If a new state law, SB 381, is adopted by the Town Council, the Londonderry Conservation Commission will have the power to spend taxpayer funds on conservation purchases without approval of the Town Council.
The new law has been under discussion at the Commission since October 14, 2008. At that meeting, Commission member Mike Speltz urged passage of SB 381 citing “the improved opportunities the bill provides for greater and more efficient conservation of natural resources”, but noted “if such an article were to pass in Londonderry, there may well be objection to the idea that Town funds could be expended by residents who are not elected”. At subsequent meetings, the Commission stated it wanted to change the wording of the Londonderry version of SB 381 to continue to allow the Town Council to retain final approval of conservation purchases. However, at the July 14, 2009 meeting, the Commission reported the Town Attorney’s has concluded no changes can be made to SB 381 and that if the Town Council passes the law, the Conservation Commission will have sole final approval over conservation fund expenditures. Whether the Commission can create a legally binding agreement with the Town Council to give them final approval over fund expenditures, as proposed by Speltz at the same July 14 meeting is unclear.
As the Town’s budget process begins it’s time that the full implications of SB 381’s provisions be reviewed.
If past behavior is the best predictor of future conduct, recent spending by the Commission could prove troubling for Londonderry if SB 381 is past. Last February the Commission unanimously voted to purchase an easement over the Estey Saw Mill for $1,028,600 based upon an appraisal completed two years earlier in January 2007. The Commission made a formal offer to the sellers in early 2008, based upon the 2007 appraisal. Until the vote in February, 2009, the offer was not legally binding. When questions concerning the price arose after the vote, (due to falling real estate prices) the Commission’s original response was that it believed it had a “moral obligation” to go forward with the sale. Subsequent to the vote, the Commission attempted to justify the 2007 price by asserting that land of the type it was purchasing from Estey, hardly declined at all during this period, based upon information acquired by member Mike Speltz. Yet by the time of the April Town Council hearing approving the purchase, Speltz did not produce any evidence that real estate prices had not declined and subsequently admitted that the value of the land may have declined by as much as 30%. Still, despite this admission, Speltz urged the Town Council not to seek a reappraisal of the property, having earlier at a March Commission meeting noted if another appraisal were required, Harold Estey would back out of the deal.
The recent Commission’s proposal to buy an easement from Andy Mack on his Pillsbury Road parcel for an appraised value of $900,000, also raises questions. Unlike the Estey purchase, the Commission utilized a recent appraisal to determine the value. However, in order to close the deal, the Commission gave Mack the right to withdraw two lots of land for his own personal use, without any commensurate reduction in the purchase price. At the appraised values of $58,000 for each lot, this effectively means the town is paying $900,000 for an easement that is worth less than $800,000.
Strangely, while not seeking to take any advantage of the downturn in the real estate market to obtain a decrease in purchase prices for these two parcels, this past summer, Mike Speltz urged the CIP Committee to endorse $6,000,000 in continued funding of open space, citing of all things a “leveling off of real estate prices”.
Given this history, if SB 381 is enacted and gives final authority to spend conservation funds to the Commission, can there be any doubt that these past practices will continue. If passed, Londonderry taxpayers will no longer have any meaningful voice on such unrestrained spending. This unelected Commission which has demonstrated that its first priority is to maintain good relations with sellers at whatever costs to the taxpayer should not be given the authority to spend taxpayer funds without review.
With the Town’s budget process soon to begin both the Town Council and/or the voters may decide it’s necessary to reduce spending in this difficult fiscal climate. If we are to avoid a repeat of last year’s events, where in March, the Town engages in cost cutting only to see in April the Conservation Commission’s fiscally irresponsible behavior erase those savings, then now is not the time to give this Commission unlimited authority to spend taxpayer funds without review by elected officials. The Town Council should decline to pass SB 381. It is “morally obligated” to the taxpayers to do no less.
Other Stories on this topic.
Does Unelected Conservation Commission Overspend Taxpayer funds?
Town Council to take up order to Preserve 74 Acres on 102
Estey Sawmill may be conserved
Andy Mack Sr. Open Space, In His Own Words
Town Council will Vote to Preserve 24 acres
Tom is a contributor to Londonderry Online news. When you comment on this story, in addition to your comment being displayed Tom will receive an email.
Loading ...
![[popup]](http://www.londonderrynh.net/wp-content/plugins/shout-stream/popup.png "[popup]")
This is of some concern to me, as I have been aware of the Estey parcel debate for some time.
I wonder if Mr. Speltz would care to rebut on this or any other public forum? It would help my understanding of his position to hear directly from him vs. reading reports in the Londonderry Times et al.
Mike Speltz has been quoted in several stories here. He also has contributed on a few occasions as a guest author.
http://www.londonderrynh.net/?author=59
We will drop him a note, you will also find information from him on some of the stories listed in Tom’s letter to the editor.
Tom,
Thanks for staying alert on these issues. Does this mean that Londonderry Taxpayers money under Conscoms direction could be used to purchase open space in Litchfield?
Tammy
To your question about Cons Com purchases outside of Londonderry, such purchases would have to be authorized by adopting a separate part of SB 381 by the Town Council. However, even if adopted, such outside of Londonderry purchases would still require the Town Council’s approval.
Thanks Steve, I’ll refer to your links.
Well, just got back from reading Mr. Speltz’ author links. What I’m looking for are remarks that address the concerns around buying land at 2007 prices when the current assessed value is potentially much lower, and for Mr. Speltz; thoughts on why the conservation commission should have no oversight in their spending, while the town council, elected officials, must face the voters as a consequence of how they spend our tax dollars.
Thanks!
The original SB381did have some sort provision for election to “allow for the election of conservation commissioners”, but it appears that a bit of lobbying by several groups got that quickly struck from the final bill
A news blurb from:
New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions
Senate Bill 381
Important changes to RSA 36-A took effect on January 1st, 2009.
NHACC, the Forest Society, The Nature Conservancy, the Local Government Center and others have been working together to find the best solution for clarifying whether it is lawful for a conservation commission to make a donation to a land protection project without taking an interest in the property. SB381 originally sought to allow for the election of conservation commissioners. The bill was quickly amended in the Senate and further amended in the House; each body passed their own version. The Senate then concurred with the House version. http://www.nhacc.org/news/
http://www.nhacc.org/news/
Aside from the Estey/Mack price purchase questions raised by Tom in the article. In most of the comments I’ve read the Conservation Commision has been in favor of keeping the Town Council as the final approving entity. There have been a number of discussion surrounding the RSA and and who can approve what. The last discussion was in July
Londonderry Conservation Commission Tuesday, July 14, 2009 Minutes
SB 381- Under the new law created this year by NH Senate bill 381, conservation commissions in NH are allowed to expend funds via a land trust or another “qualified organization” to either purchase land in their own towns or in other towns without having to retain any executory interest in the property. Each individual commission would need a warrant article passed in their towns to adopt the provisions of RSA 36-A:4-a, I(b). If passed, a conservation commission would still need approval from their governing body to expend funds on projects outside of their town, but would no longer need such permission to contribute funds to qualified organizations for projects within their municipal boundaries. TheTown Attourney has advised that, in Londonderry, the Town Council has thhe authority to adopt the provisions of RSA 36-A:4-A, I(b)
The LCC has discussed this topic several times since the fall of 2008, mainly in pursuit of a way to modify the language to ensure that the Town Council would always retain the final approval of any land transaction. The Towns Attourney has stated that the language of the RSA cannot be changed. M. Speltz had previously suggested adding langauge to the LCC’s procedures or developing a letter of agreement with the Council. Since B. Farmer was present, he asked for input. He agreed the Council would want to maintain ultimate approval on any land aquisition and encouraged M. Speltz to ask Town Counsel about the legality of creating such an agreement.
(note: I could not cut and paste the minutes, since they were a scanned PDF, so there may be a typo or two below). The link is to the actual meeting minutes.
Regardless of whether inside or outside the town, in order for a CC to acquire an interest in property on behalf of the town it requires the approval of the governing body. It is only when expending funds to ‘qualified organizations’, where the QO holds the interest, that a CC would not require approval of the governing body. QOs are defined by the tax code, essentially non-profits. By ensuring the expenditure can only go to a ‘QO’, one could argue the town is assured the funds will be used for the designated purpose, by virtue of their ‘QO’ designation. I can say as a CC member that has worked with Land Trusts/non-profits that meet this criteria, it is my opinion that in most cases they are much more ‘qualified’ to put that money to good use than the CC/governing body. Conservation is the reason for their existence, and the people are often salaried, trained professionals, as opposed to volunteer CC members or selectmen.
The problem is not necessarily SB381 in and of itself. The problem with administering this in Londonderry (and most likely other communities) is the make-up and oversight of the ConComm.
These people are un-elected and by virtue of the makeup of the Committee are all proponents of open-space preservation. There is no balance on the committee as to either other views – but more importantly on their financial responsibility.
Meetings are held in secret, fine, as allowed by law. But then even after the fact they refuse to release meeting minutes of their discussions.
Is it ethical for people that own orchards and open space in town help in setting the price for other orchard owners who by virtue of an inheritance are now winning the open-space lotto sweepstakes. Land owners who also approve land purchases to neighboring properties and potentially seeing benefits to their own situation.
The ConCom has a representative from the council who sits with them and appears to have abandoned his ethical turnings in observing these proceedings. Then it leads directly to the TC who can’t seem to understand they have a fiduciary responsibility in spending funds and to the town manager who has a role in this process. Have they basically all forgotten it is not their money. What about balance……there appears to be none. We see self serving estimates of land values, land owners dictating the cost of their land; and everyone seems to be rolling over to spend our money.
Fix the ConCom, put some teeth into our ethics rules, remind ourselves it is OUR money not theirs, and introduce some long lacking oversight. But the TC will have none of that. They are more interested in fixing a problem that does not exist, Town Meeting, and refuse to address the problem right under their own noses. Where is the leadership.
You would think that the CC would have the intersts of the taxpayers as their prime consideration. I thought that the reason for buying open space, is to prevent the development of these properties. Isn’t it true that the CC with the blessing of the TC has purchased property that could not be developed? ie: wetlands and even swamp land? Seeing the reckless spending of the CC, i would hope that SB381 would not be adopted. Furthermore I would hope that none of the CC members would be reappointed when their terms expire.