Salem Town Council Meeting Summary - December 15, 2025
Salem Town Council Meeting - December 15, 2025
The Salem Town Council convened on December 15, 2025, for a workshop session featuring a presentation from the New Hampshire Municipal Association on the legal and financial aspects of property tax abatements, followed by the formal consideration of the 2026 operating budget, warrant articles, and various town matters. Key discussions centered on the necessity of maintaining the Conservation Commission's funding structure, the approval of the SCTV budget amidst declining Comcast revenues, and a contentious debate regarding the dissolution of the Budget Committee, which was ultimately defeated.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of the December 1, 2026 public session minutes was moved by Councilor Bryant and seconded by Councilor Hatch; the motion passed unanimously.
- Approval of the December 15, 2026 consent agenda was moved by Councilor Bryant and seconded by Councilor Hatch; the motion passed unanimously.
- Adoption of the 2026 Town Investment Policy was moved by Councilor Bryant and seconded by Councilor Whithrow; the motion passed unanimously based on the Town Treasurer's recommendation to readopt the existing policy.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Brian Thorneock (representing the Veterans Council) expressed strong concern regarding a state legislative amendment to RSA 723:5 that expanded the disabled veterans tax credit to an unlimited amount. He noted that this change forces 100% disabled veterans to choose between the state's unlimited credit and Salem's existing $2,000 local credit, effectively causing them to lose the additional $750 Veterans tax credit. He called for the council to include a warrant article to restore the $750 credit to prevent veterans from unknowingly losing benefits.
- Claudia Di Fioria (Conservation Commission member) expressed full opposition to the proposed warrant article changing the Land Use Change Tax (LUCT) distribution from 100% to the Conservation Commission to a 50-50 split. She argued this would jeopardize protected green space and step backward for the town's conservation efforts.
- Donald Morat (former Conservation Commission member) expressed full opposition to the LUCT split, citing it as a threat to global environmental stability, including biodiversity loss and climate change mitigation. He labeled the proposal as creating a "slush fund" for non-conservation projects and stated the future of the community's grandchildren depends on retaining full funding for conservation.
- Ruth Isaacs (Conservation Commission member) expressed strong support for maintaining 100% LUCT funding for the Conservation Commission. She argued the reserve fund is essential for acquiring critical properties and maintaining the town forest and wetlands, which serve as vital water storage and flood control assets. She expressed concern that reducing funding would force the commission to rely on taxpayer dollars later and diminish their ability to act quickly on available properties.
- Caitlin Fitzpatrick (Conservation Commission member) expressed concern that splitting the LUCT fund would reduce the commission's ability to purchase future conservation land once the current revenue source is depleted. She highlighted the need to balance development with environmental preservation.
Discussion Items
- Tax Abatement Education (Workshop): Christine Johnson (NHMA Legal Counsel) explained that in New Hampshire, towns possess only the authority granted by statute and must have specific legal grounds to grant abatements. She identified the two primary categories for abatements: correcting disproportionate assessments (where a property is taxed higher than similarly situated properties) and addressing poverty or inability to pay. She noted that courts rarely uphold abatements for behavior modification (e.g., encouraging development) or unrelated benefits (e.g., sending children out of district), as these are not legally recognized "good causes." Tammy Luston (NHMA Government Finance Advisor) elaborated that abatements have long-term financial impacts, reducing assessed values for five years (until the next revaluation), which increases the tax burden for other residents to offset the lost revenue. She provided an example where a single abatement reduced a property's value by 3.2 million, costing the town over $56,000 in the first year and $282,500 over the five-year period.
- 2026 Operating Budget Reduction: Town Manager Joe Devine presented two options to reconcile with the Budget Committee's $2 million cut to the operating budget: Option A (removing only sidewalk projects) which resulted in an $8.11% tax increase, or Option B (a blanket $2 million reduction) resulting in a 3.98% tax increase. Councilor Hatch and Councilor Sweeney expressed strong support for Option B, citing the clear intent of the Budget Committee to lower the tax rate and the risk of a "default budget" if they pursued Option A. Councillor Wright expressed support for Option B despite disagreeing with the Budget Committee's tactics, noting the 3.98% increase was preferable to 8.11%. Councilor Betancourt and Councilor Pelletia also voted for Option B after reconsidering the implications and the need to maintain momentum despite the reduction.
- Land Use Change Tax (LUCT) Split (Warrant Article 14): Councilors Hatch, Stramalia, Betancourt, and Wright voiced full opposition to Article 14, which proposed splitting LUCT revenue 50-50 between the General Fund and the Conservation Commission. Multiple speakers argued that the Commission is a self-funded entity capable of acquiring land and maintaining the town forest without taxpayer support. They expressed concern that diverting half the funds would deplete the reserve needed for future acquisitions and shift the maintenance burden to taxpayers. Councilor Pelletia expressed a desire to see conservation land converted into more active recreation spaces (e.g., sports fields) but maintained that the current funding model should not be altered. The council voted to remove Article 14 from the warrant.
- SCTV 2026 Budget: Director Tom Girouso requested $543,724, a reduction of $65,000 from the previous year, due to a 10% drop in Comcast revenue attributed to cord-cutting. Councilors Hatch, Bettencourt, and Pelletia expressed strong support for the station, emphasizing its critical role as a primary communication lifeline for the public in the absence of a weekly newspaper. The council voted to approve the reduced budget to ensure fiscal responsibility while maintaining services.
- Warrant Articles Removal: The council discussed and removed Article 17 (a $5 motor vehicle registration fee) and subsequently Article 16 (establishing a Municipal Transportation Improvement Fund) due to opposition regarding the timing, the broadness of the fund, and the perception of additional taxes during a period of rising state fees. Councils Wright, Betancourt, and Pelletia expressed strong opposition to the fees, while Councilor Bryant expressed support for the concept but noted the fee amount could be adjusted.
- Budget Committee Dissolution Reconsideration: Councilor Hatch moved to reconsider the previous vote to dissolve the Budget Committee, citing strong constituent feedback and the optics of removing the committee following a contentious budget process. Councilor Betancourt and Councilor Wright expressed support for the reconsideration, citing concerns about the lack of oversight in the school district budget and the potential for unchecked power if the committee is removed. Conversely, Councilors Sweeney, Bryant, Withrow, and Pelletia opposed the reconsideration, arguing for a replacement finance model or expressing faith in the current safeguard of the deliberative session. The motion to reconsider failed by a vote of 4 to 5 (with Councilor Wright initially voting twice, then correcting her count).
Key Outcomes
- 2026 Budget: The Town Council unanimously approved Option B, adopting a $2 million reduction in the operating budget to limit the tax rate increase to 3.98%.
- Roads Program: Resolution 2025-38 was unanimously adopted, establishing the annual road program for the 2026 warrant with a recommendation to appropriate $3 million from the road capital reserve fund.
- Fire Station 3: Resolution 2025-39 was unanimously adopted, authorizing the use of $150,000 from fire department public safety impact fees to advance Phase 2 of the South Fire Station Three replacement project.
- SCTV Budget: The 2026 SCTV budget of $543,724 was unanimously approved.
- Conservation Appointments: Corinne Gordon and Glenn Reynolds were unanimously appointed as alternate members of the Conservation Commission, with terms ending in April 2027 and April 2028, respectively.
- Warrant Recommendations: The council voted to recommend Articles 10, 11, 12, 13, and the renumbered Article 14 (Anniversary Trust) to the 2026 warrant. Articles 14 (LUCT split), 16 (Transportation Fund), and 17 (Vehicle Fee) were removed from the ballot.
- Investment Policy: The existing 2026 Town Investment Policy was unanimously adopted.
- Future Meetings: A public hearing for the 2026 annual town warrant (Article 7 - Fire Engine) is scheduled for January 14, 2026. A local government academy is open for registration for February and March.
- Infrastructure: Construction for the 10-month closure of Bridge Street Bridge begins Monday, January 12, 2026.
- Reconsideration Vote: The motion to reconsider the dissolution of the Budget Committee failed with 4 votes in favor and 5 against.
Note: A discrepancy exists in the transcript regarding the vote count on the reconsideration motion; the transcript lists 4 votes in favor (Stramalia, Bettencourt, Hatch, Stacey) and 5 against (Sweeney, Bryant, Withrow, Pelletia, Wright), noting that Councilor Wright voted twice initially before correcting.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, Sealman. Welcome to the town council meeting of December 15th. I'm your chairman Kathy Stacey. Right now we're doing a workshop session before our actual meeting with New Hampshire Municipal Association. Mr. Devine. So we've actually asked New Hampshire Municipal Association to come and give a presentation on the role of the Board of Assessors. You guys, just to kind of give you some more background in assessing and how we do things. So NHMA has sent Christine Johnston and Tammy Luston here tonight. And I'll turn it over to Christine. Great. Thank you very much. Do I need to do anything else with this microphone? Nope. Nope. Closer to you. Okay, great. We sent our presentation last week, and we thought we had two hours, but we only have one hour. So we will adjust accordingly. But despite that fact, if you have questions, please feel free to ask them as we go along. So I'm Christine Johnson. I am legal services counsel with the municipal association. And I'm gonna start and then I will turn it over to Tammy, who is our government finance advisor. I'm gonna talk more about the legal side of things, and she's gonna talk more about the practical numbers side of things, which is not where I shine. So I'm gonna start with whoops. This is not rolling. There we go. Okay. So I'm gonna start with some really bottom line basics about abatements and how they work. And the most important thing about anything else that underlies everything else that both of us are gonna talk about tonight is the authority that towns and cities have to act, which is not intuitive, and most people are shocked when they hear about it for the first time. If you have ever heard me speak before, you have already heard me say this, but I'm gonna say it again because it's really important. Um in New Hampshire, unlike many other states, towns and cities don't have any inherent authority to act at all. They get all of their authority from the legislature through statutes, and that's because of the way that New Hampshire's constitution is written. There are other states where the constitution says uh the state does these things, towns and cities do these things. There are other states where their constitution says the state does these things, and everything else is left to towns and cities. New Hampshire says the state does these things, and that's all it says. So that means that a town or a city and its employees and officials and boards can only do something if there's a law that says that they can, which is completely backward from the way most people think about the law. Usually we're thinking, is there any law that says we can't do it that way? And that's backward for municipal law. So if you start with that thought that whatever it is that a town wants to do or a town council, um, it's not enough to say there's no law that says we can't do it that way. You have to find a law that says that you can. And more than that, um, so when you're talking about taxes in particular, since we're talking about abatements, um towns and cities have to be authorized by the legislature to tax real estate. They can't do it unless there's a law that says that they can, which there is, and they can only do it in the way that the law provides for, which the New Hampshire Supreme Court has been pretty clear about in the past, and that is not a new thing at all. Um the flip side to that is that towns and cities can only relieve taxes if there's a law that says that they can, which there is, and they can only do it in the way that the law provides. So there are a bunch of different laws, and I'm gonna talk about or touch on several of them that talk about how taxes can be relieved. But the power to grant abatements it comes directly from the law, which is this governing body, that's you, for good cause shown may abate any tax. That's essentially what the law says. And the point of an abatement, which is the key thing here, um, which has been the case in New Hampshire for a really long time, is that the idea the idea is that granting abatements is supposed to be a way to fix things that are wrong with taxing. It's not always perfect, it doesn't always get done perfectly the first time. Um it should, but it doesn't.
openpublica.com