Are You Really Sure You Know What’s Planned For Main Street?

Last night, the Complete Streets committee heard presentations on streetscape elements and design. Trees, planters, lighting, sidewalk and crosswalk materials, bus stops, benches, newspaper and parking meter kiosks. One presentation focused on accessibility and the other was presented by our city planner. Both excellent presentations. The presentations took over two hours and there is much to consider. What would make these presentations truly relevant is if the committee, the Concord City Council, and the public actually had a reasonable time frame to consider these design elements.

With only a short time left before the committee gives their recommendations to the council, here’s a synopsis of my thoughts and concerns regarding the Complete Streets project. 

First, it is important to remember that the Re-Thinking Main Street Report that was accepted by the council and quoted in the grant application has never been approved as the design plan for Main Street.

Second, it is important to remember there was no public input allowed during the discussion when the Re-Thinking Main Street Report was accepted by the council.

Third, there was no public discussion both times the council directed the city administration to apply for the TIGER grant.

Fourth, if you read the TIGER grant you will see there are misstatements. Specifically the grant says that  “The Rethinking Main Street project was accepted by the City Council at a public hearing in July 2011...” Remember it was the report that was accepted, not the project, and there has been no public hearing.

In fact, the only time we have seen public testimony allowed is after the second grant application was accepted. Two months before the City Council votes to plow ahead with this project.

So here are some issues to mull over:

• Timeline: Why weren’t there public hearings before the city applied for the grant? Why weren’t there public hearings when the grants were submitted?
• The mayor stated emphatically that there would be no loss of parking. It is apparent now that there will be a loss of parking on North Main Street and that the gain in spaces for South Main, as stated in the Rethinking Main Street report, was  seriously overstated. Talk about a parking management plan is great, but perhaps it should have occurred before the grant was submitted. It appears the plan now is to find off street or parking near Main Street to make up for the lost spaces. How does off street or off Main Street parking impact businesses who lose spaces in front of their buildings? And why all the talk about parallel parking? Eliminating up to 100 parking spaces on Main Street- the number of spaces that would be lost with parallel parking - would work great if you want to reinvent Main Street by eliminating the the retail component of our downtown.
• The Main Street project has been touted as an economic generator for the whole city. So let’s be clear about the economic impact this project is projected to have on the community and for the downtown merchants. Income for the merchants only increases if they sell more or charge more. Funding to pay for this project comes from property taxes and property taxes only increase if the buildings are improved or if there are higher economic reuses of the buildings. The only economic impact this project can have is if the heated sidewalks are expanded to include the roadway. Having a snowmelt system for the downtown will bring more people to the downtown during the winter months. So the only component of the project that can have a positive impact for the downtown (heated streets) isn’t included in the grant and isn’t funded.
• The grant will pay for 60 percent of this project. That leaves the city footing 40 percent or $3.14 million. The grant and the proposal before the committee for funding are different. On page 8 of the grant proposal there is a chart that spells out how the project would be funded. The grant looks for private downtown partners and remaining project funds to use a tax increment finance (tif) district to pay for 20 percent. The city of Concord’s share is stated as coming from general obligation bonds and impact fees. The proposal before the committee is to get donations from private downtown partners to pay for $1.57 million. That still leaves the community at large holding the bag for $1.57 million to fund the Complete Streets Project. My proposal would split the remaining 40 percent in half. Whatever is left over after grants, donations, impact fees, etc. would be split evenly between a general obligation bond and establishing a special assessment district that would be funded by the businesses impacted by the streetscape improvements.
• There has also been talk that if the building owners rehab their properties they may be eligible for tax relief under RSA 79E. 79E allows for no tax payments on the improvements of a building for up to 9 years and possibly longer. How can paying no taxes on the increased assessment - due to improvements - benefit anyone other then the building owner? And while benefitting the buildings owners the rest of the property owners in the city must make up the difference. So if the Main Street project is an economic engine for the community, by creating a tif district or taking advantage of RSA 79E, the community would lose out on any new tax revenues for years to come. In the case of the tif, up to 20 years; in the case of 79E, up to 9 years. Without new tax revenue to pay for the debt created by this project and no new funds to pay for the costs of city services, it is hard to imagine how this project has been labeled an economic generator.
• So here’s the bottom line. The grant application states that over twenty years “..the complete streets project will increase property values through the life of the project by over 8%.”  That comes out to $3,706,194 as also stated in the grant application. And at $8.72 per thousand - the city’s current portion of the tax assessment - the city would see an increase in tax payments of $32,318 from the downtown over 20 years. 

And here’s the rest of the story:

I haven’t even discussed how the city administration is pushing the Complete Streets Committee from a 3 lane design as outlined in the Rethinking Main Street report towards a 2 lane design with back in angled parking. Although, as I mentioned above there is now discussion to move away from angled parking and towards parallel parking on Main Street.

With 6 committee meetings left 2 of those meetings will be devoted to hearing from the 25 or so consulting entities the committee was tasked to receive reports from. One will be a NH Listens Forum (think charette). And the last 2 will be devoted to the committee putting together their final report for the City Council. So that leaves 3 opportunities for the public to chime in. One charette and 2 committee meetings. 

 This has been a rush job from day one. For a project that we have been told may be the single most important endeavor the city takes on for the next 50 years, one has to wonder why there is only eight weeks of public input being allowed.

So two more questions:

After the council meeting on November 26, and after all the design components are added to the plan will there be an opportunity for further public input before construction starts?

Once approved by the council on Nov. 26, if engineering makes design changes that come back to the council - before construction starts - will the public have a chance to weigh in again?

There are way too many questions to ask and way too many unanswered questions to think this project can move ahead successfully in the time frame that must be adhered to if the city accepts the funding from the TIGER grant.