New Hampshire Town and City Magazine, July-August 2023

For three decades, we’ve had the honor of partnering with New Hampshire’s public entities to help them achieve their investment and cash management goals.

Find your reason to celebrate at nhpdip.com

This information is for institutional investor use only, not for further distribution to retail investors, and does not represent an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any fund or other security. Investors should consider the Pool’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses before investing in the Pool. This and other information about the Pool is available in the Pool’s current Information Statement, which should be read carefully before investing. A copy of the Pool’s Information Statement may be obtained by calling 1-844-464-7347 or is available on the NHPDIP website at www.nhpdip.com. While the Pool seeks to maintain a stable net asset value of $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money investing in the Pool. An investment in the Pool is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Shares of the Pool are distributed by PFM Fund Distributors, Inc., member Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) (www.finra.org) and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) (www.sipc.org). PFM Fund Distributors, Inc. is an affiliate of PFM Asset Management LLC.

After thirty years, we have a lot to celebrate!

Contents

July/August 2023

08 10 16 18 20 26

First Amendment “Audits”: What Are They and How Do You Handle One?

Debunking the Top Ten Tax Deed Myths

Caution, Safer Roads Ahead!

Legislative Wrap-up: Member Advocacy Makes a Difference

Exeter Pioneers Accessible Voting in 2023 Town Election

NHDES REMINDER: Public Pools and Spas Must Be Registered with State

Cover: The town of Boscawen is situated in Merrimack County, on the northern border of Concord. Boscawen is bordered by the towns of Webster, Salisbury, Franklin, and across the Merrimack River, Northfield and Canterbury. With a population of approximately 4,000 citizens, according to its website, Boscawen still calls itself a “small town” with plenty of room for all kinds of outdoor activities, family gatherings, and quiet living that helps make the town of Boscawen a special place.

Official Publication of the New Hampshire Municipal Association 25 Triangle Park Drive • Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Phone: 603.224.7447 • Email: nhmainfo@nhmunicipal.org • Website: www.nhmunicipal.org

New Hampshire Municipal Association: NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN AND CITY (USPS 379-620) (ISSN 0545-171X) is published 6 times a year for $25/member, $50/non-member per year, by the New Hampshire Municipal Association, 25 Triangle Park Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. All rights reserved. Advertising rates will be furnished upon application. Periodical postage paid at Concord, NH 03302. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN AND CITY, 25 Triangle Park Drive, Concord, NH 03301.

NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN AND CITY serves as a medium for exchanging ideas and information on municipal affairs for officials of New Hampshire municipalities and county governments. Subscriptions are included as part of the annual dues for New Hampshire Municipal Association membership and are based on NHMA’s subscription policy. Nothing included herein is to be construed as having the endorsement of the NHMA unless so specifically stated. Any reproduction or use of contents requires permission from the publisher. POSTMASTER: Address correction requested.

© Copyright 2023 New Hampshire Municipal Association

New Hampshire Municipal Association BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Candace Bouchard - Vice Chair City Councilor, Concord

Laura BuonoImmediate Past Chair Town Administrator, Hillsborough

David Caron Town Administrator, Derry

Shelagh Connelly Conservation Commission, Holderness

Phil D’Avanza Planning Board, Goffstown

Stephen Fournier Town Manager, Newmarket

Elizabeth Fox - Chair Asst. City Manager, HR Director, Keene

David Stack Town Manager, Bow

Lisa Drabik - Treasurer Human Resources Director, Manchester

Neil Irvine Town Administrator, New Hampton

Patrick Long Alderman, Manchester

Cheryl Lindner - Treasurer Treasury Management Officer, Nashua

Conner MacIver Town Administrator, Barrington

Judie Milner City Manager, Franklin

Jim MaggioreImmediate Past Vice Chair Select Board Member, North Hampton

Dale Girard Mayor, Claremont

April Hibberd Select Board Member, Bethlehem

Jim Michaud Chief Assessor, Hudson

Dennis Shanahan Deputy Mayor, Dover

Holly Larsen Finance Director/Tax Collector, Berlin

Joanne Haight Select Board Chair, Sandwich

Donna Mombourquette Select Board Chair, New Boston

Jeanie Forrester - Secretary Select Board Member, Meredith

Joseph R. Devine Assistant Town Manager, Salem

Shaun Mulholland City Manager, Lebanon

NHMA Executive Director A Message from the Margaret

M.L. Byrnes

Welcome to summer! We kick off the summer with the end of the legislative session—and, in record breaking fashion--a state budget, which passed both the Senate and the House without going to a committee conference, and was signed by the governor on June 20. Be on the lookout for our final Legislative Bulletin, which will include summaries of all the legislation of municipal interest that passed in the 2023 session—and join the government affairs staff for NHMA’s Legislative Wrap Up webinar in August.

In June, NHMA launched a new program to respond to the significant—and unprecedented—federal funding opportunities available to cities and towns through legislation like the Investment in Infrastructure and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. This new NHMA program, the Coaching and Technical Assistance Program (CTAP), launched as a beta test on June 5. The goal of this project is to help small municipalities in New Hampshire successfully access federal, state, and other funding in order to implement impactful projects in their communities. Municipalities with populations under 10,000 can apply, and up to ten will be selected to receive technical assistance and coaching from Arnett Development Group (ADG) to prepare them to apply for an available grant opportunity.

This is new territory for NHMA, but we want to see these critical funds come into New Hampshire—and get to the local level! For that to happen, New Hampshire’s cities and towns must be properly positioned to compete with municipalities from across the country. We’ve launched CTAP as a beta test so that we can assess the success of the program, the interest of our membership in such a program, and whether it should continue long term for all NHMA members. This is a very exciting new venture for NHMA and our members, and we want to give a special thank you to the Community Development Finance Authority (CDFA) for its support of us in getting this program off the ground.

And although we don’t want to rush past summer, fall training opportunities will be here before you know it. We’re so thrilled to launch a new Financial Policies Certificate Program, which will kick off on September 13 here in Concord. (Our other certificate program, the Academy for Good Governance, will return in 2024, as we plan to alternate years for each of these programs.) Of course, fall is budget season, so our annual Budget & Finance Workshops will take place on September 12 (Manchester, with a virtual attendance option) and September 19 (Littleton).

Have a great summer!

Cordell A. Johnston Attorney at Law

Warmest regards,

Margaret M.L. Byrnes, NHMA Executive Director

and cities

NHMA Seeking Municipal Volunteer for Statewide Trail System Advisory Committee

RSA 126-F:5 establishes a New Hampshire statewide trail system advisory committee which includes a representative from the New Hampshire Municipal Association. Sunapee's Town Manager, Dennis Pavlicek, recently resigned from this advisory position due to his impending retirement later this year.

The Committee meets at least twice a year for the purposes of advising the director of parks and recreation on matters related to the New Hampshire statewide trail system.

If you are interested in this appointment, please submit the following items:

1. Brief statement of interest, including why you would be a good fit for this appointment.

2. Current resume or CV and any other useful information helpful to your nomination.

After receipt of this information above, your nomination will be brought forward to NHMA’s Executive Committee for consideration and advancement. Please keep in mind that you may be only one of several nominations for a single municipal position and NHMA will endeavor to select the individual with the most pertinent expertise and experience for this appointment.

If you have any questions regarding NHMA's appointment process, please contact us at 603.224.7447 or via email at governmentaffairs@nhmunicipal.org.

Spring Edition of National Civic ReviewClimate Change as a Civic Challenge

In this issue of the National Civic Review, explore the link between civic engagement and democratic innovation and efforts to address the challenges of climate change, the COVID pandemic, community-building, political polarization, policing, and aging populations.

To access this edition, go to the table of contents where you will be prompted to enter your unique access code: NHMA23.

Upcoming Events

JULY

Day Before Independence Day (NHMA offices closed)

Monday, July 3

For more information or to register for an event, visit our online Calendar of Events at www.nhmunicipal.org. If you have any questions, please contact us at nhmaregistrations@nhmunicipal.org.

The Workings of a Planning Board Webinar

12:00 pm – 1:30 pm

Thursday, July 20

AUGUST

Independence Day (NHMA offices closed)

Tuesday, July 4

Exploring Current Trends in Citizen Engagement Webinar

12:00 pm - 1:00 pm

Wednesday, July 12

Legislative Wrap-up Webinar

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm

Wednesday, August 2

Please visit NHMA’s website @ www.nhmunicipal.org frequently for the most up-to-date event and training information. Thank you.

First Amendment “Audits”: What Are They and How Do You Handle One?

By: HariNarayan “Huddy” Grandy, Esq. and Keriann Roman, Esq. Drummond Woodsum

Recently, towns across New Hampshire (and the country) have begun experiencing a new, unsettling type of encounter with members of the public that has increasingly caused confusion, irritation, and even court battles and the resulting payment of money damages. This interaction is called the “First Amendment audit.” First Amendment audits are an American social and political movement that usually involves filming from a public space. A First Amendment audit occurs when individuals “exercise” their First Amendment right to video record in public spaces like town halls, libraries, police stations, and parking lots. “Auditors” will wander around, either individually or in groups, filming, provoking employees and officials, and interfering with employees’ ability to conduct town business. The goal of these interactions is to provoke public officials or employees into violating the First Amendment. A “successful” audit occurs when the person recording is treated the same as if they were not recording. (But let us be clear: nothing about their behavior is normal, and so it is hard to treat auditors as if they were not recording.) A “failed” audit involves confrontations with public officials or employees, where the auditor is told to stop recording, threatened with arrest, or removed from the property. Failed audits can result in liability for the municipality.

First Amendment audits have become a significant source of income for auditors. Auditors get paid by posting their videos online, primarily on YouTube, where they request and receive donations from “subscribers” to help fund their “work.” The more inflamed the interaction, the more views they get and the more money they make. To make matters worse, auditors compete with each other for views and money, which further incentivizes them to engage in highly confrontational behavior to provoke an even greater negative response from town officials and employees. All of these interactions are video recorded, and the worst of them have been viewed tens or even hundreds of thousands of times.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right

of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This applies to all fifty states and their political subdivisions through the Fourteenth Amendment. The New Hampshire Constitution, Article 22, says: “[f]ree speech and Liberty of the press are essential to the security of Freedom in a State: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”

In analyzing the freedom to record in public spaces under the First Amendment, courts have said the right of the press and the freedom of speech are what allows the public to record in governmental buildings. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has said that “[t]he First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000). The Court has also said, however, that “the right to film is not without limitations. It may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).

While auditors may have a right to record public officials engaged in their official duties on public property, this does not mean they can record anywhere at all in a public building. Auditors do not have a right to record, and municipalities can prohibit recording, in employee offices, cubicles, or workspaces which are out of the public eye; non-public areas of town hall (where the public is generally not permitted unescorted); public restrooms; and at posted town properties where the public is generally not permitted, such as a wastewater treatment plant.

Auditors do have a right to record, however, in town hall public parking areas and in lobbies, hallways, and waiting areas of the town hall or other town buildings. If they are in a public parking area, they have the right to record inside vehicles within that parking area – an auditor can record whatever the naked eye can see if a person walked by a vehicle and looked inside. And auditors can record their interactions with government employees and officials in public spaces. They do not need consent to record public employees and officials in a public area. They can also record from a public area into

a visible, non-public area, such as into the Town Clerk’s desk. (Though they are not within their rights to use the “zoom” function on their cameras to get a close-up image of documents that the general public could not see with the naked eye.)

Perhaps unexpectedly, they can also record other “customers” in those areas, and they are allowed to record the audio of those conversations between public officials and customers if those conversations could be heard by others in the area. Customers having loud, easily audible conversations with public officials in public areas do not have an expectation of privacy in those conversations, and therefore they may be recorded. It is important to note, however, that the auditors cannot use any magnification to capture otherwise inaudible, low-volume conversations. Customers do have a right to privacy in the personal facts they must disclose to receive governmental services. If a customer is uncomfortable being video recorded, the public employee assisting them may bring them to a restricted area to complete their business, or may assist them at a different time.

Auditors cannot, of course, violate the law in their audit activities. Auditors may not trespass into non-public spaces. They also may not be unreasonably disruptive to an employee’s ability to conduct their official business or serve other residents’ needs. If an auditor becomes unreasonably disruptive or prevents other customers from being served, they can be asked to leave; if they refuse to leave, they can be escorted out at that point. Note, however, that an auditor may be annoying, distracting, and unsettling, but the mere presence of an auditor in a public space is not unreasonably disruptive. If an auditor becomes belligerent, obtrusive, argumentative, and prevents employees from doing their work for an extended amount of time, however, this is grounds for request-

ing that they leave or removing them. Often, auditors are well aware of these limitations and will not saying anything at all, but will instead just stand and video people and public areas for an extending period of time, with the goal of making people uncomfortable and triggering a response that violates the First Amendment.

There are several things municipalities can do to prepare for a First Amendment audit. First, and most importantly, municipalities should train their officials and employees on how to engage with a First Amendment auditor, and what to do during a First Amendment audit. Municipalities should consider designating one or two people who are more comfortable dealing with these auditors and being filmed, so that if an auditor shows up, the designated person can be called to interact with them. In addition, municipalities should clearly mark which areas of municipal buildings are not public areas. Mark the doors or cordoned areas “employee only” or “this area is not open to the public.” Ensure that any confidential or non-public information is never visible from public areas. Computer screens should be turned so as to not enable viewing from public areas. Confidential papers and files should be covered or stored away at all times. Town officials should also consider having commonly-requested documents “at the ready” for auditors who may be seeking public documents,

like the latest meeting minutes, board agendas, or certain policies and procedures; this will help the interaction run more smoothly and may shorten the duration of the audit.

During a First Amendment audit, employees and officials should be welcoming, friendly, and helpful. This behavior will prevent escalation and will also likely shorten the encounter. Auditors make money from negative reactions by public officials and employees. To that end, auditors may be condescending, rude, and insulting. Employees should go into an audit knowing this, and should refuse to rise to the bait. Questions should be answered calmly. If the encounter becomes lengthy, employees should let them know that they need to return to their work or assist other residents/customers, and then resume their work or turn to the next customer. If an employee is frustrated and upset, the employee should take a break in a restricted area (even a bathroom will do). If an auditor arrives at a town hall to welcoming, calm, and unruffled employees, they may never return.

This is not a legal document nor is it intended to serve as legal advice or a legal opinion. Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon, P.A. makes no representations that this is a complete or final description or procedure that would ensure legal compliance and does not intend that the reader should rely on it as such.

Debunking the Top Ten Tax Deed Myths

By Weston R. Sager, Esq. and Richard D. Sager, Esq., Sager & Smith, PLLC and NH Tax Deed & Property Auctions

Perhaps no other area of municipal law contains more popular misconceptions than tax deeded real estate. Considering the complex legal requirements surrounding the tax deeding process, recent changes to tax deed law, and the plethora of ways to sell tax deeded property, it is no wonder there is so much confusion surrounding this important topic.

In this article, we debunk the ten most frequent myths we’ve encountered about tax deeded properties over the decades we’ve represented New Hampshire municipalities as attorneys and auctioneers.

Myth 1: Municipalities must always take a property by tax deed two years after the execution of the first real estate tax lien.

According to RSA 80:76, a municipality’s tax collector “shall” take a property by tax deed two years from the execution of the first real estate tax lien (if the property was not redeemed).

This requirement is subject to several exceptions, however— a governing body can refuse to take a property by tax deed if doing so (1) would subject the municipality to environmental liability, (2) would burden the municipality with real estate or tenant obligations, or (3) for “any other reason” that “would be contrary to the public interest.”

Given the number and breadth of these exceptions, municipalities have substantial flexibility to choose which properties it takes by tax deed. Nonetheless, municipalities should take qualifying properties by tax deed in most instances. A property with years of existing tax liens will, in all likelihood, continue to accumulate unpaid taxes and fees, making it more and more difficult for the municipality to recover those funds if it later decides to take the property by tax deed and sell it.

Myth 2: A municipality must obtain authorization each year before selling tax deeded properties.

To sell tax deeded properties, the governing body must be authorized by a warrant article or ordinance. Such autho-

rization is good for one year by default. Pursuant to RSA 80:80, however, the authorization can be made perpetual if the words “indefinitely, until rescinded” or similar language is included in the warrant article or ordinance.

Even with perpetual authorization, it is a good practice for municipalities to verify that the authorization has not been rescinded before conducting a tax deeded property sale— particularly if the municipality has not sold tax deeded real estate for several years.

Myth 3: Municipalities must retain tax deeded properties for at least three years before selling them.

This is a common misconception, the effect of which municipalities end up holding onto tax deeded properties for much longer than necessary.

Under New Hampshire law, a former owner has three years after the municipality takes the property by tax deed to redeem the property by paying past-due taxes and other fees. During this period, the municipality may sell the property so long as it sends a redemption notice to the former owner(s) and mortgage holder(s) at least 90 days before the sale date. Note, however, that if a municipality holds onto the property for three years or more, this redemption notice is not required pursuant to RSA 80:89, VII.

Myth 4: Municipalities may keep the entire amount from a tax deeded property sale if the municipality has held onto the property for at least three years.

Before 2020, municipalities that held onto a tax deeded property for three years or more could, pursuant to RSA 80:89, VII, keep all funds generated from the sale of the property. This included the “excess proceeds”—that is, the amount generated at the sale which exceeds what the former owner owed the municipality in back taxes, interest, costs, and penalties.

That changed on April 24, 2020, when the New Hampshire Supreme Court decided Polonsky v. Town of Bedford, 173 N.H. 226 (2020). In Polonsky, the Court invalidated the portion of RSA 80:89, VII that allowed a municipality to keep

Richard D. Sager, NH Auctioneer (License #6104) & NH Lawyer (Bar #2236) Weston R. Sager, NH Auctioneer (License #6224) & NH Lawyer (Bar #269463)

TAX DEED MYTHS from page 10

excess proceeds resulting from the sale of a tax deeded property that had been held by the municipality for at least three years. The Court determined that this law violated the takings clause of the New Hampshire Constitution because, when former owners are not provided with the excess proceeds resulting from the sale of their property, they are not receiving “just compensation.”

On May 25, 2023, the United States Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, __ U.S. __ (2023). In a unanimous decision, the Court held that an unconstitutional taking occurs when the government seizes a property for non-payment of taxes and retains the excess value. According to the Court, the government cannot “use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due.”

In sum, a municipality now must always attempt to pay the excess proceeds to the former owner (or, in some instances, the lienholders) after selling a tax deeded property.

Myth 5: Tax deeded property sales are unpopular with the public.

Historically, municipalities taking properties for non-payment of taxes and selling them to private individuals has rankled members of the community opposed to government takings. In our experience, however, explaining the varied benefits of tax deed sales has substantially reduced this resistance.

Under the current tax deed sale framework, selling tax deeded properties helps many—including municipalities, taxpayers, and the former owners and lienholders.

In a tax deeded property sale, the municipality benefits by recovering all or a portion of its back taxes, interest, costs, and penalties owed to it by the former owner, as well as by returning unproductive properties to the tax rolls. Taxpayers similarly benefit because, when their municipality has additional funding, property taxes go down and munici pal services go up. Former owners and lienholders also benefit because, if the property sells above a certain amount, they may receive substantial compensation (sometimes tens of thousands of dollars) via excess proceeds distributions.

Myth 6: Selling tax deeded properties by advertised sealed bids is easier and more cost-effective than hiring a third-party auction company.

Many New Hampshire municipalities sell tax deeded properties by sealed bids because they believe it is easier and more cost-effective than hiring a third party to sell these properties on the municipality’s behalf. Unless the municipality is selling only one or two properties of modest value, however, engaging a third-party auction company is usually preferable.

When a municipality sells properties by advertised sealed bids, municipalities must handle all stages of the sales process, such as advertising the properties, reviewing the bids, conducting closings, preparing and recording deeds, and filing paperwork with the State. Not only can these tasks carry out-of-pocket costs for the municipality, but they also drain municipal

-

By contrast, engaging a third-party auction company to sell tax deeded properties—especially if that company includes legal support—allows the municipality to delegate most of these tasks, freeing up the municipality’s time and resources for other projects. Most auction companies do not charge municipalities for their services and instead receive their compensation via a buyer’s premium paid by the successful bidder. Also, tax deeded properties sold by auction typically generate substantially more revenue than sealed bids, improving the likelihood that the municipality will recover the back taxes, interest, costs, and penalties owed to it by the former owner.

Myth 7: Selling tax deeded properties by reserve auction is less risky than selling them by absolute auction.

The two most common types of auctions for tax deeded real estate are “absolute auctions” (also known as “auctions without reserve”) and “reserve auctions.” In absolute auctions, properties may sell for any amount. In reserve auctions, the seller sets a minimum bid, and if the property does not meet or exceed that threshold at auction, the property goes unsold. A reserve auction may also be “subject to seller confirma-

tion,” whereby the municipality may elect to accept a lower amount if the high bid does not meet the reserve.

To maximize return from selling tax deeded properties, municipalities must balance three considerations:

(1) recovering the back taxes, interest, costs, and penalties owed by the former owner; (2) returning properties to the tax rolls quickly so they may resume generating tax revenue; and (3) minimizing costs associated with retaining tax deeded properties (such as insurance, required maintenance, and security from vandalism).

When taking into account all of the above, absolute auctions are typically the best approach for tax deeded property sales. Absolute auctions tend to attract the most interest because bidders know that the properties will sell. And even if a property does not obtain a high value at auction, when the property is sold and returns to private ownership, it begins generating tax revenue for the municipality again and frees the municipality from paying upkeep costs.

Reserve auctions, by contrast, carry several risks:

• First, if a property does not sell at auction because it fails to meet the reserve or the municipality rejects the high bid, the property will continue to generate no tax revenue and may require the municipality to continue to pay for insurance and upkeep. The municipality must also spend time and resources attempting to sell the property again.

• Second, if a property does not sell at auction, the auctioneer may charge a fee for its costs and labor associated with marketing the unsold property.

• Third, in the context of a reserve

auction subject to seller confirmation, if the municipality rejects some bids but not others, it can give the impression that the municipality is discriminating against certain bidders.

• Finally, it can be difficult for a municipality to set the appropriate reserve or, in the context of a seller confirmation auction, to know when a bid should be rejected for being “too low.” In a single auction, some tax deeded properties may sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, while others may sell for only hundreds of dollars. Oftentimes, a property that appears desirable to municipal leadership may be unappealing to bidders due to title issues, zoning regulations, environmental concerns, or uncertainty about whether the lot is buildable. For such properties, it is usually better for the municipality to return them to the tax rolls instead of holding onto them in the hopes of possibly obtaining a higher sale price down the road.

Even considering the above risks, however, a reserve auction or reserve auction subject to seller confirmation may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when the municipality is on the fence about keeping a property, or when the municipality is selling a property that carries exceptional emotional or political significance in the community.

Myth 8: A municipality has no obligation to compensate the former owners and lienholders of a tax deeded property if the municipality keeps the property.

RSA 80:80, V and RSA 80:91 do not require a municipality to distribute excess proceeds when it keeps a tax deeded property. Pursuant to Polonsky v. Town of Bedford, 173 N.H. 226

(2020) and Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, __ U.S. __ (2023), however, a municipality may have a constitutional obligation—despite what RSA 80:80, V and RSA 80:91 provide—to pay the former owners and lienholders the difference between what the municipality is owed and what the tax deeded property is worth.

In the Polonsky decision, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for municipalities to keep excess proceeds resulting from the sale of a tax deeded property. The Court repeatedly emphasized that its holding was limited to this narrow issue. Yet, in support of its central ruling, the Court broadly stated that “when the municipality acquires property by tax deed that is worth more than the amount owed, the municipality is required to provide compensation to the former owner.” Based on this language, it is reasonable to conclude that, regardless of whether a municipality keeps or sells a tax deeded property, it is required to distribute any excess proceeds to the former owners and lienholders.

The recent Tyler decision also sows uncertainty about whether the government has a constitutional obligation to return excess proceeds to the former owner when it keeps a tax acquired property. Like the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Polonsky, the United States Supreme Court in Tyler did not expressly state that the government must compensate the former owner when it keeps a tax acquired property. Nonetheless, the Court noted that in one of its prior decisions, it held that when the government kept a tax acquired property, the former owner was “still entitled to the surplus . . . just as if the [g]overnment had sold the property.”

In light of Polonsky and Tyler, municipalities should consider consulting with legal counsel to determine wheth-

TAX DEED MYTHS from page 13

er to compensate former owners and lienholders when tax deeded properties are kept rather than sold.

Myth 9: Municipalities always recover their incurred legal fees and other costs upon selling a tax deeded property.

Under RSA 80:88 and 80:90, the legal fees and other costs incurred by the municipality in connection with a tax deeded property are recoverable from the property’s sale proceeds. However, the municipality will recover these fees and costs only if the property sells at or above the amount owed.

Simply put, because legal fees and other costs are “recoverable” does not necessarily mean that they will be “recovered.” In practice, the total amount owed to the municipality in back taxes, penalties, fees, and costs often meets or exceeds the value of the real estate—particularly for less desirable properties, properties that the municipality has held for many years, and properties that require the purchaser to invest significant funds to render them usable. For these properties, there may be no excess proceeds available to cover the legal fees and other costs associated with the sale and with the post-sale real estate closings. This means that, unless the municipality engages a third-party company that

covers these legal expenses, the municipality must pay out-of-pocket, reducing the overall recovery for the municipality and its taxpayers.

Myth 10: When the municipality agrees to sell a tax deeded property, the municipality’s work is nearly complete.

Before 2020, selling tax deeded properties was comparatively straightforward. Property values were lower, tax deeded property buyers tended to purchase with cash, and, if municipalities held onto properties for three years or more, they could retain all proceeds from the sale.

Nowadays, accepting a bid on a tax deeded property typically marks the halfway point in the sale process. New Hampshire real estate prices have skyrocketed in recent years, which has driven more buyers to hire title companies to investigate title issues for tax deeded properties before closing so they may obtain financing. Even with ample pre-sale disclaimers, buyers are increasingly demanding assurances from municipalities as a requirement for closing. These post-sale, pre-closing negotiations can drain the time and resources of the municipality’s leadership, staff, and legal counsel. And if a buyer refuses to close, the municipality may need to file a petition for specific performance in court to compel the buyer to purchase the property.

After closing, the municipality must also attempt to distribute excess proceeds for those properties that sold for more than what was owed. This requires the municipality to track down the former owners and lienholders and, if these parties cannot be easily located (as is often the case), the municipality must file an interpleader action in New Hampshire Superior Court—a process that can take many months to resolve.

Now, more than ever, municipalities benefit by retaining counsel experienced in tax deeded properties and by engaging real estate auction companies that include legal support in their services. Otherwise, municipal leadership and staff may be saddled with post-sale legal headaches for months or years following the sale of the municipality’s tax deeded properties.

Weston R. Sager and Richard D. Sager are partners at Sager & Smith, PLLC and co-owners of NH Tax Deed & Property Auctions. Both are dual-licensed attorneys and auctioneers with experience in municipal law, real estate law, and auction law. Weston may be reached at weston@sagersmith.com or weston@ nhtaxdeedauctions.com, and Rick may be reached at rick@sagersmith.com or rick@nhtaxdeedauctions.com.

The information contained in this article is not intended as legal advice or as a legal opinion.

We have all the tools to meet your needs.

Drummond Woodsum’s attorneys are experienced at guiding towns, cities, counties and local governments through a variety of issues including:

• Municipal bonds and public finance

• Land use planning, zoning and enforcement

• Ordinance drafting

• Tax abatement

• General municipal matters

• Municipal employment and labor matters

• Litigation and appeals

We use a team approach – small groups of highly specialized attorneys that work together to offer clients the counsel and support they need, precisely when they need it. It’s an efficient way to practice law. It’s also extremely productive and cost effective for our clients.

Learn more about what our municipal group can do for you: dwmlaw.com | 800.727.1941

Caution, Safer Roads Ahead!

By Jordan Pike, PE, PTOE, Senior Transportation Engineer, HEB Engineers, Inc.

How safe are New Hampshire’s roadways? According to crash data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), New Hampshire has some of the safest roads in the country. Only Massachusetts and Minnesota have a lower number of deaths per 100 million miles traveled. Still, nearly 600 people are seriously injured or killed on New Hampshire’s roadways each year.

What should New Hampshire’s goal for traffic safety be? Personally, the goal for me and my family is zero. Zero people injured, zero people killed. I strongly believe tasks such as commuting to work, going to the grocery store, or walking to my favorite restaurant shouldn’t come with the risk of being seriously injured or killed. It turns out that I’m not alone in this belief.

Vision Zero is a global movement that began in Sweden in 1997. The goal of Vision Zero is to eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes. In 2022, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) kicked off its own Vision Zero program titled, Driving Toward Zero, which set a goal of zero roadway deaths and serious injuries by the year 2050. Sounds great, but is it even achievable? If Driving Toward Zero is the goal, then the Safe Systems Approach is the road map. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe System Approach is principles-based guidance to achieve safer roadways. However, it may be beneficial to understand why we need a new approach in the first place.

Modern transportation planning and engineering are relatively newer sciences. U.S. transportation infrastructure as we know it today was born in the 1920s when we began numbering highways. Following World War II, the government took an increased interest in a connected highway network, which lead to the creation of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate System. America created a transportation model where people could go wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted to, by means of their own personal automobile.

However, the freedom of mobility has come at a cost. Over the past decade, serious injuries and fatal crashes have been trending in the wrong direction. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that 42,915 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2021. That’s the highest number of roadway deaths since 2005. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law recognizes these shortcomings and is providing resources and funding in areas of need. New programs, such as the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), aim to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The SS4A program will appropriate $5 billion in funds over five years and will prioritize solutions that promote the Safe Systems Approach principles and guidance.

Under these new federal programs, transportation engineers and planners are focusing on critical areas to improve roadway safety. In New Hampshire, many of our roadway

C ERTIFIED PUBLIC A CCOUNTANTS

“Experience Counts”

We want to be more than just your auditors! We know New Hampshire governments Your needs come rst at Vachon Clukay & Company PC, so we’ve structured ourselves to fulfill all of your service needs. We provide the following services:

608 Chestnut

Street

Auditing • Government Auditing Standards (GAS) Compliance

fatalities are related to roadway departures. Countermeasures such as rumble strips, curve warning signing, and geometry improvements can be implemented system-wide to better keep vehicles on the road, and in their lane.

A key factor in serious injury and fatal crashes is speed. Look for transportation professionals to promote solutions that reduce speeds, such as roundabouts. Many New Englanders confuse modern roundabouts with their older cousin, rotaries, which are much larger intersections designed to move traffic at higher speeds. Rotaries still exist today at locations such as the Portsmouth Circle or the Epsom Circle. Modern roundabouts are much smaller and reduce speeds and eliminate angle crashes, which significantly improves intersection safety. Despite many opinions that roundabouts are confusing and dangerous, the facts say otherwise. Roundabouts reduce injury crashes at intersections by 76%, even better, they reduce fatal crashes by over 90%! Roundabouts will have an important role to play in eliminating serious injuries and fatal crashes.

The Safe System Approach isn’t just about building safer infrastructure, it’s about all of us. We not only need safer roads, but safer vehicles, and better post-crash care. Goals like NHDOT’s

Driving Toward Zero cannot be achieved without changes across the transportation industry and our mindsets. We already have a great example of how systemic changes in safety and industry can eliminate deaths. Flying on a US commercial airline is one of the safest transportation modes, primarily because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) took a principles-based approach to safety. Our roadway infrastructure can evolve the same way airway transportation has.

New Hampshire is already one of the safest states to drive in, but we can still do better. Historically, New Hampshire has been a leader and we should strive to be the first state to achieve zero deaths and serious injuries on our roadways. And why not? The first municipal recycling center in the U.S. opened in Nottingham, our modern banking system was negotiated at Bretton Woods, and Allan Shepard of Derry was the first American in space! Our state is full of firsts, let’s make New Hampshire the first State to achieve ZERO roadway fatalities.

Jordan Pike, PE, PTOE, is a Senior Transportation Engineer with HEB Engineers, Inc. Jordan may be reached by phone at 603.356.6936 or via email at jpike@hebengineers.com. Members are encouraged to watch the March 29,

2023, webinar, Stepping up for Local Road Safety- Actionable Guidance for Safer Streets, with Jordan and Marilee Enus, Director with UNH Technology Transfer Center. Members may access this webinar via our webinar archive on NHMA’s website.

WE CHECK ALL YOUR BOXES

Grant Administration Assistance

Land Surveying

Transportation Engineering

Structural Engineering

Environmental Compliance

Construction Administration

Legislative Wrap-Up: Member Advocacy Makes a Difference

By Natch Greyes, Government Affairs Counsel

As we wrote in our first Legislative Bulletin of the year, education is advocacy. Although we haven’t yet quite heard the final votes (as of this writing), it is already clear that this year has been no different than any other successful year. A critical part of that effort has been our members’ support of our advocacy team.

It is no secret among those of you who have been working with our government affairs department for a while that advocacy efforts vary in their pacing. Some efforts move at the pace of soulmates holding hands, while others move at the staccato of a skydiver.

One of the slower paced efforts has been advocacy around public water and sewer funding. Last year, with our members’ assistance, we were able to remind the legislature of 11 forgotten wastewater projects that needed funding. This year, our persistence resulted not only in funding projects through the biennium, but also saw the Senate introduce a policy statement into its version of budget to support future funding for such projects.

Of course, that wasn’t the only thread that the water cycle pervaded. New funding for PFAS, the creation and funding of a cyanobacteria fund, and the creation of the Housing Champions program with additional funding for water and sewer infrastructure for qualifying municipalities all notched wins this session. Perhaps most happily, however, is the fact that discussion of the importance of public water and, particularly, sewer infrastructure has now pervaded the conversation about housing. There is widespread recognition among legislators that one of the costliest items for housing development in the granite state is, in fact, water treatment and waste management, and solving those problems is critical for triggering other steps in the effort to build more affordable housing.

In the fast lane, there were innumerable phone calls that we made over the course of the session asking specific members to contact specific legislators on specific topics, and all of those efforts made a huge difference. Nothing bad happened. That was thanks to your willingness to engage with us at all hours of the day and night and, especially, week-

ends. Your willingness to answer the phone when we called you on weekends and evenings to brief you and ask you to turn around and call your representative or senator was particularly appreciated among the government affairs staff. There’s nothing that contextualizes the impact of a particular piece of legislation quite like a phone call from home. (That’s how the 19th Amendment was passed, after all.)

While many of you may be wondering whether we will be missing our second home with the gold dome over the course of summer, the answer is that we’ll be visiting it frequently, and continuing to ask for your help. The House has set up a special committee on housing and innumerable retained and rereferred bills on everything from right-toknow requests and nonpublic sessions to individual privacy rights, to default budgets, to agritourism and sales at farm stands will be up for discussion over the next few months. We’ll need your expertise to help provide valuable information to the committees and subcommittees that tackle these complex issues over the next few months.

In the meantime, assessors, building officials, government finance officials, emergency management officials, town clerks, planners and planning and zoning board officials, police departments, and those responsible for right-to-know request fulfillment should all be on the lookout for new training materials from their professional organizations (including NHMA) as these groups all saw legislative changes that affect their roles and responsibilities. We look forward to working with you to ensure that you have the information you need to perform your statutory duties and be on the lookout for our final legislative bulletin and accompanying legislative session wrap-up webinar on August 2.

We also wanted to extend our thanks to the many of you who joined us at the legislature this session. As we discussed with many of our members, the move to one-click automation of email campaigns and the number of politically contentious issues unrelated to municipalities made it difficult to communicate with legislators outside of face-to-face interaction. There were innumerable instances of legislators seeing us in the hallway (or outside the House or Senate chambers) where we were flagged down with the phrase,

“That’s right, Municipal Association, I have something I need to ask you…”

Those in-person interactions were invaluable to getting good results, even if we were introducing you to legislators for the first time. One lobbyist joked upon winning a (nonmunicipal-related) vote that went the way he desired after a long campaign waged mostly by the other side on the digital front, “If a lobbyist watches a vote remotely and screams, does he make a sound?”

On that note, we do want to remind you that we are continuing to solicit feedback on the changes we rolled out to the Legislative Bulletin this year and the addition of the live bill tracker on our website. Please do reach out to us and give us suggestions about how we can improve our delivery of services to you. We’ve shifted a little in our format of the Bulletin and begun planning changes to the live bill tracker to make it a little easier for staff to keep you informed as the faster paced days of the next legislative session start to come into view over the horizon.

Natch Greyes is the Government Affairs Counsel with the New Hampshire Municipal Association. He may be contacted at 603.224.7447 or at governmentaffairs@nhmunicipal.org.

Exeter Pioneers Accessible Voting in 2023 Town Election

By Bob Glowacky, Communications Coordinator, Exeter TV Coordinator/IT Assistant

This year, the Town of Exeter became the first Town and the second municipality (after the City of Concord) in the State of New Hampshire to offer fully accessible voting to voters with vision impairments. It was a great success! Using the OmniBallot tablet, an accessible polling place ballot marking device, all voters were able to vote privately and independently for the first time in a town and school election. Voters used a tablet, keyboard, mouse, and headset to listen to the town warrant articles, navigate through the questions, and make their selections. State and Federal Elections use a very similar tablet ballot marking device, called One4All, but that system is not available for Town or City Elections.

Exeter Voter Jean Shiner, who is blind, was one of the first voters to use the system to cast her vote. “It was thrilling to me” she recounted, “I was able to vote for the town ballot and the two school district ballots independently and privately. And this is the first time I’ve been able to do that.” Ms. Shiner went on to explain that she previously needed to have someone in the booth with her to vote in local elections. Typically, the Town Clerk would join her in the voting booth, read her the candidates, voting options and ballot questions, and then mark the ballot by hand, as directed by Ms. Shiner. The Exeter Select Board heard from a coalition of voters in the Town urging accessible ballot making at the polling place for all voters, and implemented the system in March 2023.

Previous to the implementation of the OmniBallot tablet system, voters with vision impairments had only two options. They could go into normal voting booths with a family member or election official from the polling place who would read the ballot to the voter and mark the ballot according to the voter’s direction. Alternatively, the voter could request an absentee ballot, vote in their home, with the assistance of someone they trusted, and then mail in or deliver their absentee ballot to the Town. Neither of these options provided vision-impaired voters with a private and independent way to mark their ballots, at the polling place.

With the OmniBallot tablet device, voters with vision impairments are now able to check in with the ballot clerks at the polling place, receive the same exact ballots as every other voter, and vote independently. A voter who tells a ballot clerk that the voter wishes to use the accessible ballot marking device is then guided by election officials to the private voting booth with the OmniBallot accessible ballot marking device. Election officials assist the voter with loading all the ballots into a printer, in the correct order, and explain to the voter how to use the OmniBallot tablet to mark the ballots. The voter is then left to mark the ballots privately and independently. When the voter is finished marking the ballots, the voter can then print onto the ballots loaded into the printer the ballot markings chosen by the voter, using the OmniBallot tablet. Nearby election officials then assist the voter with navigating to the ballot counting machines so that the voter can feed his or her ballots into the machines, completing the process of voting independently, with a secret ballot.

Select Board Chair Niko Papakonstantis was very pleased to see the system implemented for the local town and school elections. “We’ve been using these types of systems for our national and state elections, and we’re very excited that we’re the second community in the State of New Hampshire to use a tablet voting system for our local elections, really allowing everybody to be able to vote, have easy access to voting.”

In the lead up to the elections, the process was very smooth for Town staff. The Town Clerk and Town Manager’s office worked with the vendor by sending existing PDFs of town and school ballots which were returned formatted for the OmniBallot system on a flash drive. The files were loaded onto the tablet, tested by Town Clerk Andrea Kohler, and were ready to go. The only change for the Town and School District Clerks in preparing the ballots was that the ballots all needed to be printed on the same length paper, to have all the markings fit on the ballots correctly. Previously, school district ballots were 11 inches long, and Town ballots were

14 inches long. For the March 2023 voting day, they were all 14 inches long. This was a very small change to the prior process.

The system proved to be an efficient and effective way for the Town to offer accessible voting for those who need it. The system, however, is not just for those with vision impairments. It can be used by any voter, including

those who may have trouble holding a pen to blacken all the ovals on the ballots, which may run to five pages, or more. All voters are welcome and encouraged to take advantage of the system which makes it easy to select your choices quickly, using on-screen navigation, and the printer marks the ballot for them. A ballot marked using the accessible ballot marking device is a uniform ballot, indistinguishable from all the other ballots cast at the polling place, further ensuring the anonymity of voters who use the system.

Municipalities that are interested in learning more about Exeter’s positive experience with the OmniBallot tablet accessible polling place ballot marking device may contact the Town Manager’s office at (603) 773-6102 / pmcelroy@exeternh.gov or the Town Clerk’s Office at (603) 773-6105 or mailto:akohler@ exeternh.gov.

Bob Glowacky is Communications Coordinator, TV Coordinator and IT Assistant in the Town of Exeter. He may be reached by phone at 603.418.6425 or via email at rglowacy@exeternh.gov.

Basic Loan Requirements:

• Bond issue approved by governmental entity

Check our website www.nhmbb.org for interest rate results

Are you planning a capital project for 2023?

We can assist you with your planning by providing various scenarios based on level debt or level principal payments for different terms. Contact us now for your estimated debt schedules.

To schedule a meeting, obtain debt service schedules, or for details about our schedule, fees, Bond Anticipation Note programs, and current interest rates, please contact Tammy J. St. Gelais, Executive Director, at tstgelais@nhmbb.com.

• Completed application approved by Bond Bank Board

• Audit by CPA firm

• Local bond counsel opinion

MUD SEASON from page 21

NHMA Launches FREE Financial Policies Certificate Program

NHMA has developed this free certificate program for municipal officials who want to explore and improve the fiscal operations of their city or town. The certificate program complements the updating of NHMA’s publication, The Basics of Financial Policy , which provides municipal officials with an overview of basic financial policies. The first cohort of municipal officials will begin the new certificate program in September.

The eight-course curriculum covers core topics (see course curriculum below).

NHGFOA members will receive GFOA CPE Credits for each session attended.

This series is of interest to Governing Body Members, Town Managers, Town Administrators, Finance Officers, Treasurers, Town Clerks, Tax Collectors, Committee Chairs and Department Heads.

All courses will be held in-person at NHMA’s offices at 25 Triangle Park Drive in Concord. Participants must attend in person as there will be no virtual option available. An overview of courses, dates and times are highlighted below:

These courses are flexibly designed so you can sign up for as many courses, or as few, as you want. Participants who take all the courses in the series earn a Certificate of Completion and get a free digital download of the publication The Basics of Financial Policy (a $70.00 value).

FREE TO MEMBERS: Attendance is free and open to members from municipalities and village districts that are members of NHMA.

Non-member village districts, school districts and state agencies costs are $40/half day and $70/full day. The cost for the entire 8 course certificate program is $320.

A new certificate program has launched to help municipal officials develop a long-term, strategic approach to financial management.

2023 Curriculum and Schedule

Internal Controls, Segregation of Duties, Fraud and Risk

Policies for Operations and Budgeting

Fund Balance Policy

Revenue Policies

REMINDER: Public Pools & Spas Must be Registered with State

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) is reminding owners and operators of public bathing facilities (PBFs), including cities and towns, they are required by New Hampshire law to register all existing and new public pools or spas with the state, conduct an annual fee-based selfcertification of each existing facility and certify that the PBF is operated under the supervision of a certified pool operator.

NHDES’ Public Pool and Spa Program uses the information provided in the mandatory registration to establish a database of PBFs, documenting contact information, basic physical specifications and circulation system details for each facility. An online registration form is now available on our PBF Registration Form webpage.

The annual self-certification fee is $250 per PBF (regardless of size) up to a maximum of $1,500 annually for any facility that has more than six PBFs. It includes an annual compliance declaration that focuses on the practical aspects of public pool and spa operation such as: circulation, filter and disinfection system performance, daily water quality testing and recordkeeping, presence of critical life-safety equipment, and facility maintenance. For seasonal facilities, the annual self-certification must be completed annually prior to reopening. The online form and payment instructions are available on the PBF annual Self-Certification Form webpage.

All PBFs must operate under the supervision of a certified pool operator (CPO). A CPO may be the owner or designee, an employee of the establishment where the PBF is located, or a contracted vendor. The CPO is responsible for training on-site personnel in the basics of daily operation, including but not limited to, water testing and record keeping, documenting operational issues, maintaining water quality/ clarity, handling sanitizers and pool closure procedures. The CPO must personally visit the PBF at least once a week to

ensure the pool is being operated in a safe and sanitary manner, and the CPO must be available by telephone to on-site personnel whenever not personally present. Certifications can be obtained from an approved training program dedicated to the operation of PBFs. To find an in-person or virtual training course offering in New Hampshire, visit the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance webpage.

Operation of a public bathing facility by an owner/operator that has not met the three requirements outlined above (registration, self-certification, and operation under supervision of a CPA) is a violation of state law. NHDES has initiated an outreach campaign to the owners and operators of public bathing facilities to educate them on the applicable laws and assist them with coming into compliance for 2023. NHDES encourages public bathing facility owners and operators to complete this process as soon as possible. The NHDES Public Pool and Spa program will be completing inspections throughout the summer and fall and will be confirming compliance with the requirements outlined above at the time of inspection. To learn more about the program, please visit the NHDES Public Bathing Facility Program webpage.

State regulations and codes are developed to make sure that treated recreational water facilities (for example, pools, hot tubs and water parks) provide a clean, healthy and safe environment for the public. These regulations set minimum standards to decrease the public’s risk of illness and injury. Industries and organizations that should take notice of these requirements include, but are not limited to, campgrounds, colleges, condominium associations, fitness centers, hotels, motels and municipalities. Private residential pools are exempt.

For more information about these requirements, please contact, Tim Wilson, NHDES Public Pool and Spa Program Manager, at (603) 271-7108 or DESpools@des.nh.gov.

We represent towns and ci�es throughout the state and bring value to our clients through decades of experience and adhering to the budgetary constraints under which municipali�es operate. We emphasize preven�ve and �mely legal counsel to our clients with a view toward avoiding problems that result in li�ga�on.

Court Update

Now available online:

May 2023

By Stephen C. Buckley, Legal Services Counsel and Jonathan Cowal, Municipal Services Counsel

Where Town Ordinance Combined a Special Exception Process with Excavation Permitting under RSA 155-E, with the ZBA Acting as Regulator, Appeals were Governed by the 10-Day Motion for Rehearing Deadline in RSA 155E:9, Juliana Lonergan & a. v. Town of Sanbornton, New Hampshire Supreme Court Case No. Belknap 2022-0142. 05/31/2023

Keeping Excess Profit from Sale of Tax-Deeded Property Violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment; a 10% Assessed Penalty Imposed under RSA 80:90, I (f), May be an Excessive Fine under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, et al. United States Supreme Court Case No. 22-166, 05/25/23

Superior Court Did Not Err when it Dismissed the Plaintiffs’ Untimely Zoning Appeal, and when it Concluded that the Planning Board made a Sufficient Regional Impact Determination, Richard Anthony & a. v. Town of Plaistow, Supreme Court of New Hampshire Case No. Rockingham 2021-0410, 05/16/2023

Under the Definitions Provided by the Conway Zoning Ordinance, Short-term Rentals are Allowed in the Residential District, Town of Conway v. Kudrick, New Hampshire Supreme Court Case No. 2022-0098, 05/02/2023

The HR REPORT

Legal Update: Police Standards and Training Conduct Review Committee

By Nicholas J. Blei, Esq.

In response to increasing demands for law enforcement accountability, the New Hampshire Legislature recently adopted RSA 106-L, which establishes a law enforcement Conduct Review Committee (“CRC”) to function within the Police Standards and Training Council (“PSTC”). In creating the CRC, the legislature’s stated intent is to clearly define law enforcement misconduct, create statewide consistency in the handling of misconduct complaints, and create a process to investigate complaints that will reassure the public that complaints are taken seriously. This article highlights some of the new law’s requirements and practical tips for law enforcement agencies.

CRC members are appointed by the Governor. The Committee is composed of four (4) law enforcement members and three (3) members of the public who are not police officers, lawyers or judges, and who do not have a spouse, sibling, or parent who is a police officer, lawyer or judge. The law mandates that CRC meet at least four (4) times each year to address its responsibilities. That a majority of the CRC members will be law enforcement personnel may not provide the public with the assurances that the legislature intended. Excluding lawyers and judges (and their family members) from serving on the CRC may also undermine public confidence, as they are persons most familiar with the due process issues within the CRC’s purview.

RSA 106-L:19 requires that prior to October 1, 2023, every local law enforcement agency adopt a “valid” internal affairs policy for investigation of police misconduct complaints. “Misconduct,” as defined in RSA 106-L:2, incorporates a broad range of offenses including, but not limited to, criminal conduct, untruthfulness, discriminatory and racist conduct, excessive force and conduct that “would cause a reasonable person to doubt an officer’s honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others.” A “valid” internal affairs policy must contain:

(a) A written policy that defines code of conduct and/ or misconduct and defines the internal investigation process.

(b) A written procedure for accepting a properly filed complaint against a law enforcement officer.

(c) A written procedure to assign an investigator to conduct an investigation as determined by the written policy to determine whether an officer has committed an act or acts of misconduct.

(d) A written policy, or provisions in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, that outline for its officers the acts of misconduct enumerated in this chapter, the expectations of employment or prohibited activities of the agency, and the due process rights for its officers.

(e) Due process for the accused officer, including addressing discipline based on just cause, establishing a set range of discipline for offenses, and consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

The CRC is charged with creating a model internal affairs policy that law enforcement agencies may use as a template. That template has not yet been developed. In the interim, law enforcement agencies should consider reviewing their current internal affairs policy and amending them as necessary to conform to the statutory requirements.

RSA 106-L:20 further requires that:

I. The chief executive officer of a law enforcement agency shall report to the committee, through the director or designee, within 15 business days if any of the following occur in regard to a law enforcement officer of the agency:

(a) The agency has received a valid complaint of misconduct, and:

(1) That the agency is conducting, or has conducted a valid internal investigation of the allegation as defined in this chapter and in accord with their internal affairs policy;

(2) That the agency has an outside law enforcement agency conducting or has conducted a valid internal investigation into the matter as defined in this chapter; or

(3) That the agency is requesting a valid internal investigation be conducted into the matter by investigators designated by the director or the committee.

(b) The results of a valid internal investigation has resulted in a sustained finding of misconduct; or

(c) That an officer resigned from the agency while under investigation for misconduct.

II. As part of the report, the executive officer of the agency shall provide a copy of any all relevant documents associated with the valid investigation, including the agency's investigative report, and any findings and decisions. Such documents shall not be subject to RSA 91-A, except as provided in this chapter.

Upon receipt of an investigative report, the CRC is charged with determining whether the law enforcement agency has completed a “valid investigation.”

If the CRC determines that an investigation is not valid, “the committee may recommend a separate investigation be conducted by police standards

and training investigators.”

It is important to note that many law enforcement agencies are unionized, with terms and conditions of employment contained in negotiated collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). CBAs typically establish a “just cause” standard for discipline, termination, and other adverse employment actions. In a just cause environment, employers cannot take adverse employment action until an employee has been given due process. In a just cause environment, due process generally entails having an investigation conducted by an unbiased investigator in a timely manner who follows the established investigatory procedures; provides the employee with notice of the allegations against them; and provides the employe with an opportunity to refute those allegations. Due process is commonly extended during the investigation process and by the ultimate decision maker before a decision is made to terminate or take other adverse action.

Selecting an appropriate investigator can be a challenge, particularly in smaller agencies or where allegations are made against a member of the command staff. Currently, it is common for agencies to seek assistance from other law enforcement agencies or investigators contracted through a non-law enforcement agency. Under RSA 106-L:20, it may be necessary to seek CRC approval before using a non-law enforcement agency investigator.

RSA 106-L:18 requires the CRC to refer complaints of an officer’s alleged criminal conduct to the Attorney General’s Office for investigation. However, the fact that the Attorney General is conducting an investigation does not excuse a law enforce-

ment agency from conducting its own internal investigation. RSA 105:19, IV requires agencies that receive reports of misconduct to “timely conduct an investigation and reach a determination on the merits.” The interplay between the Attorney General’s investigation and an agency’s internal investigation may need to be worked out on a case by case basis.

The new law requires that all completed internal investigations be submitted to the CRC for review to determine if the agency “has conducted a valid investigation.”

Unions representing law enforcement personnel may argue that an employee should not be disciplined or terminated as a result of a completed internal investigation until the CRC has conducted its “valid investigation” review. However, where a law enforcement agency and union have negotiated a grievance and arbitration procedure which empowers an arbitrator to determine whether the employee was disciplined for “just cause,” there is a strong argument that, for disciplinary purposes, the arbitrator, not the CRC, has the ultimate authority to determine if the investigation was valid and the disciplinary action justified. Many questions are likely to arise regarding application of RSA 106-L and its interplay with RSA 105 and RSA 91-A. Employers are encouraged to contact legal counsel to discuss questions or concerns as they arise.

This is not a legal document nor is it intended to serve as legal advice or a legal opinion. Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon, P.A. makes no representations that this is a complete or final description or procedure that would ensure legal compliance and does not intend that the reader should rely on it as such.

HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS

This segment is another in a series highlighting NHARPC’s efforts to provide education on planning-related topics.

Household Hazardous Waste Management

By Victoria Davis, Senior Planner, UVLSRPC

Regional planning commissions play a major role in organizing and carrying out household hazardous waste collections. Many events occur throughout the year around the state. Two of the most active regional planning commissions in carrying out hazardous household hazardous waste collections are Lakes Region Planning Commission and Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission. The primary benefits to RPC membership communities are reduced cost, protection against illegal dumping, protected water resources along with the health and safety of the community.

What is HHW?

Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW) are toxic or hazardous materials generated in homes and disposed of most properly at a household hazardous waste collections handled by properly licensed disposal companies. Examples of hazardous waste include oil-based paint, solvents, pesticides, cleaning agents, drain cleaner, mercury, unidentified mixed chemicals, and much more. These materials can injure you, your family, or your pets; damage the environment; and contaminate our drinking water supplies if not handled with care. New Hampshire’s abundant natural resources are important to our way of life and our economy. With lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams scattered across the state it is important to have clean water for recreation and since more than half the homes in the state get their water from aquifers, it is important to maintain clean drinking water. One

gallon of oil, for example, can contaminate one million gallons of water.

It is important to note that latex or acrylic paints are not considered hazardous in New Hampshire and so are generally not collected at HHW events. These can be dried out at home using kitty litter, sawdust, or shredded paper and added to the regular trash.

Some hazardous wastes are managed every day at transfer stations to ship for proper treatment, disposal or recycling. These are known as universal wastes, a category of regulated hazardous waste comprised of certain widely produced items like antifreeze, rechargeable batteries, cathode ray tubes, fluorescent lamps, and other mercury containing devices. Although universal waste items are considered hazardous, they are also considered to be a lower risk, so they have less stringent regulations allowing waste facilities to collect them on a regular basis. This lowers the management costs of these common hazardous wastes and provides greater convenience to residents, allowing them to drop off these items at local transfer stations instead of waiting for special collections.

Typically, hazardous products have warning labels indicating their toxicity. Watch for signal words on labels like “Poison,” “Caution,” or “Warning.” You might wonder why companies do not create products with safer ingredients that will not pollute or do harm. It is simply that federal regulations on toxic chemicals are weak, and toxic ingredients are

often protected as trade secrets. You can find science-based evaluations of cleaning products at the Environmental Working Group website (https:// www.ewg.org/consumer-guides/guidehealthy-cleaning) and find healthier alternatives. The EWG also evaluates personal care products and foods.

Household Hazardous Waste Collections

There are multiple methods for providing HHW collections: 1.) single town; 2.) multiple town; and 3.) regional (regional planning or solid waste districts). These can be one day a year or multiple days a year at various locations such as municipal transfer stations or school parking lots. By pooling municipal resources and working with other municipalities, communities can often realize benefits such as favorable contract pricing and combined administration.

There is also the option of a semi-per-

manent HHW collection facility that is open several days a week during the warmer months or a permanent facility open for the entire year. There are no true permanent facilities in the State of New Hampshire. In contrast, the State of Vermont has several permanent facilities which provide greater year-round accessibility. A permanent facility is especially useful when a house is sold or someone dies and the house must be cleaned out in the cold months. Often, there is nowhere to take HHW in the winter months in NH.

There are several regional HHW collection programs in NH including those provided by the Lakes Region Planning Commission (LRPC) and the Upper Valley Lakes Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC) which each coordinates a series of regional one-day collections in warmer weather, serving a total of about 50 communities across the central part of the state. Each RPC structures their collections

and billing in a different fashion which best meets the needs and expectations of their constituent communities.

According to the State Department of Environmental Services, there were about 21 different HHW collection programs in the State serving about 160 municipalities. You can get the list of collections Statewide by visiting the DES website: https://www.des.nh.gov/ waste/household-hazardous-waste.

Providing opportunities for easy, costefficient disposal of HHW reduces the likelihood of these materials ending up in municipal trash at landfills or dumped at the end of a dirt road. This can reduce costs to the community related to risk to municipal employees on the trash collection trucks, transfer stations, and landfills, as well as cleanup costs.

According to the Regional Operations Manager of a HHW vendor with of-

We are pleased to continue to deliver the print edition to member subscribers, however, should you find the digital version sufficient and no longer require a print copy, please let us know at nhmainfo@nhmunicipal.org. Thank

We are pleased to continue to deliver the print edition to member subscribers, however, should you find the digital version sufficient and no longer require a print copy, please let us know at nhmainfo@nhmunicipal.org. or by contacting Tim Fortier.

HAZARDOUS WASTE from page 33

fices in NH, the costs of labor and transportation for a 10- to 50-gallon oil spill by the side of the road starts at around $5,000–before disposal costs. They had a 2021 cleanup of a drum of a more challenging waste that totaled more than $90,000. The reality is that one illegal dumping can cost as much to emergency clean up as an entire regional collection serving thousands of households.

This pie chart illustrates the average of materials collected by the two regional planning commissions in 2022, totaling about 80,000 pounds. Approximately 80% of materials collected were ignitables, primarily oil-based paint and old gas or oil mixtures; 16% were toxins such as pesticides and mercury; 4% were corrosives including acids, bases, chlorine (often cleaners); and a negligible percentage were reactives such as peroxides. Nothing we want in our drinking water!

LRPC hosts collections for participating communities at on July 29 and Aug. 5 this year for more information visit their website (http://www.lakesrpc.org/serviceshhw.asp). UVLSRPC holds collections open to all on May 6, June 3, July 14, Aug. 5, and Sept. 30 for more information visit their website (https://hhw.uvlsrpc.org/). For information about HHW collections, hosting a collection, and information

$90.00 In-person $70.00 — Virtual

about hazardous household products and safer alternatives visit the NH DES website (https://www.des.nh.gov/ waste/household-hazardous-waste).

Victoria Davis is Senior Planner with the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission. She can be reached by phone at 603.448.1680 or by email at vdavis@uvlsrpc.org.

9:00 am - 4:30 pm

Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Littleton Opera House

In -person only: $90

Attendees receive the 2022 edition of The Basic Law of Budgeting publication and 2023 Supplement.

THANK YOU!

Online Advertising Supporters

The NHMA would like to thank its supporters (as of June 15, 2023) who value their partnership with the 234 municipalities in New Hampshire. Our online advertising supporters help provide valuable financial support, ensuring our ability to provide important educational and training opportunities.

JSJ Auctions, LLC

Municipal Resources, Inc.

Santander Bank, N.A.

Three Bearings Fiduciary Advisors, Inc.

CheckmateHCM

Mitchell Municipal Group, P.A.

Eagle Network Solutions

Northway Bank

New Hampshire Municipal Bond Bank

NH PDIP/PFM Asset Management

Cartographic Associates, Inc. dba CAI Technologies

Auctions International

Benchmark Office Systems

Ideal Concrete Block Co.

Drummond Woodsum

Pare Corporation

Citizens

Vision Government Solutions

MHEC

R.W. Gillespie & Associates, Inc.

Freedom Energy Logistics

Doucet Survey, LLC

Avitar Associates of New England

VHB

Vachon Clukay & Company PC

Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, PLLC

Tech Insights

Multi-Factor Authentication for Government Organizations

By Nicholas Roy, Umbral Technologies

In today's digital age, government organizations are facing unprecedented security threats. The sensitive information they handle, such as personal data of citizens, ongoing investigations, financial records, and other personal data is highly valuable to hackers and cybercriminals. Therefore, it is crucial for government organizations to implement robust security measures to protect their systems and applications from unauthorized access and data breaches.

One of the most effective security measures that government organizations can adopt is multifactor authentication (MFA). MFA is a security process that requires users to provide two or more forms of identification before accessing a system or application. This type of authentication has become increasingly important in recent years due to the rising number of cyberattacks and data breaches.

There are several reasons why MFA should be utilized in government organizations. First, MFA provides an additional layer of protection against unauthorized access. Passwords can be easily compromised through phishing attacks, brute force attacks, or social engineering. MFA adds an extra step that makes it much more difficult for hackers to gain access to sensitive information. Even if a hacker manages to obtain a user's password, they still need access to the second factor of authentication, such as a fingerprint scan or a one-time code sent to the user's phone, to gain entry.

Second, MFA can help prevent insider threats. Employees may unintentionally or intentionally share

their login credentials with others, which can lead to data breaches or other security incidents. With MFA, even if someone has a user's password, they still need access to the second factor of authentication to gain entry. This reduces the risk of insider threats and ensures that only authorized personnel can access sensitive information.

Third, MFA can help government organizations meet compliance requirements. Many government organizations are required to adhere to strict regulations and guidelines, such as HIPAA, CJIS, or NIST. MFA can help ensure that these requirements are met by providing an additional layer of security and authentication.

And finally, implementing MFA can also improve user experience. With the rise of remote work, employees are accessing systems and applications from various locations and devices. MFA provides an extra layer of security without requiring users to remember multiple passwords or take additional steps to access information. This can improve productivity and reduce the risk of security incidents caused by weak or compromised passwords.

Multifactor authentication is a critical security measure that should be utilized in government organizations. It provides an additional layer of protection against unauthorized access, helps prevent insider threats, meets compliance requirements, and improves user experience. As government organizations continue to face increasing security threats, implementing MFA should be a top priority to ensure the safety and security of sensitive information.

Nick Roy is an IT Consultant with Umbral IT. He can be reached by phone at 603.377.7485 or via email at nroy@umbralit.com

More About NHMA’s Member Portal

YOUR ONLINE BENEFITS CENTER

With NHMA’s member portal, you can easily manage your city’s or town’s information online.

• Every member has a designated Account Administrator who can set up a member user account for elected and appointed officials

• Members-controlled areas include:

• Manage Users

• Manage Officials

• Manage Organization

• Manage Wage Data

• Manage Classified Ads

NHMA’s member portal is your go -to spot for important online benefits, including:

 Posting classified ads

 Adding or deleting local officials

 50% off member publications

 Municipal wage survey

 Webinar and workshop archive

 Court Updates

 Right-to-Know Resources

 Federal Funding and Resources

 Important Date Calendars

 Municipal Directory

 Products and Services Directory

 New Hampshire Town and City Magazine

 Legislative Bulletins

 On-Demand Training

 Financial Resources, including State Aid Grant booklet

 And much more….

After Each Election, Update Your Information with NHMA ASAP!

After each election, we remind members to update their municipal roster. Since town meeting means reelections and new elections, we ask that you take a moment to update your information for our New Hampshire Municipal Officials Directory

Updating this information each year helps NHMA make sure it can effectively communicate and engage with municipal officials from across the state on legislative activity and opportunities for workshops, webinars, conferences, and other educational and training events.

As always, we thank you for your help in making the Directory as complete and up to date as possible.

Every year, NHMA asks our members to update their member compensation information for the online wage survey. The infor-mation members provide allows for an annual report of the wages and salaries paid to New Hampshire municipal employees and elected officials.

NHMA makes the survey data available to members through its website: www.nhmunicipal.org. Municipal members can use this online tool to make sure that their compensation scale is competitive with other municipalities with comparable populations and budgets.

Responding to the wage survey is voluntary, but NHMA encourages all members to complete this survey every year, since widespread participation makes the data more useful.

REQUEST YOUR MEMBER ACCOUNT TODAY!

1. Coordinate with your Account Administrator in creating a member website account for you (requires only your name and email address).

2. Once inputted into your local member portal, the system will send you a confirmation email asking you to create a password unique to you.

3. Create your password and your NHMA member account is complete. We hope you enjoy your online benefits.

Legal Q and A Ordinance

and Bylaw Adoption

By Jonathan Cowal, Municipal Services Counsel

When it comes to enacting bylaws or ordinances, it can be difficult to discern which entity has the authority to do such a thing. In most instances, enacting a town wide ordinance will require the vote of the town at town meeting. However, there are several areas specifically designated by statute where the governing body, or some other local official, has the authority to enact a policy, ordinance, bylaw, etc. which will have the desired effect.

This article is a supplement to the flow chart on the next page. This flow chart was designed to be a tool to help answer some of the more common questions surrounding ordinance adoption, but it is not an exhaustive list.

Q. Is it a city or a town?

A. Under RSA 47:17 city councils are given broad authority to enact ordinances or bylaws for the good of the city without needing to receive any further approval from some other governmental entity. Through the city charter the voters have decided to vest in the city council significant authority to act as both the governing body and the legislative body of the city. RSA 47:17 begins by stating that the city council shall have power to make all such salutary and needful bylaws as towns and the police officers of towns and engineers or firewards by law have power to make. The statute goes on to list over 20 additional areas where city councils have authority to make bylaws. Within those additional paragraphs, paragraph XV states “They [city councils] may make any other bylaws and regulations which may seem for the well-being of the city.” This broad statement effectively gives city councils the authority to enact such bylaws as they see fit as long as they do not violate the constitution or other laws of the state.

Q. What if it is a town?

A. With towns, it is a much more complicated analysis when determining whether or not the select board, or some other local official, has the authority to enact a bylaw or ordinance, or if it must be put to a vote at town meeting. When answering this question, size matters. Only towns with a population greater than 10,000 can grant authority to their select board to enact ordinances. In towns of this size, the select board will not have this power unless the town meeting has voted to give it to them under RSA 41:14-b. Even then, the select board’s authority is limited, in most circumstances, to the specific areas listed in RSA 31:39 when it comes to ordinance adoption. If the issue falls outside one of the listed categories in 31:39, it is likely that the town meeting will still need to vote on a proposed ordinance.

Q. If a town of >10,000 residents grants their select board authority to enact ordinances under RSA 41:14-b, what types of ordinances can the select board create without further approval from town meeting?

A. The legislature has granted towns the authority to make bylaws under RSA 31:39, but only if the issue falls into certain categories. Those categories are listed in RSA 31:39 and include things like the observance of Memorial Day, regulation of mufflers, regulating conduct at public dances and roller skating rinks and regulating noise. Now, there are other areas found within the RSA’s where towns can create rules and regulations, but this statute is the primary grant of authority from the state to local governments outlining their regulatory power. There are some other areas listed in RSA chapter 31 where towns are also granted authority to create ordinances, including conflict of interest ordinances,

SELECT BOARD/ CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY TO ADOPT ORDINANCES

AND BYLAWS

Under RSA 47:17,XV City Councils may make bylaws and regula ons which may seem for the well-being of the city.

Is it a city or a town? YES

Is the popula on > 10,000?

Does it fall under the authority of the health officer?

Is the issue related to the management of roads/right of ways?

NO

Has town mee ng voted to adopt RSA 41:14-b?

Both select boards and city councils have broad authority to regulate under RSA 41:11 and 47:17

Under RSA 147:1 the Health Officer can enact such regula ons necessary to protect health and public safety.

NO

Is it a health, welfare or public safety issue?

Is it a waste management issue?

Under RSA 149M:17, towns may make bylaws governing its solid waste facility.

Does the issue fall under a “police power ”?

Under State v. Lilley, it is possible municipali es have an ability to regulate public safety issues through “police power ” . *

Is the subject one of the categories listed in RSA 31:39? YES NO YES

The select board likely has authority to impose a town ordinance. Is it covered elsewhere in RSA 31? NO

YES

Does the statute reserve authority to the legisla ve body?

Select board can regulate.

bylaws affecting forestry activities, taxicabs, open-air movie theaters, race tracks, etc. However, it is important to look at each statute because there are some instances where the authority to create such an ordinance is specifically reserved for the legislative body which is the town meeting. If that is the case, like for a conflicts of interest ordinance, the select board can never create this type of ordinance without town meeting approval.

Q. What if the issue has to do with regulating town roads?

A. The authority to regulate town roads is an area that has been specifically carved out as something the local governing body has broad authority to regulate. RSA 41:11 gives the select board authority to regulate the use of all public highways, sidewalks, and commons in their respective towns and gives select boards the same authority as city councils in this area. This means that the select board can enact such things as weight limits, parking ordinances, traffic signs, etc. relating to the use of town roads without needing to go to the town meeting for approval. This authority is vested in select boards regardless of the size of the town. For more information on road regulation see our publication

A Hard Road to Travel or one of the many other road related articles published in past Town and City editions.

Q. What if my town has less than 10,000 residents or the issue doesn’t fall within one of the categories listed in RSA 31?

A. For the most part, the answer is going to be that you need to present a warrant article for vote at the next

town meeting. However, there are a few areas where some creative thinking can allow the town to regulate certain activities if there is a health or safety concern. For example, the health officer has the authority to enact such regulations necessary to protect the health and safety of the public under RSA 147:1. While a health officer imposed regulation is not exactly the same as a town bylaw or ordinance, and enforcement procedures may be a little different, towns can still use this authority to address pressing health issues without having to wait until town meeting. For example, let’s say that people in town are allowing their pools to fall into decay and the result is the perfect breeding ground for mosquitoes. There have been some recent cases of EEE in the area and residents are concerned that these neglected pools need to be drained, but the town doesn’t have a standing water ordinance on the books. In this instance, the health officer could enact a regulation relative to the unnecessary creation of mosquito breeding grounds given the EEE concern and use this regulation to force the neglected pools to be drained.

There are a few other areas in the statutes concerning health and safety issues where towns can enact specific regulations, such as when dealing with solid waste facilities under RSA 149M:17. When all else fails, and there still remains a significant public safety concern that needs to be immediately addressed, the issue could fall under the “police power” of local government. However, town’s should use significant caution before attempting to justify an action under this authority and it would be advisable to have the town attorney involved. In the case of State v. Lilley, 171 N.H. 766 (2019), the court stated that the police power is the broad and inherent ability of government to regulate health, wel-

fare, and public safety. This ruling was then used in a case against the City of Nashua when the court upheld the city’s mask ordinance. The court ruled that through both the power granted to city councils under RSA 47:17, XV and the implicit police power of municipal government, the City of Nashua’s mask ordinance was valid.

It is important to note that the Nashua case involved a city council and as stated above, RSA 47:17 gives city council’s significantly more authority to adopt ordinances than select boards. However, the analysis used by the court in the Nashua and Lilley cases would suggest that the police power lies in “municipal government” which would include select boards as the local governing body. Therefore, one could craft an argument that if there is a significant enough public health or safety risk, a select board could attempt to create a regulation using their “police power.” This would, however, be an exceptionally rare occurrence and as always, seeking a vote at town meeting is the better approach.

Jonathan Cowal is the Municipal Services Counsel with the New Hampshire Municipal Association. He may be contacted at 603.224.7447 or at legalinquiries@nhmunicipal.org.

Water is Worth It!

Boyd

Smith,

PCEO, NH Water Works Association

We hope this series about public water services in your community has been interesting and informative. We greatly appreciate our water partnerships with the NH Water Pollution Control Association and NH Department of Environmental Services and are grateful to NHMA for sharing our stories with you, New Hampshire’s community leaders.

Nearly all NH towns and cities rely on public drinking water and wastewater treatment and distribution to survive and thrive. From human consumption, to firefighting, manufacturing, and agriculture, drinking water is second only to air in importance for our survival. Treating water after we use it allows us to clean contaminated water and return it to rivers, lakes, and the ground to rejoin the hydrologic cycle.

The Hydrologic Cycle

Most water users know little about where their water comes from or goes to, as treatment systems are located at the edge of town and distribution systems are buried. More than half of New Hampshire residents depend on public water services, yet only a handful know what it takes to deliver safe, dependable, and affordable water services. It is hard to care about something you take for granted and don’t understand.

Water Infrastructure is Hidden

In February 2020 when I started this job, lack of infrastructure funding and new workers were two of the biggest challenges facing public water. Practically overnight, with the influx of federal funding, we are addressing nearly four decades of deferred maintenance on many of our water systems. Everyone in the water sector, including municipalities, is struggling to make the most of these substantial funds. Assessing priorities, designing upgrades, preparing grant and loan applications, gaining citizen approval for bonds and match funding, finding and hiring qualified contractors, and dealing with supply chain and inflationary challenges, are making us all work even harder than before. But water is worth it!

As we stretch our resources to rebuild and repair systems as old as the late 1800s and last expanded in the 1970s and 1980s, we also need to prepare for the future. Future challenges include recruiting and retaining highly skilled workers; treating emerging contaminants such as PFAS and other man-made chemicals; building resilience to the floods, droughts and possible population shifts brought by climate change; and raising customer awareness and engagement to create a more symbiotic connection between water managers and consumers.

We hope the following points will provide some insights to the hidden world of water:

Water is vital. Clean drinking water is a public health necessity and clean wastewater protects the environment. Combined, these services save lives, create trillions of dollars in global economic value, and make possible multiple uses of our finite water supply.

Water is local. Most town supplies are within or close to their boundaries, treatment facilities are within the town, and miles of distribution pipes connect local homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses. Water workers are often your friends and neighbors, on duty 24 / 7 to keep the water running. Your actions to protect your watershed, capture and reuse stormwater, and set rates that maintain system operability and generously compensate staff, make all residents a part of the system that supports them.

Water workers are critical. Workers include licensed facility operators, laboratory technicians, professional engineers, regulators and policy analysts, contractors, material and equipment suppliers, administrators, managers and more. They are often your friends and neighbors, on duty 24 / 7 to keep the water flowing. Being a water worker is an interesting, dependable, and noble profession.

We hope this article will inspire you to work closely with your drinking and wastewater leaders and staff to maintain the high quality of water services on which your town’s public health and economy depend. Please contact the NH Water Works Association at Info@NHWWA.org if you want to learn more about how to help your local water systems thrive.

NHMA’s 82nd Annual Conference and Exhibition

Wednesday, November 15 and Thursday, November 16

DoubleTree by Hilton Manchester Downtown Hotel in Manchester Zap the Gap!

How to Make Peace & Work Effectively in a Multigenerational World

The Annal Conference and Exhibition features keynote speakers, over 50 program sessions, sponsors and exhibitors, and networking opportunities for hundreds of officials from all sections of municipal government. This annual event helps support municipal leaders by equipping them with the latest knowledge, resources and tools to advance their cities and towns and assist local officials in their daily roles and operations within municipalities.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER—Meagan Johnson

Meagan is known as a "Generational Humorist" challenges her audiences to think differently and act decisively when dealing with multiple generations.

In her presentation, she explains how each generation developed its values and how these values creep into the workplace and marketplace. Each generation holds fast to its values, so it's important to understand and respect them to bring out the best in everyone.

NEW THIS YEAR! Together with the Municipal Management Association of New Hampshire, we are bringing back the Wednesday night banquet! Mark your calendars to join us Wednesday night for award recognitions, big laughs, great fun and entertainment.

We hope you will join us!

Comedy Magician Dewayne Hill

Comedy Magician Dewayne Hill started performing magic at the age of 16. Six months after practicing and performing in the streets of Charleston, WV (his hometown), he started receiving show offers from area churches and local fundraisers.

After performing two professional shows, he received the attention of a local TV show producer and was asked to be a guest on the show to perform. Two weeks after taping the live show, it finally aired on the local TV stations and had a prime time run for 8 nights in a row. This attracted news reporters from all over the region. After several articles and news clips hit the press Dewayne started performing in a local comedy club. It was here where he perfected the art of joking and storytelling while performing amazing magic tricks.

— This Moment in NHMA History —

2004 – 19 years ago…

3Municipal officials became increasingly concerned about the availability and quality of groundwater in their communities. Approximately 60% of the state’s population depends on groundwater as its primary source of water and the other 40% rely on surface water, which comes in part from groundwater. The drought of 20012002 played no small role in raising municipal awareness about our dependence on groundwater.

4In an effort to slow down the pace of losing 12,000 to 15,000 acres of open land per year to development, according to the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, municipal officials and voters began to stop that trend by buying up open space through public taxpayer dollars. Some 29 cities and towns across the state considered proposals for bond issues to finance land conservation projects. Most of the 29 municipalities approved their land conservation proposals by large majority.

In 2004, Cotton Cleveland, specializing in leadership and organizational development, presented a list of “Best Practices” at NHMA’s Annual Conference designed to increase municipal volunteerism. Mather’s research showed that the more sense of community a town or city had, the more volunteerism existed. Also, the more effectively led a municipality was, the more volunteerism existed. Lastly, the more municipal volunteers saw themselves as part of a well-run government, the more they volunteered and the more they encouraged others to volunteer. It’s a classic case of the better it gets, the better it gets.

NAME THAT TOWN OR CITY

Do you recognize this town office?

According to its website, this town began as a part of Middleton, New Hampshire, which was granted by the Masonian proprietors on April 27, 1749, to Ebenezer Varney and others. Middleton was incorporated on March 4, 1778. The inhabitants of the north and second division of Middleton attempted to incorporate as a separate township in 1785 without success.

Finally, by act of the legislature, the town was incorporated on December 30, 1794. In 1840, the town became part of Carroll County and Middleton stayed part of Strafford County. The county and town boundary lines, following the same co-ordinates, zig zag through the Moose Mountains, separating the towns.

When you have figured out the answer, email it to tfortier@nhmunicipal.org. The answer will appear in the September/October 2023 issue.

ANSWER TO PHOTO IN THE MAY/JUNE ISSUE: The photo on page 47 in the last issue of New Hampshire Town and City magazine is that of the Town of Epsom.

Special thanks to: Candace Bouchard (Concord); Marshall Buttrick (Greenfield); and Tim Metivier (Portsmouth) who all responded with the correct answer.

Upcoming g Webinar s

NHMA will be hosting two complimentary webinars in July and August for members of the New Hampshire Municipal Association. For

603.230.3350

The Workings of a Planning Board

12:00 noon – 1:30 pm

Thursday, July 20, 2023

Join NHMA attorneys who will discuss what is a completed application, the timeline for planning board review, conducting meetings and public hearings, the use of third-party consultants, the zoning amendment process, scattered and premature development, offsite exactions, innovative land use controls, driveways, the Right-to-Know Law and more.

This webinar is open to all NHMA members and will benefit not only new Planning Board members, but also governing bodies, and other land use board officials who want to better understand the different roles and responsibilities of various municipal officials in these positions.

Legislative Wrap-up

12:00 noon - 1:00 pm

Wednesday, August 2, 2023

Join Government Affairs Counsel Natch Greyes and Government Finance Advisor Katherine Heck for a review of the highlights from the 2023 legislative session. This will be after the legislative session ends, so except for possible vetoes, all legislative action will be final.

This webinar will discuss the most significant bills of municipal interest that made it through the legislature this year, as well as a few that failed but may be back in the future. The discussion will include a substantial discussion about the state budget and what municipalities should expect in terms of funding for the next two years, as well as a discussion of important policy bills affecting a variety of municipal operations.

Let’s Get Healthy Together!

Taking steps to improve your health is more fun – and usually more successful – when you do it with others. HealthTrust can help!

Through our enhanced Slice of Life wellness program, powered by Virgin Pulse, covered individuals can interact with family and friends to challenge, support and motivate each toward healthier habits. Our LifeResources Employee Assistance Program, powered by ComPsych, offers Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy –online tools to help with anxiety, stress, sleep issues, and more.

At HealthTrust, we focus on providing the resources our covered individuals need to achieve optimal health, so they can focus on spending time with people they love.