Council taking vague & illusive actions on accepting funds

To The Daily Sun,

On May 23, at the regular meeting of the Laconia City Council, it was reported that “RSA 47:1 allows cities to adopt ANY of the authority exercised by towns.” I have disagreed with this opinion prior to and continue to believe that cites may not adopt ANY such town laws, specially RSA 31:95-b or 31:95-e, two of 149 sub section of CHAPTER 31 POWERS AND DUTIES OF TOWNS.

The legislative history of RSA 47:1 goes back to 1946. The Powers of a City Council RSA 47:1 In General. – “All the powers vested by law in towns, or in the inhabitants thereof, shall be exercised by the city councils by concurrent vote, each board having a negative on the other” is only exercised when a town votes to become a city. No other town, by-laws are applicable having such a purpose.

On its face it could be viewed as all empowering legislation but the legislative intent proves it to be a false assumption. The source for my opposition is that of a singular empowering legislation not “any” town laws. What is allowed is that of when a town votes to become a city. The legislative intent of 1946, 384:14 and 1985, 1699: 16, respectively, state “the inhabitants of the town shall continue to be a body politic and corporate, under the name of the city”. Only the town of Manchester and Dover have implemented RSA 47 when town inhabitants voted to become a city. (Source State Archive)

At conception, the original RSA; 47:1 In general, read as follows; All the powers now vested by law in towns or in the inhabitants thereof, as a municipal corporation shall be vested in the city council, composed as provided in the second section of this act, and shall be exercised by concurrent vote, of each board having a negative on the other, and they may, in the same manner, make, amend and repeal joint rules and orders for the orderly management of business and for the government of the two bodies in convention by the city councils by concurrent vote, each board having a negative on the other.

Clearly, the empowering legislation; RSA 47:1 is only applicable when a town government, one man or vote, adoption of a city representative forms of government. Accordingly, RSA 31:95-b or 31:95-e is not empowering legislation to amend or authorizing the CITY Manager to “apply for, accept and expend unanticipated money” or the donations of personal property.

The City of Laconia Charter Sect. 5:06 APPROPRIATIONS AFTER BUDGET IS ADOPTED.

No appropriation shall be made for any purpose not included in the annual budget as adopted unless voted by a two-thirds majority of the council after a public hearing held to discuss said appropriation. The council shall by resolution designate the source of any money so appropriated. (RSA 49-C:23) (Amended by referendum 11-2-2010, 3,334 yes, 1,235 no, effective 7-1-2011)

1. Procedures for appropriation of funds, after notice and public hearing and by a two-thirds vote, for purposes not included in the annual budget as adopted RSA 49-C:23, VI. No Town has such charter requirement.

2. On July 22, the council unanimously voted Resolution 2019-05; “I move to authorize the City Clerk to add the proposed Charter Amendment question to the November 5, 2019 Municipal Election per RSA 49-B:5, I, regarding the Acceptance and Expenditure of Unanticipated Funds Made Available during the Fiscal Year per RSA31:95-b.”

3. Public Hearing NOTICE – “Below is the new language to be added as a second paragraph to Chapter 5:06

Notwithstanding the provision of Section 5:06, the council is authorized to apply for, accept and expend unanticipated money from a state, federal, or other governmental units or a private source which becomes available during the fiscal year. For unanticipated monies in the amount of $10,000 or more, the council shall hold a prior public hearing on the action to be taken, with seven (7) days prior notice of the time, place and subject of the hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Laconia. For unanticipated monies of less than $10,000, the council shall take action in the public session of any regular council meeting, and shall include notice of the action in its agenda for that meeting. Action taken shall be included in the minutes of the meeting. The council may establish, in its Rules of Procedures, the amount if unanticipated funds which requires a public hearing, so long as the amount is less than. Action taken hereunder shall not require the expenditure of other city funds except those lawfully appropriated for the same purpose”.

RSA 49-B:5, I Charter Amendments, Procedure.

— NOTICE shall contain the text of the proposed amendment. The noticed text specifies; “the council is authorized to apply for, accept and expend unanticipated money from a state, federal, or other governmental units or a private source which becomes available during the fiscal year”.

However, the “Final Resolution” submitted for approval by the three state departments includes new language. It now states its “The City Manager may accept and expend unanticipated money” void of who is authorized to apply for. This final form of the Charter Amendment, submitted on “13 May 2019” to the secretary of state, the attorney general, and the commissioner of the department of revenue administration, effectively an Advisory Committee regarding amendments.

What is problematic is the date of the submissions prior to the public hearing of “July 22” at which no public comment was offered and the resolution vote was by title only, not read in its entirety. The mayor made no offer to the audience for a copy of the resolution.

— Brief explanation was “for the Acceptance and Expenditure of Unanticipated Funds Made available during the Fiscal Year per RSA 31:95 –b.”

— If substantive changes are made, which clearly exist to the proposed amendment, a hearing on the modified amendment shall be held. However, no subsequent public hearing exist.

4. Let the truth be known, the actual brief explanation for the proposed amendment is found in the STAFF REPORT of April 22: Financial Impact: “There would be an “undermined savings” and a “streamlined process” to the city by “not having to pay for public hearings” (transparency), “advertisements every time a relatively small, unanticipated revenue need to be accepted.”

The advertising costs per any Fiscal Years are not listed. Is $10,000 a “relatively small amount”? How many off budget accounts for various purposes exist?

5. The change to the “noticed” amendment is substantive deleting “City Council” and inserting the “City Manager” as to who may apply for, accept and expend unanticipated money”.

It is no surprise that Laconia taxpayers and voters are confused as to how funds, after the budgets are appropriated, and deposited into an off-budget accounts occur. On what basis will the voters of such an amendment vote up or down, nor remember the vague and illusive actions by the City Council on November 5 question, four months from now?

Thomas A. Tardi

Laconia