Portsmouth council declines repeal of open‑space tax classification and votes not to advance three charter changes

The Portsmouth City Council on an item submitted by counsel failed to repeal the city’s open‑space use‑value tax classification and declined to advance three proposed charter amendments to the General Assembly.

The council’s action preserves the existing open‑space assessment classification and left unchanged proposed charter language on noninterference in appointments, recall of elective officers, and a proposed council authority to remedy disparities in city contracting.

Council members debated each subitem after public comment. Resident Mark Yotrowski urged the council to retain the open‑space assessment, saying it can enable the city to arrange public access to culturally or historically valuable private land and produce public benefit. Aaron Cody, a resident who testified on multiple counsel items, urged the council to oppose changes that would weaken recall or noninterference protections.

On item a, an ordinance to repeal Division 2 (use‑value assessment of certain real estate) of the city code, the council took a roll call vote after the city attorney clarified that a “yes” vote would repeal the open‑space classification and a “no” vote would keep it. The motion to adopt the repeal failed by a 4–3 margin, leaving the classification in place.

On item b, a request that the General Assembly amend the Portsmouth charter’s section 3.11 (noninterference in appointments/removals), the council voted 7–0 to deny forwarding the proposed amendment; a motion to deny carried unanimously.

On item c, a proposed charter amendment adjusting section 12.09 (recall of elective officers), speakers argued over whether lowering the standard or otherwise changing recall mechanics would reduce accountability or invite frivolous petitions. After discussion the council voted to deny the resolution forwarding the recall change to Richmond; the motion to deny passed 5–2.

On item d, a proposed charter addition (new section 13.05) that would explicitly authorize the city council to remedy disparities or discrimination in the availability and utilization of minority‑owned or women‑owned businesses, council members split over whether the language was necessary given existing statutes and city policy. Supporters said codifying remedy authority in the charter would protect equity measures from shifting policy priorities; opponents said the remedy language was too open‑ended without defined parameters. A motion to approve the item failed (vote recorded in the transcript as “This item is denied for 3,” tally not fully specified in the record).

City Attorney Lavonda Graham Williams corrected a public speaker’s historical remark and repeatedly explained procedural effects: for the open‑space repeal she confirmed the assessor is the initial determiner of eligibility; for the charter items she said one of the two earlier charter changes (manager authority to collect disparity data) had already been forwarded and was pending in the General Assembly, while the remedy language was a separate second piece that had not been prefiled and therefore would not move forward this session without council action.

Council members who spoke split on principle and practicality. Councilman Hugo and Vice Mayor Moody expressed concern that the proposed remedy authority lacked clear parameters and could be used without robust guardrails. Councilman Tillage, Councilwoman Thomas and others argued that charter language would anchor the city’s commitment to equity and provide a foundation for remedies reflected in prior disparity studies.

Because the four subitems were bundled under the same counsel submission, the council’s mixed outcomes mean the city code and charter remain unchanged on these points for now. The council’s formal recorded actions on each subitem are listed below.

Votes at a glance for these counsel items • Item a (repeal open‑space use‑value assessment): motion to adopt repeal failed; tally recorded as 4–3 (repeal did not pass). • Item b (charter §3.11 noninterference appointments/removals): motion to deny forwarding passed 7–0 (resolution denied). • Item c (charter §12.09 recall of elective officers): motion to deny forwarding passed 5–2 (resolution denied). • Item d (new charter §13.05 remedy authority for MWBE disparities): motion to approve failed; transcript recorded “This item is denied for 3” (vote tally not fully specified in the record).

The council offered members and staff the option to defer further legislative packaging and to continue work before the next legislative filing opportunity.