Todd Selig - Opposing An Increase in the Road Toll is a Hard Road to Travel for NH Legislators

The Importance of HB 617 to New Hampshire

by Todd I. Selig

After lengthy debate on March 6th, the NH House passed HB 617, a bill that increases the road toll, commonly referred to by opponents as the “Gas Tax,” by 4 cents per gallon of gasoline in each of the next three years (fiscal years 2014 – 2016) and then 3 cents in fiscal year 2017, for a total 15-cent increase over the current road toll of 18 cents per gallon.  It is referred to as the 4-4-4-3 plan with Rep. David Campbell of Nashua as the prime sponsor.

This additional revenue would be placed in a separate fund within the constitutionally protected highway fund to be used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of state and municipal roads and bridges – investment that will equate to good jobs across New Hampshire, particularly within the construction, engineering, paving, and aggregate industries.

Projections show the modest change in the road toll would result in increased highway block grant funding for municipalities of $3.6 million in 2014 to over $13 million in 2017 and beyond, for a total increase of $117 million over the next ten years. For communities working diligently to stabilize local tax rates across the granite state, this increase is significant.  To put it into concrete terms, the 4-4-4-3 plan would mean an additional $250,962 for Bath; $2,982,522 for Concord; $949,347 for Durham; $980,731 for Exeter; $573,305 for Henniker; $1,656,408 for Keene; $1,140,890 for Laconia; $6,851,848 for Manchester; $5,364,972 for Nashua; $2,079,901 for Rochester; $2,195,307 for Salem; and $112,771 for Woodstock.  Local taxpayers in every town and city across NH benefit from the 4-4-4-3 plan.

But much needed additional revenue for municipalities targeted to roadway repairs is not all that this bill provides. The increase would also fund an additional $8.5 million per year for municipal bridge and highway aid programs, fully fund the I-93 widening project, fully fund the state’s grossly underfunded ten year transportation plan, and provide resources to address the 1600+ miles of state roads currently rated in “poor” condition.

The road toll is a true user fee that has not been increased in over 20 years.  If the citizens of New Hampshire want decent roads, someone will have to pay for them, and it is only appropriate that the cost be borne by the users.  Those who drive less would pay less; those who drive more would pay more.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted on March 20th to recommend reducing the road toll increases from four cents/four cents/four cents/three cents over the next four years, to simply four/four/four.  This is a mistake.  Full implementation of the 4-4-4-3 plan is reasonable and necessary to meet the state’s transportation needs. Here is why.

At 18 cents per gallon, New Hampshire’s road toll is currently the lowest in New England.   

An important aspect of the road toll is that it does not translate penny for penny at the pump.  Drive into Maine with a higher gas tax than NH and you can find lower gas prices there.  This is because supply and demand is the primary driver of gas prices, not the road toll.  When the average driver drives 12,000 miles per year, getting an average of 22.6 mpg, it will cost an additional $79.65 per year after the 15 cents increase is fully implemented.  This cost is based on the assumption that the 15 cent increase passes through penny for penny at the pump, which is unlikely.   

Even assuming that every penny is passed onto the driver at the pump, the cost of $79.65 is less than what the average NH driver is currently spending on vehicle maintenance and repairs due to poor NH road conditions ($323/year), as reported by TRIP, a national transportation group. And in some areas of the state it is worse.  The average driver in the Southern New Hampshire area, including Manchester and Nashua, loses $503 annually due to driving on deteriorated roads, while rough roads cost the average Dover-Rochester-Portsmouth driver $400 annually.

New Hampshire faces an annual transportation funding shortfall of $74 million, more than one third of the state’s major roads are deteriorated, nearly a third of Granite State bridges are in need of repair or replacement, and the state’s rural traffic fatality rate is disproportionately higher than that of other roads in the state.  Unless NH can increase transportation investment, conditions are projected to worsen significantly in the future.  This serves none of us well and works against the NH advantage.

HB 617, at the 4-4-4-3 level, is a good plan and deserves the support of the NH Legislature.  Opposing it is a hard road to travel for our representatives and senators in Concord.

---

Information about Todd I. Selig:  Originally from Laconia, Todd Selig resides with his wife and two daughters in Durham, New Hampshire.  He has served as Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of New Hampshire administrative positions within both the municipal and school sectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig has previously served as chairman of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and as a trustee and vice-chairman of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public Risk Management Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the Municipal Management Association of NH, a Trustee Emeritus of the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, and a member of the Durham Historical Society. 

Todd Selig - This November, Vote Leadership

Leadership Qualities that are Essential for the State and the Nation

by Todd I. Selig 

With several short weeks remaining running up to county, state, and national general elections on November 6^th, citizens of New Hampshire have important choices to make concerning which candidates they believe will most successfully represent them to lead the state and the country into the future.  Whatever the office, leadership counts.

Harry Truman once wrote, "Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better."

Our collective challenge, then, is to identify those individuals on the ballot who possess the requisite qualities of leadership to move our state and our nation forward on a productive course.  As residents ponder who to support this November, they might consider the following.

Leaders lead with their values.   They possess integrity and effectively articulate what they believe to be right so that we may understand their vision and view of the world.

Leaders are data driven. They seek to comprehend complex, multi-faceted problems.  They use facts to inform their recommended solutions.  They offer objective information to substantiate their views.

Leaders listen. They consider differing perspectives and weigh the merits of these in crafting policies and solutions to address societal challenges. 

Leaders define success.  They establish goals and continuously work to improve external and internal policies and processes to attain them.

Leaders work hard and are committed.  Being in the right place at the right time is good, but success on behalf of citizens takes work.  Consistent with their values, leaders do what it takes to reach desired ends.

Leaders build trust, and trust and honor others.  They develop meaningful relationships allowing them to accomplish important initiatives and to productively work through conflict when inevitable disagreement arises.

Leaders practice tough love.  They talk about what is needed to improve the lives of the citizens they serve.  They hold people accountable to clearly established goals.  They don’t blame others.  They offer a path to the future and build consensus around it.

Leaders possess mental toughness and resilience during difficult times.  They remain calm, composed, and committed to their values.  Crises and emotional issues come and go, yet a leader takes these in stride and keeps a cool head.

Leaders have the courage to show weakness and admit mistakes.  “I’m sorry, I was wrong.” are five powerful words.  Once an error in course is acknowledged, a new path is chartered utilizing lessons learned.

Leaders keep their eye on the bottom line on behalf of citizens.  Yet even under difficult financial pressures, they make strategic investments to improve upon the effectiveness of the organization. 

Leaders keep it simple. They know they succeed when the citizens they serve succeed.

The N.H. Secretary of State’s Office (http://sos.nh.gov/2012ElectionInfo.aspx), the League of Women Voters of N.H. (http://www.lwvnh.org/index.html), and many local newspapers have good, nonpartisan information available concerning the upcoming elections.  Talk to candidates.  Review their literature and web sites. Take advantage of opportunities to learn more about the individuals who have put their names forward for public office.

Our counties, our state, and our nation require leadership to navigate economic and societal challenges.  Regardless of political affiliation, individuals with the capacity for leadership can help us weather a challenging economic and social time toward fair winds and following seas. 

--

About the author:

Originally from Laconia, Todd I. Selig resides with his wife and two daughters in Durham, New Hampshire.  Mr. Selig has served as Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of positions within both the municipal and school sectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham, NH.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig has previously served as chair of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and as a trustee and vice-chair of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public Risk Management Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the New Hampshire Municipal Managers’ Association, and a member of the Durham Historical Society. 

Todd Selig - To Bill or Not to Bill - Is Hosting Presidential Campaign Visits the Cost of Democracy in America?

Communities across the United States generally do not raise the issue of cost or reimbursement when a sitting president or a political candidate running for president comes to visit, whether that visit is an official state visit or a campaign stop.  Some do.  Newport Beach, CA recently raised the issue with both the Romney and Obama presidential campaigns.  Burlington, VT and South Burlington, VT sent invoices earlier this year to the Obama campaign for campaign-related public safety services.  Stratham, NH recently billed the Romney campaign.  Durham requested reimbursement from the Obama campaign in June.  And in the coming days, Windham and Rochester, NH will deal with theissue. 

Communities in Congressman Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, a battleground state like New Hampshire, have struggled with the cost of hosting presidential campaign visits.  However, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA)indicates that attention has simply not been devoted to this issue to date on a national level. 

A presidential campaign visit is an honor for residents.  It can potentially raise the profile of a community within a region or a state.  It can bring hundreds of staff and thousands of possible supporters to an area with a net positive economic impact.  It can bring the office of the presidency, regardless of party affiliation, within reach of local community members.  Prominent local, state, and Federal officials are afforded a very public opportunity to see and be seen hosting or spending time with the president.  Public safety officials are brought in on overtime, which is viewed positively by local rank and file public safety personnel.  And despite being a candidate, the individual in office is still the president who legitimately needs special protection. As we well know, there have been numerous attempted and successful assassination attempts on the president in United States history.  Local support of public safety services related to hosting the cost of a presidential visit, whether an official visit or a campaign event, in these terms is perhaps the cost of democracy in America.

However, not all regions experience an economic boon when the president as candidate comes to visit.  Roadways are closed.  Parking is restricted.  Local business is interrupted.  Residents are inconvenienced.  Municipal resources must be redirected, and often significant unanticipated local tax dollars are expended on a purely partisan political event, the full cost of which is almost certainly unknown by the general public within the host community, not to mention the neighboring communities that provide public safety support. This may mean that worthy projects that survived the scrutiny of an annual budget process in a community are foregone to offset unanticipated public safety overages associated with a presidential campaign visit.  In this light, local communities and counties across the United States could legitimately be viewed as subsidizing the cost of professionally managed multi-million dollar political campaigns that desire to reserve their resources for purely partisan purposes. 

An incumbent President's campaign is expected to reimburse the government the cost of a first class commercial airline ticket for eachperson riding Air Force One to or from a political event.  The question, then, is not so much whether a given community should bill or not, but rather whether the present system of locally underwriting presidential campaign visits for either party is understood byresidents in communities across America, and whether there is an opportunity to alter it given that both major political parties in the United States benefit from it often at the expense of local budgets and local taxpayers. 

--

Todd I. Selig has been Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of positions within both the municipal and school sectors includingpositions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham, NH.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig has previously served as chair of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and as a trustee and vice-chair of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public Risk Management Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the New Hampshire Municipal Managers’ Association, and a member of the DurhamHistorical Society.  Originally from Laconia, NH, Mr. Selig resides with his wife and two daughters in Durham, New Hampshire.

Todd I. Selig - NH Towns, Cities, School Districts, and Counties Must be Responsive to the Economic Realities of their Citizens

The prevailing focus of the upcoming budget season for local governments across New Hampshire will continue to be the economy. Three and a half years have passed since the onset of the financial and economic crisis of 2008, yet despite what politicians campaigning across NH have been saying about the U.S. economy, the New Hampshire economy appears to be headed in a positive direction, albeit very, very slowly. The critical question will be the length of time it will take to regain a solid footing, and whether it will continue to improve or take a turn, and perhaps a significant turn, for the worse.

In this tumultuous economic climate, it is imperative for New Hampshire’s 234 towns and cities, 177 school districts administrated by 87 School Administrative Units, and 10 counties to be economically and prudently operated.  Local, School, and County governments function as purveyors of public services, and more and more of them across the country are implementing sound business practices during uncertain economic times. 

The following list represents strategies New Hampshire local governments may choose to consider if they have not already done so:

Continuing to hold operational expenses flat, to include public employee wages, as an ongoing strategy to limit the impact of the U.S. macroeconomic situation on local taxpayers.  At this time local governments will likely find a broader pool of qualified applicants from which to draw who are willing to accept positions at lower rates of pay.

Rethinking the organizational structure of agencies and departments and the manner in which services are delivered in an effort to improve organizational efficiencies and mitigate cost centers over the long-term.

Engaging with local legislators to prevent the continued downshifting of bona-fide State of N.H. costs to towns, cities, school districts and counties at the expense of local taxpayers.  Areas of specific concern include highway block grant funds, bridge aid, shared revenues, school building aid, public assistance programs, pole exemptions, and costs associated with financial challenges within the New Hampshire Retirement System.

Controlling escalating health care benefit costs by reconsidering benefit and prescription plans offered to public employees, increasing employee co-pays, shopping around for the most competitive pricing, and implementing active employee wellness programs to encourage healthy living thereby reducing long-term cost exposure.

Regionalizing services such as multi-town or county assessing districts, cooperative school districts, regional dispatch, and multi-jurisdiction police/fire precincts.  Regionalization is commonly utilized in other areas of the country and should be given serious consideration where feasible in New Hampshire.

Mitigating future utility/fuel costs by replacing older vehicles with smaller, more fuel efficient alternatives, retrofitting facilities with energy efficient lighting and mechanical systems, the establishment of local energy committees, and utilizing Energy Star and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified new construction within future building projects.  

Maintaining a strong balance sheet and favorable bond rating by sustaining an appropriate undesignated fund balance, utilizing realistic revenue/expenditure projections, and ensuring adequate contingency funds to account for unanticipated events such as floods, wind/ice storms, and extended power outages.

Encouraging Land preservation activities to preserve open space and protect a community’s natural resources during a time when land prices have fallen considerably from pre-2008 highs – a wonderful buying opportunity for taxpayers.

Promoting economic development activities intended to broaden the tax base and create new jobs combined with smart growth initiatives to thoughtfully plan futuredevelopment.   

Implementing risk management strategies to control property/liability/unemployment compensation insurance costs by establishing active Joint Loss Management/Safety Committees to reduce the incidence of employee injury, accidents, property damage, and lost time.

Budgets developed for the 20012/2013 timeframe must continue to be reflective of meaningful efforts on the part of local governments to develop new efficiencies and synergies within departments, agencies, and schools tocontrol spending growth during a time of continued economic uncertainty.  No two communities, no two school districts are alike; local governments will have to tailor solutions to their individual needs and the needs of their citizens. 

Information about Todd I. Selig:

Todd I. Selig has served as Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of New Hampshire administrative positions within both the municipal and schoolsectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for SeniorExecutives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig has previously served as chairman of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and as a trustee and vice-chairman of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public Risk Management Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the Municipal Management Association of NH, and a member of the Laconia andDurham Historical Societies.  Originally from Laconia, Mr. Selig resides with his wife and two daughters in Durham, New Hampshire.

Todd Selig - Land Use Change Tax Program Under Fire

House Bill 1515 proposes major changes to the assessment and use of the Land Use Change Tax (LUCT), and is scheduled for a hearing before the House Municipal and County GovernmentCommittee on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in LOB Room 301. This bill threatens local control, raises significant concerns on several levels, and should be killed.

First, the bill provides that the failure to pay all property taxes on current use land within 30 days after the date of notice of tax will constitute a change of use, triggeringpayment of the LUCT. This is an extremely harsh penalty that, to our knowledge, municipalities are not seeking. The bill also provides that land will be considered changed in use and subject to the LUCT if the landowner does notnotify the local assessing officials within 30 days that the land has changed from one qualifying use to another. That is unnecessary and extremely harsh.

Second, the bill provides that if any LUCT assessment is not paid within 30 days after the due date, the property shall be deeded to the municipality. Again, this is extremely harsh and is neither in the interest of the property owner nor the municipality. Municipalities generally do not want to acquire land because of unpaid taxes -- they simply want the taxes paid.

The bill repeals the provisions of RSA 79-A:25 that, upon majority vote of the legislative body,allow placement of a portion of any LUCT revenues into the Conservation Fund. This is a tool that many municipalities have used very successfully to fundacquisition of land or conservation easements. It is an important element of local control and represents an option that should be preserved for municipalities.

Finally, the bill repeals RSA 79-A:25-a and 25-b, which authorize the establishment of the LUCT fund, an accounting mechanism that allows LUCT revenues to be segregated from the General Fund until the legislative body within a traditional Town Meeting setting addresses the use of that revenue at the next annual meeting. There is no reason to remove this local option for the vast majority of communities in New Hampshire with traditional Town Meetings.

            The disposition of LUCT proceeds as part of New Hampshire’s Current Use program has been a topic of robust conversation and debate amongst citizens within our state’s communities since the program was established in 1973.   Local control, however, should be preserved, and the changes proposed as part of HB 1515 are contrary to the interests of New Hampshire communities and the state as a whole. 

Todd I. Selig has been Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of positions within both the municipal and school sectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham, NH.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig serves as chair of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and previously served as a trustee and vice-chair of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public RiskManagement Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the New Hampshire Municipal Managers’ Association, and a member of the Laconia and Durham Historical Societies.  Originally from Laconia, NH, Mr. Selig resides with his wife and two daughters inDurham, New Hampshire.