, that would support the last bullet. The authority of a municipality too yeah to change.

B

That, okay, so the work in agreement with that right, yes, okay, okay and the general flavor of.

A

This is that there are costs associated with right to know, requests and then, by having some means of.

A

Charging uh for that, based on the reasonable labor costs, another cost responding of all.

A

This or excessive record requests might make our ability to respond to these more or we'd, be more.

A

Able to respond if we could somehow charge for the cost to our legal department to respond to.

A

Oh yeah, I don't have any. You, don't have a problem with that. First bullet, then, as long.

D

As it's not excessive, I mean you, don't want what says not excessive right. There says reasonable.

A

No, I don't know, maybe we could go to outside council and start billing at 300 an hour.

E

Just think about, whenever you copy anything at the library you know like you, ask them to.

E

Copy something five cents, a page or whatever you know right same same yeah. It's reasonable.

C

For excessive records, yeah elections elections are there any questions on any of those provisions.

C

So uh provision number one so that's new an established or is that establishment of an.

C

Independent redistrict commission to draw is that, in response to the redistricting of.

C

Less yes, yes, and- and I think this actually.

B

It may not be the first time this is. This has come up on the subject of redistricting, but.

B

Nhma will continues to support the redistricting commission and, and certainly it was very topical.

B

Last session, and so it makes sense that they put that as one of the you know, the the primary or.

B

The at least the first um principle that they would support under general elections, yeah.

C

Because this will be our first election with the new district name and as we see you know, there's.

C

There's reps, who would now represent three four five and newington or two three in in new market.

E

Exactly it's it's a challenge. We we lost our representative in ward, five. We were split.

E

Across newcastle, so newcastle and ward five and then uh so that's a real challenge. Right, yeah.

B

Yes, it definitely is a challenge, and um you know that that that principle of.

B

You know it depends on the election depends on who gets elected. What the composition of the house.

B

And senate is what comes forward again? You know, but these don't. The redistricting doesn't come.

B

That often, but I think, a commission, you know to to work on this ongoing basis.

B

You know would be something that you have to see how it is, how it's affected these communities, that.

C

Were split up and then report back and hopefully so I doubt this is the end of that issue. Okay,.

B

Okay, moving on to labor and employment.

B

Any questions or issues relative to those.

A

What is the definition of an ever going.

B

An amber green is like a automatic rollover or an extension without further action.

B

And they can sneak up on you and you can have contracts go longer than you know. It's like.

B

Automatic renewing particular provisions of a contract so.

B

um You you definitely don't want that, because you want to know your hard stop date.

B

Not have these these particular provisions go on and on and on.

D

But if, if the municipality and the union can't reach agreement and there's stalemate, we we do.

D

We stay on the we're legally required to stay on the original contract right, I believe so. I'd defer.

B

To the city manager on that sorry say that again I have a kid whose battery died in her car so.

D

I'm multitasking say that again, if, if there's no contract, uh do we default to the existing contract.

D

Are we not required to the existing contracts in place until the correct right? I always thought.

D

That was the evergreen definition, but it doesn't doesn't continue forever. You know, I think I think.

B

It's that creating mandatory evergreen clauses for public employee, collective bargaining agreements.

B

Is something that they they they oppose because they they do want a hard stop. They do want a.

B

Point at which, right you know that you take the next step as opposed to continuing forever now.

B

Is that right? Yes, just on a personal, I I overall think these are good policies. I struggle to.

C

Oppose anyone's right to strike that's just a fundamental value. We can remove that from.

B

From the recommendation to counsel, if I would, I would make that motion yeah. How do we.

A

I guess is that a second we can discuss it. Second,.

A

Do public employees currently have the right to strike.

D

I do not know, I thought they did. I think we do. I think we would know if we did not.

D

We can get clarification on that clarification on that yeah. I'm happy to uh I'm happy to remove it.

A

um Or support that uh as well. But I believe that I believe that they do have the right to.

A

So I guess would be helpful to know we'll see if I can get that clarification right now.

D

Okay, all in favor of removing uh support of the right to strike for public employees.

D

I I've always felt public employees should not have a right to strike.

D

Not to take anything away from the power of collective bargaining, but because.

D

Public safety sometimes requires that police and fire beyond the job, yeah and um and uh and.

D

Teachers is a tricky one too, so I would wonder if there would is a is a clause within their contract.

C

Which would potentially supersede whether we remove this or not? um I think it.

E

This is a challenge because um some categories of public employees definitely um in the past, I feel.

E

Like have always had that right to strike, and I'm thinking particularly of teachers- and I did.

E

Work as a union teacher member for a year- and we definitely had the right to strike in pennsylvania.

E

And that was part of the reason that districts were willing to work with you on your new contract.

E

Because they didn't want you to strike, they didn't want you to quit. Working.

E

That's, I think, part of the part of the.

E

Benefit to public employees of being part of a union is in some ways having that collective power.

E

And you do take some power away from them when you don't. That said, these are just the principles that.

E

The new hampshire municipal association is fighting, for they aren't necessarily.

E

It doesn't necessarily change anything if you ask them to remove that provision. That doesn't mean.

E

They're going to go out and be taking a position, a different position on the issues. It just means.

E

That they don't have a position on that issue. I think right and it would be the majority of.

B

The members vote so at the conference. If the majority of members in attendance approve this.

B

Provision, then, notwithstanding those who objected to it or requested that it be removed, the nhma's.

B

Position would would include it, so that's how it works. It's really the the majority vote of the.

B

Membership when this comes forward at the policy conference, okay, so the um I guess in terms of the.

A

The order operations, it would be.

A

I don't know if we would remove so what will happen at this is.

A

I'm trying to remember from last year jane they are two years ago. They.

B

Similar to what we're doing, they call the main, the main topic, and I I think- um and they asked.

B

For a vote of the membership that was coveted, so there wasn't a lot of robust discussion. It was.

B

You know sort of very quick and and topically like we're we're doing. I think um if they go point by.

B

Point then, you would not vote in in favor of that particular provision if they go for the full slate.

B

I think you would mention in the beginning that you would oppose that and and clarify whether.

B

That prevents you from voting on the whole slate on the topic depends on how they present the vote.

B

And- and I remember it was um very different during during the covet uh what time yeah so do we have.

A

We have clarification. I asked the question of the legal team: do public employees currently.

D

Have the right to strike and the answer is no: they have the public employment, labor relations board.

A

Okay, so there's another avenue correct.

A

For so, if they get the impasse, they immediately go through the correct, immediate labor relations.

C

So with that information I would, I would feel comfortable removing my motion. Okay, second is.

B

Okay, without withdrawing that yeah. Okay, thank you for that information, city manager, you're welcome.

B

All right, moving on to substance, use prevention and response.

B

Does anyone have any issues with the principles identified? Nhma imposes opposes and supports.

B

Yes, yes, as I brought up earlier um yeah, clearly the the opposition to um any legislation relative.

B

To canvas seems to really harp on funding, yep funding and and um definitely funding for.

B

um You know anticipated costs associated that might be borne by municipality.

B

uh Due to um the location of that industry in the municipality.

B

I'm okay with it. Anyone have any comments or questions.

D

Jane, do you see cannabis legislation coming up? I don't know. I think it depends again on.

B

The election and if things change um I thought last year, was pretty close.

A

Yeah I mean, I think this is a little ridiculous in the fire department and ems agencies are likely.

A

To see increased calls for those who overdose abusing cancer, those abusing cannabis. I mean that.

A

The lethal death of cannabis- you know you probably you'd, find it uh with.

A

You're not going I just. I don't see that as a reasonable statement uh to. I think it.

C

Perpetuates the misinformation and, as we know it on the couch eating potatoes yeah, as we know,.

C

Through the the other municipalities and states who have legalized it, we do not see an influx of.

C

So, in fact, we see a reduction in overdoses of others, other drugs, and so that's.

D

And actually colorado experienced a reduction in traffic accidents.

C

Surplus in a budget: well, there was less drinking and more smoking, so it would be well within.

B

This uh I mean, I guess, like what they're so what they're talking about in you know that provisions.

A

Adequate and sustained funding to municipalities- I just feel like this- should be more clarified.

A

The municipalities should be able to receive you know a share of any any uh tax that it is.

A

That is uh levied against marijuana or cannabis. I would, I would also add this opt-in provision.

E

I think that is kind of an important the opt-in provision and that making sure that.

E

Municipalities have the right to issue license, so this um requirement for host community agreement.

E

With municipality, I think that that's that's important, we're seeing this play out just.

E

North of the bridge already and and they have similar provisions here-.

E

Which really issue licenses is very similar to what you see in massachusetts as well.

B

It's really the second provision, then that's causing concern in this uh in the in the under the.

B

um Authorizing the legislation that authorizes the sale, the the the costs, as you mentioned,.

B

Before those three um bullets or four bullets yep, so is that a provision that this committee.

B

Would not recommend the council to endorse? Well, it's tricky, like I guess, like, though I'm still.

A

Talking about the legislat, the the second sub bullet under legislation that authorized the sale.

D

Unless the following requirements and conditions are included on the sub-bullet second sub-bullet.

A

I would agree that the city should be getting or any municipality should be receiving funding.

A

That is commiserate with the sale of cannabis in there within their border, but the reasons.

A

That they give of substance, abuse and cost to provide care to those needing assistance.

A

Local police, in terms of the first line of enforcement for underage use, impaired.

A

Driving and arrest and result in social problems, fire department and ems agencies.

A

That are going to see calls for overdoses and the need for significant enhancement in the drug.

A

Recognition expert program to ensure local departments can adequately enforce motor vehicle.

A

I mean maybe on the motor vehicle aspect of this, but I feel like this.

A

Previous ones were written for a drug that has presented much higher fatalities or any.

A

Any I guess, adverse effects that would be. You know greater than alcohol at this point, so I don't know.

A

How we continue to say that we want the money, but we don't agree with the reasons why we need.

A

The money we want the money because we're the ones that are going to be licensing enforcing the laws.

A

Without you know, creating a situation where you know, we've agreed that there's some sort of.

C

Societal detriment yeah. I think, because they're those their subsets are specifically linked to the.

B

Local funding, if you have concerns about those subsets romaneti through four, that you should.

B

Not recommend that provision to the council, okay, for the reasons you've discussed.

E

um Can we just, can we just leave that that second subset is um we'll have to deal directly with the.

E

Impacts of legalization period and just not have anything because there will be impacts.

E

Of legalization, but it will be more around licensing and permitting and inspections.

E

um Than it will be around making sure that we have additional funding for substance, abuse issues.

B

If again, there's a more traditional meeting of the group, um what what could be authorized.

B

Or recommended by this group is that we put a motion on the floor to remove those specifics.

B

The I through four, if that's, you, know if that's permissible and then, if that's not permissible.

B

Then um you know, then then the issue would be whether or not we would support the provision.

D

Overall, okay, so um I would move that we remove the subsections.

E

The four subsections under the bullet point that starts with legal legislation that legalizes the.

E

Sale of cannabis must include provisions for an adequately sustained funding and should.

E

We not be able to remove those bullet points that we not support that specific sub heading.

A

All right and just for the the clarity of the motion, we will return back to that at the.

A

End of the end of the discussion with one with one motion, all right, all right. Second, okay,.

A

Okay, but it's not emotion because we haven't made the motion just yet we're.

A

Simply noting what we would make at the end of the discussion.

B

Okay, we've gone to finance and revenue. Are there any questions or concerns.

B

I do have some a couple points of clarification, um so, under um the provision that talks about.

B

um The to lower the abatement interest rate that municipalities pay under 76 17a, that's.

B

Right above the it's the last bullet before the nhma positions that they oppose, that actually.

B

Passed this year, so if you're a little confused, it's because it passed, um it is four percent, but.

B

I guess they kept that in there, because every year legislation can be re introduced to change.

B

That percentage, so it so it so that actually did pass. uh It was six percent the year before and now.

B

It's four percent and it aligns exactly with the interest rate on the delinquent taxes, so.

B

It's a wa, you know it's it matches, but I just wanted to clarify that that did pass last session.

A

Any discussions on the finance and revenue or the first, the property taxes and related revenues.

A

um I could your honor I didn't see. Maybe I missed it that nhma was supporting.

D

Restoring the amount of rooms and meals tax going back to the towns and cities, I believe.

B

It's in another section believe it or not, yeah, I think it's later on in the policies.

B

Because I I did see it and we've talked about this before, but.

D

Our tax base is unusual in that we have 45, or so that's commercial and right now.

D

A taxpayer a commercial building taxpayer can refuse to provide.

D

Information for the income approach to appraising the building- and I know that.

D

Our assessor has said: we've gone to concord in the past to try and change that.

D

Without success, but you know, do we differ there with an hma.

D

And do other towns and cities that have a big commercial base like us.

D

Differ, I would submit we probably do.

D

D

I think that there's probably appraisal value left on the table, because we can't.

D

Use the income approach which could be used to offset our residential tax space.

A

That's specifically, legislation that prohibits the use of the income approach right by a.

A

Taxpayer in any appeal of assessed value, the taxpayer refuses to provide such information.

A

Municipality, I'm interested. Why would nhma be supportive of that.

B

My recollection um of the controversy of us of valuations.

B

Is that's only if they refuse to provide such information as requested by the municipality, so.

B

I think it's like a discovery problem, particularly when you go to the board of land and tax appeals.

B

If it's a pro se person that is legitimately representing themselves my vague recollection.

B

In the past, is it's been problems with municipalities, getting supporting documentation.

B

For certain types of appraisals, rent roles and that sort of thing, so I think the intent of this.

B

Is you can't use the income approach unless you provide the information that supports that.

B

That income approach- and I I know our assessor- has had that issue before.

B

And not necessarily appeals, but you know getting full documentation. That's my recollection.

A

B

Now, on to the state aid and non-property tax revenue.

A

Rsa 31a refers to the rooms and meals.

B

That's just revenue sharing, that's the one we mentioned before. That is the.

B

That states a particular percentage of the budget for revenue, sharing that I.

B

Mentioned early on and they repeal that regularly which they have done.

B

I don't know the statutory uh reference for the state, meals and rooms, but.

B

Under the opposition p under the first bullet under opposition it it opposes any legislation.

B

That would repeal the dedicated fund to share that 30 percent of the state's meals and rooms tax.

B

So, in other words, you can't change that percentage like.

B

The legislature has done historically over many many years by reducing it.

E

Okay, any questions on that.

A

All right on to the retirement system seems pretty straightforward. I'd love to get to 35 percent.

A

Yeah we got the 7.5 one time you know from the surplus, but I was very positive.

B

But yes, so there are no issues relative to that: okay and then the education funding.

B

This is very vanilla and the reason is they stay away from it and they have.

B

The new the new hampshire school boards association really takes.

B

Position on bills relative to education, funding and hma, because their membership is so diverse,.

B

They don't they don't take a position on the ed funding issues.

B

Pretty much ever that that I can. You know that I can recall for for for the swap issue specifically.

B

Any objections to anything in that category: okay and then energy, environment and sustainability.

D

Some good ones in here I mean as a state really stingy on that energy.

D

Metering and that that inhibits people from getting solar and so the more we can.

D

Raise that the better off we are and hooray for community choice and energy supply.

D

B

There are no changes to the energy and sustainability and no comments. Okay,.

B

Moving on to the water resource, protection, control and management.

B

Any changes or comments to those policies.

A

Do we currently do anything? That is, I mean we can.

A

Basically, they oppose anything. That's unfunded from the state on the municipality.

D

Yeah unfunded mandates, yeah yeah overall, but no, you know reason why portsmouth couldn't do that.

A

um You know doesn't speak to anything that we couldn't do.

A

Just no mandates right, it's not limiting what what what we could do, but it is supporting.

B

um You know the funding of of clean water and and the infrastructure associated with it.

A

As uh as our resident expert.

A

Suzanne, woodland of any opinions on the water resource, protection control and management from.

A

A state level she viewed these and thought of anything. I I did not run this by her.

B

These provisions, so I believe that, like you know, it's not like, because we put it in here or even.

A

If they put it in there that it happens right correct, but there's nothing that we would find.

B

No, in fact, I think, the third bullet, the nhma supports the regulation of emerging.

B

Contaminants that appropriate, you know, and the technical standards was, was one of the principles.

B

Portsmouth put forward three years ago to make sure we use science to um evaluate.

B

Contaminants- and that was a actually a floor policy amendment that portsmouth I.

B

Think put forward many many years ago to nhma that was kind of woven into.

B

At least a version of it has continued to stay woven in to these principles.

B

No additional comments on the water resources: okay, none moving on to solid waste management.

B

Again, you can see here a lot of regional you're, seeing.

B

Woven in here for these principles and policies, a lot more approach to regional.

B

Approaches to solving problems, that's something that's arisen over the last several years.

B

Any comments or revision to those policies.

B

Seeing none moving on to the housing.

B

And again, this has come to the forefront in the last couple of years through legislation. I am.

B

Certain we'll see more coming next session too.

B

This has definitely evolved over the years. It'd be lovely to see some.

C

Of the municipalities, ability to maintain units that fall under income restriction.

C

We're getting close closer and closer.

A

So do we feel as though they support with you know, there's usually a regional approach.

A

We think legislation which promotes a collaborative approach between the state.

A

Municipalities and other key stakeholders- I guess do we have a way to you- know tackle this.

A

Regionally as well, I think that this policy would encourage encourage that approach.

B

The the collective approach between the state, municipalities and other key stakeholders I mean.

B

I think I think that's attempted you know by some of these. These changes, for you know, through.

B

The the planning- I know, the regional planning commission and um working with other communities.

B

And I think also housing is going to be something that that needs to have a collaborative approach.

B

Given you know the the cost of housing from one town to the next- and I think that's recognized.

B

I think there's been more robust legislation historically to encourage that it hasn't been.

B

As successful, but I think it's water on a rock uh just like the meals and rooms and I think.

B

That um there'll be there'll be more certainly in the future, because I think again what one.

B

Small town's ability is to do you know to do with workforce housing uh if they're unable to work.

B

Collaboratively and regionally it's it's going to be challenging compared to working collectively.

B

And this supports a collaborative approach right. If we want to create legislation, we can reach out.

B

To our representatives and and try to flush out in advance of the introduction of lsrs, what that.

B

Might look like what we could envision? Have we put forth any legislation from portsmouth that would.

A

You know the first bullet point: legislation that allows for municipalities to require the inclusion.

A

Of affordable and diverse housing opportunities as part of new housing developments, I don't recall.

B

Any suggested legislation that that this committee has recommended to our delegates.

B

On that issue, because we've always you know, people always think literally everybody in.

A

Portsmouth thinks that we can build housing and require affordable housing as part of it.

D

I'd say almost everybody in portsmouth, unless you're on the council or on a land use board. You.

A

Think, oh yeah! Well, why don't you require housing? Well, we can only do it if there's a variance.

A

For that housing and the variance is to build bigger- and you know, people can pick a park or.

A

But those are again only for variances. We can't buy right, require 20 of any new units to be.

A

Affordable in portsmouth so um yeah, I guess I would like to see that come out at least from.

A

One of our delegates, I've always been surprised because we definitely don't have that right.

B

What we could do is um yeah, then um I could, if this committee authorized me to do so. I think.

B

Senator perkins polka is someone who works with in the workforce, housing and I can relay this.

B

Concern and see, if there's anything in the works, the dates for submission on lsrs.

B

Goes goes through, I think the latest the house can sign off on all lsrs is nov late november and.

B

The senate's a little bit later than that, so we certainly have time to have those discussions now.

B

Before the lsrs, should we invite them in to have a discussion? Have a meeting with the delegates.

B

Schedule one: why don't we wait until after the primary okay yeah? Well, we will, I guess.

C

E

There's another housing provision. I had a question on, but it's actually under land use.

E

But it's clearly a housing provision. Okay, so do you want to any more questions on the housing? I.

A

Mean I think, the legislation that erodes local control over the land use decisions, we're never.

A

Going to you know, that's a it's a big one. I agreed with martha flow clark that we should.

A

Have edu's, even though that eroded local control, but I don't think we will ever have.

A

I think anything that will be successful with the nmh nhma will be through the lens of local control.

A

Meaning the only way we will get more.

A

Conservatives or republicans and democrats to agree on something is if it's something.

A

That that can be pitched as a local control as an opt-in or opt-out, and that's why and.

E

Under land use, I was going to argue that we need to drop one of the opposition items.

E

um New state mandates requiring municipalities to allow specific types of housing. I don't know.

E

That I don't know that we'd actually oppose a new state mandate requiring municipalities to.

E

Allow adus right so we, but we might, we did oppose short-term rentals and every residential unit or.

B

District right, but that's different than adu so like if it came up. If, if we had a new at the state.

E

Level if we had a proposition to require adus, I I don't know. I think that that would benefit us.

C

But I think on the flip side is that if we had a state proposition that required us to.

C

Allow airbnbs we would have posted different, exactly yeah exactly so. What I'm saying is.

E

Maybe we shouldn't have that statement in there, because we already have a statement about opposing.

E

um Allowing municipalities to regulate short-term rentals, as is what we support.

E

But I don't know that we would always oppose changes to allow specific types of housing.

E

I don't know that portsmouth would actually oppose. I'm not. I don't know where everyone else stands.

E

But I don't know the portsmouth would actually oppose changes to single family from single.

E

Family to multi-family throughout either right, so so this is this is, for example, there was a.

B

Bill last session that would have allowed every single family resident to be converted to four.

B

Units to absorb it and you you know I I don't know that there's been uniform support for that in the.

B

City of portsmouth, and if this was taken out, you know that then then it would prohibit nhma from.

B

I think fighting for some of those statewide zoning changes that are outside of adu, such as.

B

For four units by right for every single family residence, I don't know that I think.

E

There's probably a lot of people in portsmouth that think that's reasonable. So that's that's.

E

The challenge here is that I don't think that this fits our position either that we oppose.

E

Any statewide changes, because the challenge right now we have is the state in some cases.

E

Is better in better position to make some of these changes than we are at the local level? I can.

B

Summarize quickly, some of the statewide voting changes that were opposed by nhma.

B

That on different types of issues for bills- and I just think for purposes of discussion- it might be.

B

Worth kind of going down that little laundry list which I have here, I promise.

B

So there were statewide zoning amendments for allowing short-term rentals everywhere. That was.

B

Killed um allowing tiny houses everywhere that was killed, uh a 10, 000 square foot, minimum lot size.

B

That was killed maximum of one parking space per dwelling unit that was killed, allowing four plexes.

B

Where public water, as long as you had public water and sewer that was killed and limiting.

B

Anyway, so so those were the type, I think when we're talking about statewide.

B

Zoning changes we are talking about when the state says you gotta right, you gotta.

B

Do actually gotta do why and you and it basically amends the zoning ordinances throughout the state.

B

So that those are the types of bills that nhma did oppose and that were killed.

B

That would definitely change our zoning and impact our resident, particularly our residential.

B

Neighborhoods and there's two sides of you know supporting or opposing those changes, but they.

B

It's it's important to note that that's what nhme did on some of those particular. I was.

A

I guess I would I would say the reason why the airbnb was killed. Not it wasn't because.

A

Airbnb there was a solid view on airbnb or not. I think there was enough support that it had a.

A

Negative effect on housing stock, but I also think there was.

A

Many much in the vein of the state shall not you know, describe what a town shall do.

A

I think that's mostly the the feel of concord when it comes to to zoning now, but the opposite is that.

A

I feel like communities like portsmouth kevin's gonna, get very angry at me for not talking um the.

A

uh A community like portsmouth should have more levers when it deals with some of our neighbors.

A

That we do support in many ways through our schools, through our wastewater treatment through.

A

Our water, but you know right now we have no, you know ability to say rye. You know we can charge.

A

You more uh for wastewater, and uh you know water, and you know how much we're gonna cost to educate.

A

Your kids in our high schools, without um we, if, if you don't change your your zoning, um so I guess I.

A

Would like more flexibility within municipalities to solve this on our own than necessarily saying.

A

The state is going to because I just don't I'm not confident that that's going to pass anything.

A

In concord now like, we could disagree with it, but we also did use it from the airbnb standpoint of.

A

Saying this is a statewide issue, and or this is not a statewide issue, this should be you.

A

Should be argued locally, but somebody will very quickly turn around and say. Well, we don't want.

A

You know maximum lot sizes or we want to reduce. You know, there's.

A

Statewide zoning that require you know higher. You know lot sizes that we would also probably oppose.

A

um But I don't I don't know well one I would back up from the state house and I don't think.

A

Anything like that would change and then two, whether or not we oppose it now from the nhma.

A

The nhma is not going to change their view, so we could protest that uh quite easily and.

A

And say we don't support state mandates that require that and that'd be fine to do that. But.

A

It's not something that I believe there's a strong support, because the majority of the nhma.

A

Is the towns you know, and they don't look at it as how much you know this nhm is funded.

A

You know by the cities, which is, I think, a majority of the funding comes from the.

A

The cities for the organization, but they don't, they, don't treat it uh as such.

A

Get five minutes, I think, before we wrap up what's up in the planning conference.

A

Planning conference room looking for cemetery committee, yeah planning conference room third.

D

Floor- um I guess I just have questions around that. I don't know that I want the new hampshire.

E

Municipal association lobbying, on our behalf against some of these provisions that they.

E

Actually lobbied against last year, like I really don't have a problem with a maximum of one parking.

E

Space required per dwelling and, like so there's like some of these provisions in portsmouth, I mean.

E

I think that that's something that we're looking at when it comes to like climate change and.

E

You know starting to reduce the number of cars that are required in the city, we're talking about.

E

Increasing housing and having multi-family housing in neighborhoods that maybe we didn't before.

E

Tiny houses, I think, are not necessarily a bad thing when you have a major housing problem.

E

You know, and so I'm just saying that I don't necessarily want on our behalf the new hampshire.

E

Municipal association lobbying against some of the things that they will lobby against at a.

E

Statewide level, because these are things we can't accomplish here, because we can't change the zoning.

E

Care to allow some of these things because they're not allowed in the state-wide zoning.

E

Correct uh so they're not um well, it's not they so like the adu, for example, is that.

A

The state came down and said that you shall be required to to to allow this type of housing here.

A

There was no reason why somebody couldn't allow that housing before, but many municipalities.

A

Did not do that because they they chose not to um and then even now I think, there's some.

A

You know whether or not they are they're fully living up to the spirit of that laws. It's not. I.

A

Mean I guess I I somewhat like uh part of me like it's hard for me in that I want to be able to have.

A

Local control over the things that the properties that we raise or the the revenues that we raise.

A

And the uh and you know what we can, what we can require of partners in in the immediate region.

A

It's difficult for me to also then say: well unless it's something I want, then the state can tell you.

A

Whatever you, you know, you should do, and so I guess that's why I wouldn't be supportive of.

A

Of repealing uh that, even if there would be things that I would be.

A

um Disagreeing with, but we've gone against the nmh nhma before um and and spoken out against.

A

Spoken out against things that we feel strongly about, so um I'm happy to uh I'm happy to pull it.

A

uh As well- and I think that, but I don't think that it's, I think that.

A

The um I think that the way that we, I guess like fundamentally, I think that the way that we're.

A

Going to solve this is figuring out how it's, how we incentivize communities to do it rather.

A

Than the state telling communities how they're going to do it, and I I think that is going to.

A

One I think it's going to be a tough hill to climb and then um you know, communities have.

A

To take into account the cost of you know, they are not truly bearing the cost of you know like.

A

Rye or greenland don't truly bear the cost of. You know: education for kids,.

A

Or any number of of things that you know living next to a a city like portsmouth, provides them.

A

So but I don't know if the state telling them that they have to do, it is going to.

A

Is going to is going to work um as much as you know, portsmouth incentivizing them. You know for.

A

One way or the other to to do it, but again I'm happy to strike it um and I would support it if.

A

uh We did, um but I'm not I'm not convinced that that's the uh the way that we would.

A

We're gonna get the outcome that I think we collectively desire uh here. Could I add a point.

B

To your concerns, one of the things we could do at the next meeting is look at our legislative.

B

Principles on housing and look to see if we want to edit that and that way this committee.

B

Can recommend to the council or ch? You know a change in our policy and therefore, regardless.

B

Of nhma's position on this, we would be active in opposing, or you know, um supporting whatever that.

B

New principle would reflect so that's another. You know another way that this committee could.

B

Be a little more um supportive of change, perhaps in housing, and and do it that way.

D

D

Land use boards that we have are local and we delegate to them the balance between the.

D

Public interest and the private interest and the more that our zoning can reflect that balance.

D

Of public interest versus private interest for portsmouth, I think the better it generally will be.

D

For example, the uh the up zoning to four units in every house would have a tremendous.

D

In a impact like ours that you know, whichever side of it, you're on shouldn't that be debated locally.

D

As opposed to through a state mandate, I think if the state mandates land use controls like that.

D

They're one size fits all for every town, so I think there's value in in having us.

D

Adjudicate the balance between what's right for.

D

The public interest and versus the property owner as close to local as we can that's just how I feel.

D

About it and I'm not convinced that that I mean is, is for you, I mean, I think you would go on the.

A

Record and say it's a good idea to be able to allow that. But I'm not sure that that would pass.

A

In portsmouth like I would be surprised to be quite honest if everybody supported you know, I'm.

A

Thinking of areas where parking is at a premium uh where there would be a you know soon, as we.

A

Have self parking cars all of our problems will be new problems, um but the uh I I have a hard time.

A

Thinking that um well, I guess I just I would like to focus our all of these are.

A

I'd like to be able to to lead by example as much as we can in portsmouth and use that.

A

And get more tools to be able to help other communities see in our surrounding vicinity.

A

What the you know what good looks like and why they should be incentivized to to be good. um The.

A

You know, I would say the adu was a good idea um and it created an opportunity, but I don't you know.

A

We martha full clark, still supported that, and she that was her bill out of portsmouth and it.

A

Happened because of her leadership, and we um you know the nhma, you know didn't support it.

A

So um I think that there's opportunity when there's a a good bill to be supportive of that.

A

And I don't think you know we can. We can take this off, but I worry more about you know the.

A

The one bill where there might be you know somebody that is looking to be more restrictive.

A

Than we would want to be and then we would be on the other side of that, so the status quo.

A

Seems okay for me at the moment, I think I'm more concerned about the other side, where people.

E

um We're more limited than we want to be true, so where we try to change zoning to allow for things.

E

And uh then we're sued in the state, it's not in the rsa. So um we have more of a challenge because.

E

That is not currently allowed at the station in state level. Zoning, whereas we want to allow.

E

Something in portsmouth and we lose because it's not allowed at the state level. That's what I'm.

E

More concerned about, rather than and what would be an example of that um tiny houses is kind.

E

Of a good example of that, a tiny house is not allowed per state zoning, I don't think it's in.

E

The zoning code, for I don't think it is- is it for, I think, they're there. I think it is defined in the.

B

Building in our building code, what that definition is, I can't tell you, but I do know it's come up in.

B

Conversations relative to the definition in our building: okay, so we have it in our building code.

E

But if somebody were to bring a a tiny house that was self-supporting into somebody's.

E

Backyard and call it an 80 you just do you see what I'm saying then and we end up with.

E

A challenge, I'm just I'm worried about more about we're. We are governed by a set of rsas.

E

That, ultimately define what is allowable and what's not allowable we're, not home, ruled so.

E

If something is not in the rsa as being allowed or allowable, I guess that's what that's where I'm.

E

Concerned then, when we try to do it at a local level and then we're we're limited, because you.

E

Know somebody sues and we can't do it. So that's that's kind of where I am I mean yeah. It's just me.

E

I think if I may, I I think when we, when you um are talking about tiny homes as adu's, I think we're.

C

We're covering that in the um and some of the work in the land use through.

C

Lenders committee on adus, through um you know, of our our policies and what can be considered.

C

You know, depending on sizing detachment all of that stuff, so I do think there are.

C

Municipal, you know, checkpoints that would protect us against something like that and.

C

Or allow something like that, based on our own adu policies, within that within the municipality.

A

So just another point: the the laws requiring uh so uh it was you know, there's allowing adus.

A

uh Is different than requiring adus, and so you know we are a subdivision of the state.

A

Dylan's rules apply and we can't do things that are not specifically stated in the.

A

The rsas, um but that doesn't mean that uh I think it would be easier to potentially change something.

A

On the state level like on the rsa, where, like principle, one where municipalities can.

A

Require uh 20, I think, if you know, if that was changed to be, must require 20 percent.

A

I think that would be a harder sell for new hampshire to support a bill like that.

A

Than it would be, a may require, and I think the new state mandates requiring municipalities to allow.

A

Specific types of housing speak to the have to have, instead of may have.

A

And so I I wouldn't have the concern again. I still think that there is. You know there is a.

A

Think that there's a definite need for like.

A

Anybody watching the recording, I'm sorry for picking on rye, but there's a definite need for.

A

uh Places that are um that have more land, and you know, could be.

A

Connected to water and sewer that are close to municipalities to to to build more. But I.

A

I might be wrong about this, but I feel strongly that people have to you know, are governed by.

A

The the government works by the consent of the government I feel like they have to be somewhat.

A

Incentivized themselves, to believe that this is in their best interest, or else we will find.

A

I to I think the adus were something that was able to pass, because it was.

A

Such a small thing, but you know for a major thing to pass. I worry about the backlash of.

A

People, you know talking about paving paradise and putting up a parking lot type situations where.

A

They would be required to do something like that. um You know, but uh again, I'm we can.

A

I'd be happy to I, you know I like the idea, but I do worry about what we would be losing by.

A

You know going into the mandate world where I think portsmouth is going to do its best work for.

A

Affordable housing by leading by example, of what can happen and what you know and incentivize our.

A

Communities around us to to potentially take more bold action that they are taking at the moment.

D

All right, okay, so we will.

A

And then that the other all statewide land use mandates.

A

um So um we can think about it and come back when we make our motions.

A

At the end, information technology, communications and cyber security.

A

Any questions on.

A

The only thing that I thought of in this was.

A

There didn't seem to be much on the procurement side of this, and I know we've run into issues with.

A

Like the state uh uh specifically was office 365 in terms of like not being able to like.

A

Procure the correct software, but I don't I'm not um I'm not that up to. I can't remember.

A

Exactly what suzanne's issue with when she was trying to buy office 365.? Nor do I.

D

I wouldn't know what to recommend to to potentially consider her. We can. We.

D

Can coordinate with her and report back to the something that could be something we could work.

B

With our delegates at our next meeting to try to try to flush that out or an issue, the next session.

B

Any other comments on the I.t section last page.

B

Transportation.

A

No questions on this question no.

B

Okay, um last subject: economic development review, recovery and vitality.

D

That was good, see no comments. Okay, I think we.

B

So I think that the two issues that were flagged by the group um were substance.

B

Use prevention and response relative to an amendment to romanette I, through four.

B

Relatives to the local funding and the other issue flagged and discussed by.

B

The group was the most recent discussion on the positions that nhma opposes regarding land use.

E

I think we should deal with these separately because I don't think that everybody's on the same.

E

Page, like I think, everybody's on the same page on one but not on the other. Well so these would be.

A

These all I'm just trying to think of the final goal of these are to be recommended.

A

They have to be approved by the council, yes on the 19th before the okay, so um so it would be a.

B

You know the the recommendation would be to not adopt. You know that that provision.

B

Well or the recommendation would be move to remove at the meeting and, if not not, adopt, not vote to to.

B

To approve that particular section on um the specifications regarding the local funding.

A

Okay, I'm just trying to think of like the easiest way to have this be.

A

um So counselor cook, would you rather us, have the discussion and make the recommendation.

A

Out of the subcommittee, or would you rather have the discussion at the council meeting.

E

I I think I would leave it. I think I'm the only person here that.

E

Feels that way about that provision, so um with that said, I I mean I think that bring it up at.

E

The council, or not bring it up at the council meeting, because if I'm the only one here of four.

E

You know I can do the math on that. You know when we get to the council level.

E

Like it's, I doubt that that's going anywhere so, um but I think that we do need to discuss.

E

The provisions of the other section, so I'm trying to get to a point where we we can.

A

All agree on on something here when it comes to land use. So your specific point is that um and.

A

So, are you taking both new state mandates requiring municipalities to allow specific.

A

Types of housing and all other statewide land use mandates that the nmha would oppose. Oh no just.

E

The second provision, new state mandates requiring municipalities to allow specific types of housing.

E

Just because I think that in some cases it would be nice to have a state level mandate.

E

But but that's me, okay, but I'm just my view and the view is.

A

The requirement to have a a type of housing where it doesn't otherwise.

A

Exist superseding the the town's own zoning for that. Okay, and this could just be that.

E

You know, honestly, I we deal with this a lot um like questions, legal questions and governance.

E

Related to well, if there's not a, if there's not enabling legislation at the state level that you.

E

Can't do it, and so that's why I'm looking at it through that lens. I think that if there's.

E

Not enabling legislation, um you can't do it plus I'm also looking at through the lens of.

E

Sometimes you you need the state to to have mandates for certain things to move forward.

E

Because you will never get support from some of our neighbors for certain. But I would say.

A

The first I would, I guess I want to be- hopefully I can convince you of the first part, is not this. The.

A

The enabling legislation is not the main date of requiring it right and it does come up a.

A

Lot, you know because it comes up in the first principle of requiring oh, if we were to require.

A

We need uh affordable housing. We need enabling state legislation that we currently don't have.

A

Right, but the second point is: if we're going to uh require uh that and again I would uh we can.

A

We can save our. I think the discussion is a good one, but um I would I would await a motion.

A

And a second- and I would second it for purposes of discussion. If we, I guess, I can't second extension.

E

I you know, I I think I'm going to leave it. I don't think I think I'm the only person who has.

E

This view, so it's okay, okay, it's okay! I mean I'm good with leaving that alone and back on to the.

A

The cannabis is that specifically cannabis or where does it fall under drug use or substance abuse.

A

Such a weird place to have it right, um but substance use. I guess I mean there's nothing else.

A

You know describing um uh where is that larger one under it's the general administration? Okay, but.

A

um And the I would have made weight a motion to um uh to amend.

A

uh The third bullet point: the second sub-bullet, removing roman numeral one two, three and four.

A

Okay, oh uh and striking uh force items such as the following and then roman numeral, one two three and.

A

Four, so correct: yes, second, okay, any discussion on that. I think the previous discussion all.

B

To recommend approval of the rest uh yeah a motion to recommend.

A

A motion to approve, uh I recommend, I recommend the legislative principles.

A

As amended, um uh but I want some language in there that uh our legislative principles supersede these.

A

Does that make sense.

A

Contingent upon not conflicting with our own uh legislative uh principles, yes, does that make sense.

B

So the motion is to approve all the 2023-24 uh proposed legislative policy positions as amended.

B

Contingent upon not conflicting with our own legislative principles is that the motion.

A

Yeah, we just changed it to uh uh contingent upon conforming with.

B

The city's legislative principles, conforming with cities, legislative principles, okay, so moved second.

A

All in favor aye all right and that's it. We don't typically have public comment.

A

Here, but we have somebody in the audience, so I'd open up the meeting to public comment if.

A

You'd like to introduce yourself jeff, oh yeah, I'd be happy to. um If you just sit up.

F

My name is jeff granvalski, I'm a business representative with the carpenters union.

F

I've had a pleasure to speak with some folks from fort smith.

F

uh City manager, conrad uh mayor mckee, turn um the uh it's been great to hear the framework.

F

For that you folks have laid out here this evening, because there are specific um issues that my.

F

Organization brings to municipalities regarding you know, construction work in our communities.

F

And um you know I I've new to the state, so I'm still learning- and this is uh this- helps.

F

um You know some of the issues that we we like to bring to the forefront to our communities. Are the.

F

Issues of wage theft in the construction industry, there are recent studies from.

F

Berkeley, citing 39 percent of construction workers.

F

Across the country, using some sort of public assistance to um meet their families and needs.

F

And in the competitive industry uh of construction, what we see is kind of a low bid situation where.

F

You tend to get a race to the bottom dynamic and certain contractors are um abusing that dynamic. So.

F

Learning about how the different municipalities in the state operate is going to be helpful. To me to.

F

Be able to um you know we have boilerplate language with wage death, ordinances.

F

Responsible employer languages that certainly can be circulated. However, I'm uh um in touch.

F

With folks at the organization, my organization now to try to um craft something more specific.

F

um uh For for folks to be able to take a look at, and I hope that you folks will, when that happens,.

F

um Thank you, jeff, it's great to meet. You appreciate you listening to our discussion.

A

Here today, it's very insightful, and I appreciate your folks work. Thank you. Excuse me jeff. How do I.

B

Spell your last name again: uh g r, I n is in nancy v is in valerie a-l-s-k-y and the organization.

B

Again, I have jefferson okay, never mind, thank you and then um thank you. So much all right now.

A

uh If there's no new business, um there was a discussion of legislative issues of interest for.

B

The city of portsmouth for the next session, but it sounds like we're going to schedule another. I.

B

Think we'll schedule a discussion with the larger sub uh or the delegation um and do that obviously.

A

After the primary um and look to have ideas uh for them and and any asks uh there, and also to hear.

A

Of their priorities, I saw david representing me as hosting some of them, but I look forward to that.

A

All right, thank you, made a motion to adjourn so moved. Second, all in favor aye. Thank you guys.