February 19, 2008
Smart growth and smart planning concepts utilize the financial planning "tools and process" of a Capital Improvements Program [CIP]. These guidelines are spelled out in NH laws-RSA 674:6 as cited below.
Outsider investment of new development in Claremont in order to produce beneficial broad based growth will not come until the comparative equalized tax rate of the city is brought down to median values. In 2006, Claremont ranked the highest in tax rates; 262 of the 264 municipal tax entities in NH.
The City does have a CIP and I have previously requested that it be published on the web site and that it be made openly available to all; however the Santagate administration, has thus far failed to produce this program document along with another request for the most current organizational chart of the city's employee structuring.
Last week I voted "no" on $1.3M of recreational projects not because I was against implementing those projects but because I was against the timing and impromptu procedures of the moment. I believe such hasty passage bypasses smart planning; namely, fully utilizing the CIP process, which by law includes the input of the city's Planning Board and allowance for comprehensive public input.
I do not believe development of costly recreational projects will lower the city's tax rate, nor will they provide incentive for potential buyers to invest in Claremont's real estate. As such, it appeared to me as counter productive.
RSA 674:6 Purpose and Description. – The capital improvements program shall classify projects according to the urgency and need for realization and shall recommend a time sequence for their implementation. The program may also contain the estimated cost of each project and indicate probable operating and maintenance costs and probable revenues, if any, as well as existing sources of funds or the need for additional sources of funds for the implementation and operation of each project. The program shall be based on information submitted by the departments and agencies of the municipality and shall take into account public facility needs indicated by the prospective development shown in the master plan of the municipality or as permitted by other municipal land use controls.
Richard Dietz, Claremont City Councilor- Ward 3
May 4, 2007
To the Citizens of Claremont;
RE: The City ZBA Needs Independence of the Planning Department
Having served the past several years on the Claremont Zoning Board of Adjustment [ZBA], one process that appeared to be very problematic was the incorporation of the ZBA within the Department of Planning and Development [DPD]. At first glance, this appears as an efficient organizational arrangement to streamline the ever overburdening permitting process of new projects. It also appears efficient for the centralization and utilization of human resources. However, when one further experiences the basic fundamentals and functions of the two agencies, one can only conclude the two agencies must be more independent.
Perhaps, the biggest situations example showing the need for such independence is the fact that the majority of cases brought to the ZBA involve enforcement actions of the DPD, which in Claremont, host the building inspector and zoning administrative offices.
Such enforcement cases before the ZBA are adversary in nature, often arising from code citations, that deserve a fair impartial review tribunal. These cases basically adjudicate between the City and the Citizen. The same event occurs when a citizen challenges an administrative decision of the DPD staff or Historic District Commission [HDC].
Fortunately for the City, the present person clerking all these agencies has handled the ministerial process extremely professional, unbiased, and polite when dealing with the adversary parties. Several persons before the present coordinator either quickly left in frustration or refused to absorb the "in office" stress.
To further complicate upon these proceedings, is the fact that Claremont has an in house attorney to coach these various boards and commissions. Again, at first glance this appears to be efficient management. However, lets examine a pending real case to analyze the problems produced by lack of real independence.
The HDC recently came to a decision under the coaching of the City’s in house attorney. That’s fine and fair, but now comes another problem when the HDC decision becomes under review by the ZBA. Who advocates the HDC decision before the ZBA? Should it be the same attorney who coached the HDC during it’s original deliberations? That would make sense. But, I would ask: can the City’s in house attorney, who has previously coached the ZBA in other cases, have complete independence other than the view that was originally decided in the HDC decision? Here is where the event creates an obvious unfair situation.
The only answer one must reasonably conclude is that the ZBA needs to be truly independent with it’s own part time dedicated outside attorney to provide legal guidance and draft Decisions for the complex determinations the ZBA is called upon to make. It cannot be managed, guided, or supervised by persons within the Planning and Development Department. Neither should the Planning Director be writing the Decisions for the ZBA Chairperson, which now is the practice.
The same answer is true for it’s administrative Clerk. The NH State statutes establish an official Zoning Clerk position for good reason. It states the position clearly, so as to define it by name for legal reference and administrative procedure.
The current management arrangement in Claremont for the ZBA administrative functions need repair immediately. If they are not addressed and fixed, the City will only get mired down with unnecessary costly complex litigation’s while putting the current in house attorney under strain of ethical code considerations.
Richard Dietz
Former ZBA Member
Letter Submitted May 11, 2007......
While the taxpayers of Claremont struggle to meet the tax demands imposed on them by the bureaucracy running Claremont, the incompetence and malfeasance of those bureaucrats is costing Claremont taxpayers more than it should. This will continue until Claremont taxpayers begin to hold these bureaucrats accountable for their actions. While my experiences with Claremont bureaucrats evolve around the building of a hangar at the airport, the issues involved are pertinent city-wide.
Some development, such as housing, invariably brings more costs to the City – mostly in the form of higher education costs – than the City receives in taxes on that development. A second type of development, such as businesses, brings in more tax income and causes less City cost than housing. Business development does cause some additional costs, though; generally related to infrastructure. As more businesses start and expand, more City services, such as fire, police, public works are needed. These additional costs are generally more than offset by the increases those businesses bring to the tax base. Then there is a third type of development; the "free" kind that costs the City nothing, but brings in more income. Most rational people, except Claremont’s bureaucrats, would understand that the second, and especially the third, type of development would be the most cost-efficient to promote.
A hangar at Claremont Municipal Airport is a good example of the third type of development. City-owned land that is idle brings in zero dollars. When there is an opportunity to lease some of that land, such as City-owned land at the airport, it can only benefit the City through lease income. When buildings are erected on the leased land, additional tax income is produced for the City. In Claremont, business (and hangar) development falls under the purview of the Business Development Coordinator.
Details on all this are on my hangar project web page at http://brian76.mystarband.net/hangar.htm
Brian Meyette, Cornish, NH
Create a free website at Webs.com