Hailing the roughly $170 million spending plan as “tight,” “responsible” and “as good as we can get it” without implementing major cuts and layoffs, City Council unanimously approved Concord’s 2025 budget Monday night.
Including councilors’ adjustments — the reinstatement of a $150,000 event fund, a pause on capital spending for the Garrison Park Pool and a boost to city support for public access television — the approved budget will mean a smaller increase to property taxes than originally proposed after city leaders updated revenue projections and corrected redundancies from the proposed budget. Property taxes tied to city spending, roughly a third of resident tax bills, are estimated to increase in 2025 to $9.84 per $1,000 of assessed value — a 3.5% increase that adds $115 to the tax bill of a $350,000 property, $15, and a third of a percent lower than originally estimated.
For reference, the budget passed this spring by the Concord School District carried an estimated 2.9% increase to Concord’s education tax rate, bringing it to $15.62 per $1,000, roughly half of resident tax bills. Penacook residents will see their school-related taxes go down next year by a sizeable $2.96, bringing their rate to $14.51, because of state funding and enrollment changes in the Merrimack Valley School District.
“I do think it is very responsible and respectful,” Ward 10 Councilor Jeff Foote said of the budget. “It’s more than we all want it to be, but it’s the sign of the times.”
“If we don’t want to raise taxes, we basically have two options: one is to reduce services, and the other one is to increase revenues,” Ward One Councilor Brent Todd said. With many of his constituents, he said, opposed to major housing developments, the council’s alternative to reducing city services is pulling in more tax dollars. “We’re trying desperately, I think, to find ways to not do that, and to limit that as much as possible as we go forward.”
Under a proposal from the mayor, a $150,000 fund pool for the city for events and festivals, drawn from reserves, was added for a second year. The special fund, pitched last year as a “one-time” effort, was gifted this spring by the city manager’s office to a half-dozen new events, including the New Hampshire Book Festival, the Northeast Coffee Festival and the CommUNITY youth program.
With the urging of some councilors, Champlin said he planned to work with the city manager to set clearer rules on who is eligible for the fund and how it should be dispersed.
Champlin’s amendment also made the budget reflect up-to-date revenue estimates — projecting more real growth in the city and motor vehicle registrations than when the budget was drafted — that slightly lowered the amount of tax dollars needed to cover planned spending.
The amended budget passed without participation in the public hearing.
The council considered several propositions to delay major capital projects, but decided against almost all of them.
A more than $500,000 plan to re-do the Garrison Park Pool is being paused, with a unanimously approved motion by Ward Two Councilor Michele Horne, so that city leaders can take a broader look at what kinds of water features it wants and whether it has the resources to staff them.
The city is renovating each of its seven public pools one at a time. After the success of the splash pad at White Park last year, city leaders discussed whether Garrison’s pool should also be converted to a splash pad. The features are more expensive but have lower staffing needs. Because past city data showed Garrison as the least-used city pool, it had been the first closed when there weren’t enough lifeguards and hasn’t been fully open for several years. At a resident meeting, locals said they favored a pool and hoped the city could find ways to open it.
With Aspell suggesting that splash pads could be dispersed throughout the city alongside pools, such as at Keach and Rollins parks, councilors agreed to hold off on major work at Garrison until they could develop a clearer vision of what pool features the city wants — and can support.
In a string of motions, Ward Five Councilor Stacey Brown wondered whether the city should push off some major city projects by one year, including water and sewer infrastructure on the Heights, designs for the future of the city hall campus on Green Street, and a new parking lot at the golf course.
Brown said she proposed the delay on a $16.9 million sewer main project for the Heights to wait for a finalized version of the study supporting the project. She joined the full council in voting down the idea after an assertion from the city manager that the project was needed this year to accommodate upcoming housing developments on the east side of the river.
“If you vote down this project, then I will say tonight, before [Deputy City Manager Matt Walsh] leaves, ‘tell the Planning Board: all the projects that you’ve approved in the city, in that area of the Heights, fine. We have enough capacity for them. Don’t approve any more projects. Don’t approve any more housing. Don’t approve the redevelopment of Steeplegate Mall,’” Aspell said. “The housing elements that go with that? There’s no way our system can handle that.”
Similarly, Brown joined a unanimous vote against her proposal to delay a new water pump station northeast of Portsmouth Street after Aspell and several councilors emphasized the existing water pressure issue in the area and the expected increase in demand as more housing comes online.
Brown suggested the extra year could have bought the council more time to implement impact fees to help find funding for projects like this one other than increasing city water rates. Aspell noted that, if the council wanted to explore other funding options — such as Tax Increment Financing or betterment districts — it could still do so after approving the bonds for these projects.
“Delaying the project doesn’t give you any more time to do that one way or the other. You could do that anyways,” he said.
Exploring such revenue options, especially impact fees, came up throughout the project and was advocated again by Foote with the new pump station.
“This is a classic example where this particular infrastructure should have been constructed when the houses were constructed,” Foote said. “This is exactly why we need to start collecting those fees.”
When it came time to vote on the full budget, the mayor prevailed in a dispute with Brown over whether she needed to recuse herself from sections related to salaries, benefits and the police department — Brown’s spouse is a police officer. Council rules put the onus on individual councilors to determine whether they have a conflict of interest, but the mayor can make a ruling.
Brown said she felt she did not need to recuse in this vote because she withdrew from the conversation that set the police budget and because a discussion she had last year with the then-city solicitor led her to believe she didn’t need to.
“I did recuse myself from the conversation. So voting on this is voting in support of the City Council in their decision. That’s how I perceive it,” she said. While the new solicitor, Danielle Pacik, said such advice would be unusual, Brown said she trusted the advice given to her by past city solicitor Jim Kennedy.
Brown’s challenge to Champlin’s ruling failed in a tie vote, and she recused.
The conversation echoed an exchange between Champlin and Brown last month where she declined to withdraw from a vote despite his urging. The vote was on whether to accept a city report to authorize closing Main Street for an event, which also carried a staff recommendation for a police detail. In that case, the mayor issued no ruling, but a resident filed an ethics complaint against Brown.
Catherine McLaughlin can be contacted at cmclaughlin@cmonitor.com