Candidate Questionnaire from Seacoastonline

The biggest challenge Portsmouth faces is affordability, both in housing and overall cost of living. If prices continue to rise, teachers, firefighters, young families, and seniors will be pushed out, eroding the diversity and character that define our city.

To address this, I would continue to expand housing opportunities across income levels by updating zoning to allow duplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units in areas now limited to single-family homes. We should encourage mixed-income developments, support workforce housing through partnerships with nonprofits and developers, and streamline approvals for good projects.

We also need to manage property taxes and utility costs by investing wisely in infrastructure and running city finances responsibly. Affordability isn’t just about rent or mortgages—it’s about ensuring people can build a life here without being priced out.

Did not respond.

Managing growth and development in balance with affordability, historic character, and infrastructure capacity.

Redesign zoning and overlay districts.

Strengthen developer obligations (impact fees, betterment charges).

Phased infrastructure investments tied to growth.

Robust community engagement and transparent prioritization.

Affordable housing trust / public land strategies.

I posted details for each line on my FB page.

Lack of affordable housing is the biggest problem our city is facing. It impacts school enrollment, employee hiring and retention, business retention, and demographic diversity. As a community we are aging with young people and families struggling to afford housing. The affordable housing crisis also impacts our arts and cultural community, long the backbone of our local economy. Artists and creative workers need places to live and work. Without the $72 million in revenue they generate annually, and the enrichment they provide to our lives, our community would not be the same.

This is not a problem we can solve, but it is a problem we can better address. The City Council has worked to build more workforce housing in our community, but the public sector alone cannot tackle this problem. We need to enact zoning and regulatory changes that will incentivize housing development, prioritizing smaller homes and apartments, while improving alternative transportation infrastructure.

Affordability is one of the most pressing challenges facing Portsmouth. We are fortunate to live in a city with an excellent quality of life -- great schools, robust public services, and a strong sense of community. But as we grow, we risk losing the character that has long defined us.

We must ensure that housing is accessible to residents across a range of income levels. The PHA has made real progress, including new apartments that serve working families. Redevelopment of the Sherburne School site is a step forward, and the approval of the J.J. Newbury buildng project shows that the city is open to creative solutions.

We must keep listening to residents, working with planning experts, and keeping affordability a core priority.My husband and I bought our home in Portsmouth 25 years ago. Today, we likely couldn’t afford to buy that same house. That reality gives us pause. A true measure of progress is whether our children can envision a future here, not just as visitors, but as residents.

The biggest challenge Portsmouth faces is affordability — both in housing and in daily living.

Over the last 3½ years, city spending has grown by $23.5 million, driving up property taxes. That hurts homeowners, but it also drives up rents, since landlords pass the costs along. I’ve seen my own tax bill climb by $2,300 in just two years — many residents are facing the same.

We can’t talk about affordable housing while making the city itself unaffordable. True affordability means protecting the people who already live here — homeowners, renters, families, and seniors. My priority is restoring fiscal responsibility — asking tough questions, reviewing efficiencies, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, so Portsmouth remains a city you can afford to buy in, rent in, and stay in.

There isn't a singular 'biggest' problem facing Portsmouth. Much like many communities, we experience a range of evolving issues.

At present, our primary concern centers around housing affordability and availability. We find ourselves amidst a nationwide crisis marked by a scarcity of housing and escalating prices for what is accessible. Portsmouth is no exception. Many individuals who grew up here, having left for education, employment, family, or a multitude of other reasons, now find it difficult to return home and secure appropriate housing. Moreover, long-term residents are feeling the strain of the rising cost of living.

The sensation of being on the brink of transformation can sometimes feel as though the 'new' is overshadowing 'old' Portsmouth. However, I believe it is imperative that we pursue the development of more housing in a smart and sustainable manner, carefully considering the implications for schools, infrastructure, and land use.

Portsmouth’s biggest challenge is managing growth in a way that benefits those who already live here as well as those who want to join our community. We are fortunate to live in a desirable city that attracts residents and businesses alike. Growth expands our tax base, which is vital when roughly three quarters of our budget comes from property taxes and more than half of our annual spending is driven by contractual salary increases and other fixed costs.

The key is careful planning so residents see the benefits. Unlike the historic downtown, other parts of Portsmouth can support more housing and commercial development without overwhelming existing systems or creating traffic issues.

We should direct growth there, require developers to invest in infrastructure, and ensure new projects add value to surrounding neighborhoods. Done right, growth can strengthen city finances, improve services, and keep Portsmouth livable for the long term.

Portsmouth's biggest challenges today are a result of its outstanding success in emerging from difficult economic times and blossoming into a cultural, commercial, and residential jewel. This has created an extraordinary increase in demand for growth in housing stock, commercial space, and supporting municipal services and infrastructure.Today, Portsmouth faces an affordability crisis. Solving this crisis is our greatest challenge. My specific ideas on how to confront this issue will be apparent in my answers to the remaining questions.

Here I would point out that my experience as a senior leader in civic, professional, and corporate organizations has taught me to be an active listener to people with diverse opinions on how to solve complex problems. I have a calm and deliberative temperament, an analytical mind, and look forward to working with eight colleagues on the City Council to act on the very best ideas.

Portsmouth has been a remarkably successful city in the recent past. With this success has come an influx of people, money, construction. traffic and the other trappings of success.. Coping with the effects of success is the biggest problem facing the city.

Thoughtful planning and the adoption of appropriate regulations as well as the taking of other actions within its authority by the council is the most straightforward method of dealing with this issue.

I would do these things in good faith to the best of my ability,

Rents and home prices have shot up faster than working families can afford. We could build a thousand new units of housing but demand is so strong they would all rent or sell at market rates. So we have to generate below-market rate housing to help our young workers and senior citizens. This council has responded to the crisis: the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Housing Committee (which I co-chair), got the Sherburne School project across the finish line - 127 units of affordable housing. Also the land transfer as part of the Kane lawsuit settlement that will result in 80 more affordable units. Our committee recommended additional city sites for housing, and put into motion four zoning changes to stimulate housing supply.

I would like to continue a Housing Committee with dedicated staff person funded by the city's Housing Trust Fund to keep working on this critical issue.

The affordability of living in Portsmouth.

Solving the affordability issue is a matter of curbing the rate of increase in our budget. The budget has increased in the last four years over $26 million. The number of residents living here is still under 23,000. Yet they must pay for the budget and its increases directly as homeowners or indirectly as renters. Approved spending is out of control. It's unsustainable. We need to look at what we can cut in the budget that won't affect the quality of services throughout the city. The assessment was unavoidable. Approving an even larger budget on top of the assessment was unnecessary. A larger tax rate next year will be the unavoidable consequence due the approved increase in this budget.

The council I sat on passed a zero based budget. Circumstances may have changed but we can try to maintain all services with a closer, fiscally responsible, eye to the budget. We cannot maintain the diversity of the city without making it affordable for all.

Affordability coupled with city spending is the number one problem facing all Portsmouth residents.The city budget has grown from $119 million in 2019 to $150 million in 2025 with this current council's 26% increase in four years. This is unsustainable and has had a major impact on all residents. The rental stock in Portsmouth is 47% of the total. landlord has been forced to raise rents driving out residents. Home owners are seeing their taxes increase to unsustainable levels. The city of Portsmouth has a spending problem. All home owners have felt it this year with the re-evaluation and the shift of the tax burden from commercial to residential solutions. 1. Hiring freeze on all city positions immediately. 2. Look at all available city property which could be used for housing — Community Campus area. 3. Developer incentives to build more affordable housing which work! 4. Ask the hard questions and evaluate all city department on their budgets with a look toward consolidation of work.

Every five years, Portsmouth is required by the state to conduct a revaluation. Historically, this shifts about 5 percent of the tax burden from commercial to residential properties because homes tend to appreciate faster than businesses. This is a structural problem that requires legislative action at the state level to fix.

Portsmouth has a large budget, but residents see strong value for their tax dollars. We have an excellent public library, a wonderful recreation department and senior center, three pools, reliable trash and recycling pickup, and well-maintained roads. These services are costly, but they make Portsmouth a great place to live. Being watchful of spending, especially bonded spend, is an important role of the council.

Did not respond.

I would do a salary review and make sure we are on track with similar sized cities. Portsmouth has always had high paid city employees. I don't have an issue with that. The problem I have is the population explosion happening in Portsmouth should have a positive impact on the taxpayer and it is not.

The majority of people moving into these new developments are older couples or couples without kids. Our taxpaying citizens are rising faster than the population age that would be be service heavy. i.e. education. Where does all the money go? Don't spend $50k on a survey to make State St. 2 way. Spend it on a study to redesign the existing City Hall to incorporate a new police station. A redesign of the current infrastructure would save the city 10's of millions of dollars.

With a median family income in Portsmouth over $139,000, it is not surprising that the city has over 260 employees earning $100,000. The wages paid to our firefighters, police officers, and teachers are competitive in the region, but do not exceed regional averages. In fact, the city has lost numerous first responders to communities paying higher wages or signing bonuses. As the price of housing has increased in the area, with high inflation rates for the past five years, the city has responded by increasing pay rates to retain workers.

So how do we address the cost of employee retention? High turnover rates often cost taxpayers more in training and recruitment. Supporting existing staff with pay increases that reflect inflation rates keep costs contained. We have a very experienced workforce, which improves service quality but costs the city more in salaries. For example, more than three-quarters of the teaching staff in the schools are at the top of the pay scale due to longevity. As these teachers retire, the costs of employing entry-level teachers will ultimately lead to a reduction in costs. Retirements across the city offer us the opportunity to re-evaluate staffing needs.

The best option available to the city to reduce taxpayer burden is to reduce non-operating costs including capital expenditures. As a councilor, I will continue to push for reductions in non-operating costs, and for budgets that come in under the annual Social Security cost of living adjustment.

Although a staggering number my understanding is that the city has kept the year-to-year growth of the budget within a 4-5% increase. We are all living with increased costs and in terms of salaries my understanding is that cost of living expenses were adjusted for.

I would hesitate to make assumptions but some thoughts on keeping the tax burden in check:

• Explore zero-based budgeting targeting certain departments. It’s not a silver bullet, but even small shifts like this can help slow the pace of growth. I am sure spending audits happen, but selectively applied this process may provide a way to bring spending in check.
• As the need for parking is addressed, this becomes a source of additional income.
• The new market-rate housing developments underway could potentially help broaden the tax base over time.

I’d also back an effort to reintroduce a bill in Concord that would let cities like Portsmouth charge a local hotel occupancy fee. Tourists enjoy everything our city offers — why not let a small fee help fund infrastructure and services, instead of putting it all on residents?

And honestly, I question the idea that we have to raise salaries every year just to keep talent. Portsmouth is an incredible place to live and work. If we’re not attracting and retaining great people, we should be asking why—not assuming the answer is always more money.

At the end of the day, it’s about balance, keep Portsmouth thriving, and ensure the people who live here can afford to stay.

It’s important to clarify the misconception regarding the value of city employees in relation to their salaries. We offer fair and competitive compensation based on careful contract negotiations, and it's clear that our pay scales tend to be lower than those in the private sector for similar roles.

City employees play a crucial role in securing millions of dollars in federal and state grants, which significantly reduce the reliance on taxpayer funds for various projects. These grants include programs such as the Housing Opportunities Planning Grant, CDBG, Coastal Resilience Grants, and those focused on preventing crimes against children, among others.

As we all know, our budget has been affected by the rising costs of living. Over the last three budget cycles, I've consistently posed an essential question to our community — and to myself as a taxpayer: “What would I be willing to reduce, eliminate, or forgo to save money?”

Post-COVID, we witnessed a notable budget increase. However, it’s critical to remember that during the pandemic, we also experienced a reduction in certain services while expanding others. This led to some tough decisions made by the city council and the school board regarding which services to maintain or cut from the budget.I firmly believe we should continue advocating in Concord for increased education funding from the state. Additionally, I support exploring a "pillow" fee that could potentially help ease the tax burden on our residents.

Portsmouth residents are feeling the impact of rising taxes, and we need to be vigilant stewards of their dollars. While we value the hard work of city employees, we must ensure that salaries and department growth are justified and aligned with the city’s long-term needs. As a councilor, I would advocate for a thorough audit of the budget to identify redundancies, inefficiencies, and areas for streamlining. We also need to ensure any new spending — on facilities or staffing — is essential and transparent.

Additionally, we must look beyond property taxes for revenue. Encouraging responsible commercial development and diversifying our tax base can ease the burden on homeowners. I also support long-term financial planning to prevent reactive budgeting. Finally, engaging the public in the budget process — with clear data and plain language — can help restore trust and ensure the city’s priorities reflect the community’s needs.

About 75% of city services are paid for by property taxes, so when residential property values rise faster than commercial as they did after Covid, that burden falls directly on homeowners. To keep taxes predictable and the burden low, we have to manage both sides of the equation: how fast the budget grows and how broadly we share the cost.

This year, we held the line on hiring, adding no new full-time positions. That matters because employee salaries and benefits are the largest part of our budget. At the same time, after Covid we saw residential valuations significantly outpace commercial with huge decreases in office space usage. The commercial side is now rebounding so costs will spread more evenly in future valuations. I’m proud that we continue to lead the state in our senior and disabled property tax relief.

Balanced correctly we can fund schools, police, fire, and public works while keeping Portsmouth affordable. Our focus should be on running our government efficiently and making sure new investment benefits the entire community.

Like many homeowners, my household experienced a significant property tax increase following the recent property reevaluation, so I understand other’s pain with their increase. The goal of reevaluation is to fairly distribute the tax burden based on property market value. I will continue to ensure that long-term residents who now find themselves “property wealthy but cash poor” can have their taxes adjusted to fairly reduce their burden. The revaluation also exacerbated the trend of residential properties paying a larger share of the overall tax burden due to depressed commercial property values, particularly for office buildings.

I supported creation of the Gateway Neighborhood Overlay District to spur redevelopment of underperforming commercial properties into much needed housing, increasing their taxable value. I also support maximizing revenue from other sources, particularly downtown parking. Unfortunately, recent significant cuts in federal funding have reduced or eliminated many alternate revenue sources. Portsmouth citizens need to continue to press the State government to allow local taxes on lodging, similar to other tourist states. A big part of Portsmouth’s appeal is our beautiful public parks and recreation, great schools, reliable police and fire departments, and modern public infrastructure. I will continue to ensure that city budgets deliver those services efficiently and effectively, keeping annual budget increases at or below inflation.

Runaway city spending is a key driver of Portsmouth's affordability crisis we face in Portsmouth.

Budgetary excesses have created unsustainable rates of increase in property taxes. Many long-term residents have shared with me their fear that at this rate they can foresee being driven out of their homes by an inability to pay their taxes. At the current rate of increase, a family that plans to live here for the next 30 years can anticipate over a 300% increase in their annual tax burden. OUCH!

Defining the problem as being isolated to some fraction of 260 highly compensated employees is too narrow a view to bring runaway spending under control. It reflects a tacit assumption that those positions and salaries are unnecessary. But how do we know?

Here are three specific steps I would like to take.

1. The city must benchmark its number and compensation level for all employees against similar sized cities in NH and nearby coastal cities. This will provide a rational basis for making decisions on staffing in the future.
2. The response to increased demand for administrative services should first be to increase efficiency of operations. Our staff is dedicated, they know where the waste is and with some support can lead the way to greater efficiency.
3. We should institute a citizen's budget committee to advise the counsel on the annual budget, giving citizens a more direct voice, and giving the council the support it needs from knowledgeable financial experts.With affordability being such a challenge in Portsmouth, what would you do to make it more accessible to people with a wide range of incomes?

You can’t slash and cut your way to being a great city. Much of the budget is contracted wage increases. So the manager and council must manage the workforce with precision and skill. All retirements should prompt an evaluation of “are there ways to be more efficient,” programs should always be reviewed and ended if their day is over.During budget debates this term, I won council approval for spending guidelines well below the rate of inflation (2024) and only 3.5% (2025) to protect our citizens. Our latest budget took advantage of retirements and reduced headcount without layoffs. Other years we will need to invest in people to enhance education, recreation, infrastructure and services. The goal is stable and predictable budgeting that doesn’t increase taxes faster than people’s incomes.The other way to help taxpayers is to keep our tax base growing. Expansions by Lonza and Novacure show we are a desirable place for biotech and other high-tech companies to locate, adding millions to our tax base to offset residential taxes. Targeted economic development can directly relieve homeowners.

I’m also a strong proponent of a central IT department instead of separate IT units across the city, and using better systems to streamline work.

Changes in zoning, continuing to push for solutions such as when we streamlined the accessory dwelling unit process.

Did not respond.

The affordability crisis is the reason I voted against the City budget this year. I do not believe that City budgets that exceed the annual Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment are sustainable for our residents. Unfortunately, Portsmouth is becoming less affordable for many of its residents, beyond just our senior population. This is due to a combination of factors including high inflation rates over the past several years, a national housing crisis and strong housing market, transfer of tax obligations from the state to municipalities, and weakness in the commercial real estate market.

This complex challenge requires a multi-faceted approach. We need to take a conservative approach to budgeting while working to increase the supply of housing and the utility of our commercial real estate. We must invest more in the economic development of industrial and commercial areas of the community to increase their real estate value, and thereby their tax assessments. We also need to continue lobbying at the Statehouse for additional sources of revenue for the City to reduce the property tax burden on taxpayers, like a pillow tax, and for reinstatement of grants and loan funds cut in the last budget cycle. Loss of federal and state grant funding will only exacerbate our financial challenges. We must consider reducing spending, where possible, to contain the impact of our growing cost obligations.

Affordability in Portsmouth is a real challenge — especially when it comes to housing. We have great public resources that serve a wide range of incomes, like the Connie Bean Center, the rail trail, and the library etc. But housing is foundational, and it’s where the gap is most visible.

I’d continue supporting partnerships with the PHA and developers to create affordable, creative housing options. While the market may be slightly less intense than last year, it’s still out of reach for many. We need to keep pushing for solutions that meet people where they are.

I also believe affordability extends beyond housing. As a full-time working parent, I struggled with the cost and logistics of after-school programs. The council’s recent move to expand childcare partnerships is a step in the right direction. If we want Portsmouth to be accessible, we need to make sure families, seniors, and individuals of all income levels can participate fully in city life — not just live here, but thrive here.

At the end of the day, affordability is Portsmouth’s biggest challenge. Our budget has grown to $150 million, taxes keep rising, and rents follow right behind. Families, seniors, and workers are being priced out of the city they love.I’ve shown it can be different — during my prior term, I fought for and achieved the lowest budget increases in a decade. I’ll bring that same discipline back to City Hall: controlling spending, protecting taxpayers, and demanding real accountability from developers so affordable housing isn’t just a promise, but a reality.

Because keeping Portsmouth affordable — for homeowners, renters, and future generations — means keeping Portsmouth home.

A strong focus has been placed on supporting low- and restricted-income seniors to maintain their housing. Many may not be aware that over the past 3.5 years, we have raised the income and asset limits for seniors to the highest levels in the state. This initiative provides much-needed relief for seniors as they navigate the increasing tax burdens associated with rising property values.

I am consistently exploring ways to enhance our revenue streams while ensuring efficient use of our workforce to alleviate tax pressures. It is also crucial for the council to collaborate closely with charter departments—such as Schools, Fire, and Police—to uphold manageable and equitable budgets.

This discussion leads to a broader question: What is our community prepared to do to assist our neighbors? We have observed a growing demand within our welfare department for housing assistance, emergency funding, and living expenses. Furthermore, our local food pantry, Gather, has seen an uptick in need. Unfortunately, federal funding cuts have significantly impacted numerous programs that support lower and middle-income individuals.

Since taking office, I have consistently advocated for Coast bus services and the development of walkable and bikeable pathways for those without access to cars, not by choice but due to financial constraints. Personally, I make it a priority to contribute to programs that aid individuals struggling within our community and encourage others who are able to do the same.

Affordability is central to the future of Portsmouth. If people who work here — teachers, first responders, restaurant staff — can’t afford to live here, we lose the heart of our community. We need to expand housing options beyond traditional single-family homes, including duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and workforce apartments.

Zoning reform can help facilitate this, especially in underutilized areas that can support gentle density. I support public-private partnerships that prioritize income-restricted units, and I believe city-owned land should be considered for well-managed, mixed-income developments.

We need to build on what we have started. Over the past two years, we have made real progress on housing in Portsmouth. We added a higher percentage of new housing than any other city in New Hampshire. For the first time, we funded the city’s housing trust to support long-term affordability. We selected the Portsmouth Housing Authority to develop the city-owned Sherburne site and expanded Gateway zoning to allow affordable housing at both the Christ Church property and the Credit Service project.

Through the McIntyre settlement, the city also secured land that will result in about eighty new affordable housing units. By closing the green space loophole, we now require developers who use density bonuses to contribute to affordability. That change led to the first twenty for-sale affordable homes built in Portsmouth.

The challenge is significant and I see it everyday but I’m optimistic on the progress we are making. We need to keep that momentum going by making sure future projects meet community needs and keep Portsmouth a place where people who work here can also live here.

Affordability in Portsmouth is almost entirely driven by housing cost. I have worked to increase the availability of workforce housing. Even creating more market rate rentals appears to be having a positive effect. In its “2024 Residential Rental Cost Survey Report”, New Hampshire Housing identified Portsmouth as having the largest decrease in median rental cost for a two-bedroom apartment between 2023 and 2024 among large cities in New Hampshire. Still, affordability means having many different types of housing for different people at different points in their lives.

This is why I support the effort to create co-living housing in select locations. Co-living has been very successful in other areas of the country. It is not the same as a dormitory; Portsmouth is not a college town with throngs of students who are away from home for the first time. Co-living is not the Brewster Rooms. I lived a block away from that poorly managed boarding house for 12 years prior to its closure, so I understand its unique ownership issues. Co-living simply offers another housing alternative in both price point and lifestyle. Nationwide, many successful co-living facilities are self-managed. At least at first, those here will have on-site management. I had hoped that micro-apartments would be another alternative to decrease housing costs, but in one case units that were built in Portsmouth originally for rental are instead being sold as a pair and the new owners are connecting them.

Some of this problem is driven by large national trends that affect many coastal cities and which are not in the control of the city council. The other part of the problem reflects the imbalance of housing stock available to meet the demand.

On the demand side - if we view the problem as being isolated to Portsmouth, we will fail. We must partner with surrounding communities in Rockingham, Strafford, and York counties such that the available options for housing are expanded. It is unreasonable to assume that everyone who works in the city can live here and not commute here; no city has that luxury.On the supply side - smart, evolutionary changes to our zoning ordinance must continue to be made. Recent changes to enable easier permitting of accessory dwelling units are an example. More housing stock can be created by making additional changes in gateway and commercial districts. Higher density housing in the outer ring of Portsmouth, near transportation and commercial centers can be accommodated without impacting our desire to preserve the established historic and family neighborhoods that we cherish. This would involve easing height restrictions, lot sizes, and set back requirements in those zones.

Transportation – a shuttle loop and on-demand transit solutions could make parts of the city non-car dependent. Being able to live and work in a city without a car, or one car instead of two, is a financial win. A feasibility study of a shuttle loop is part of our capital plan.

Cheaper parking for residents – Parking revenue in 2018 was $8 million. It’s now $12 million and growing. Whether it’s a residential permit program, free Sunday parking, or resident discounts, we should give residents back some of this revenue stream– it’s money that mostly comes from tourists!

Day care – It’s expensive and scarce. This is an area like housing where the city can at times step in. For example, the city has provided much needed space for day care at the Community Campus. The lower cost for that space enabled day care for more kids than the private market would provide.

Provide tax incentives to developers and current property owners to build and or include affordable housing/apartments in their projects. The private sector needs the economics to work. Controlling city spending would go a long way in protecting our current private rental market as rents continue to rise as taxes go up on our private landlords.

The reality is that housing, like everything else, comes with a cost. New housing must be built, and today’s materials and labor are far more expensive than in the past. Affordability is defined by a federal formula: households should not spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent and utilities.

Did not respond.

Salary.com gives an average annual salary for “Retail Sales Staff” in Portsmouth as $31,528 ($15/hr.) The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that for all private employees in New Hampshire, average weekly hours is about 33.0 hours (not specific to retail). There is a high end of $18/hr. in some places so, for the sake of argument a service/retail worker makes $18/hr. and works a full 40 hours a week, assuming they don't take any time off in a year, since most service jobs don't have vacation or sick pay, and work a full 52 weeks, that is $37,440 gross annually. If they live alone, 50% of their gross income is rent. If they get a roommate the $2,200 would be acceptable.

We need to entertain different types of housing. Condos and townhouses are not affordable.

The rental prices for public housing are based on the Area Median Income (AMI) of the region and the federal definitions of affordable and workforce housing. As the median income rises in an area, so do the rental rates for affordable and workforce housing. By definition, affordable housing serves individuals making 60% or less of AMI. Workforce housing, on the other hand, is designed to serve individuals making approximately 80% of AMI. Rent for affordable housing should not exceed 30% of household income. In this case, the Sherburne School housing is being designed as majority workforce housing, and the $1,580 per unit price is below 30% of average income for those meeting this definition. These rents are also substantially below market rates in Portsmouth.

Because this housing is heavily subsidized by federal HUD funding and tax credits, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to lower the rents and make the project work. The cost of building has increased significantly in the last five years, and the cost of rent has to be high enough for maintenance on the building, or it will not be sustainable.

Are the rents low enough for everyone? Absolutely not. We have a growing number of working people in Portsmouth living in poverty, including people who are unhoused. The Sherburne project is not designed to meet everyone’s needs, but it will help. We must continue to invest in other housing projects to help those who cannot afford these rents.

The projected rents of $1,580 for a one-bedroom and $2,200 for a three-bedroom raise a very real question: are those numbers truly affordable for working families in Portsmouth? The honest answer is — we don’t know, because this project is built on uncertainty.

The "option to ground lease," signed by PHA and the city manager in April 2025, makes that clear. It allows for flexibility in scope and timing depending on financing, and the “option period” doesn’t even expire until December 31, 2027 — with the possibility of another one-year extension. In other words, we have no guarantee what the final rents will look like, or when this project will actually be delivered.

My concern is that taxpayers could be left carrying the risk while developers and agencies adjust their timelines and financing. If the goal is true affordability, we need real safeguards in place — protections for residents, accountability for developers, and transparency every step of the way. Portsmouth families deserve certainty, not shifting promises.

We recognize the limitations faced by developers, both for-profit and non-profit. While current rental prices may feel high, they remain substantially lower than market rates. A quick search reveals that one-bedroom rentals average around $2,200 per month, and three-bedroom homes in Portsmouth hover around $4,200. This indicates a projected reduction of nearly 30-50% compared to market rents. The vision for our project remains clear: to establish permanently below-market-rate housing, a goal we still believe is achievable.

It's important to note that the Sherburne School initiative is just one of the many approaches the city is taking to tackle the housing crisis. The Affordable Housing Committee is actively collaborating with the planning board to address parking requirements, rezone certain parcels into Gateway districts for workforce housing, update zoning regulations that facilitate the conversion of older homes into multifamily units, and work with city staff to adopt NH RSA 79-E, incentivizing a broader spectrum of affordable housing options. It has been a rewarding experience to revitalize and co-chair this committee, fostering inclusive discussions along the way.

While the proposed rents are below market rate, they’re still out of reach for many working people in Portsmouth. A one-bedroom at $1,580 may work for some, but for many households — especially single-income families, essential workers, and seniors — it’s a stretch.

To lower rents, we need to pursue deeper affordability in future projects, especially when city-owned land is involved. This includes leveraging low-income housing tax credits, state and federal grants, and local partnerships to reduce development costs. Income restrictions should be built in for the long term — not just the first few years.

We also need to think creatively. That could mean offering density bonuses for developers who include more deeply affordable units, streamlining permitting to reduce carrying costs, or encouraging mixed-income models where market-rate units help subsidize lower rents. Land trusts and limited-equity cooperatives are other proven tools to create permanent affordability. We should also explore other creative options such as employer participation in rent payments for employees as an enhanced be

Ultimately, rents must reflect local wages — not just what the market can bear. If we don’t offer housing at a range of price points, we risk becoming a city only accessible to the wealthy, which threatens the diversity and vitality that define Portsmouth.

The projected rents are significantly lower than the market for new construction and are priced based on the average monthly salary of our region, but Workforce units still don’t serve everyone that needs a home. Continuing to partner with the Portsmouth Housing Authority allows them to continue to provide strong services to their deeply affordable projects such as Gosling Meadows and Woodbury Manor. Each project that PHA brings online allows it to reinvest in their properties across the community that serve all income levels and resident types from low income, workforce to elderly.

The old school of thought was one quarter of your salary should go towards your rent. I realize that was back when they discovered the Earth was round. Going on that premise, $2,200. is 25% of someone making $8,800. a month. Take that one step further $8,800. a month translates to a salary of $105,600. annually before taxes. Even an apartment rented for $1,580. requires a salary of $75,840. before taxes for it to be affordable. So no, I don't think those rates are affordable for working people.

Ask questions. How did you arrive at this rate and why? More importantly, can you find ways to the lower rents? Portsmouth Housing Authority is a nonprofit. It's responsible to ask to ask them these questions and expect possible adjustments.

The rents are lower than the current market rate rents in Portsmouth as they should. Currently single family homes make up 52% of all housing in Portsmouth. The balance are rental units. The PHA rents are competitive as the average household income in Portsmouth is $105K - 30% of that translates to $2,625 rent per month which puts both rents at the Sherborne school competitive. More government support in the form of subsitites could drive the rent numbers lower. Currently Portsmouth property taxpayers do support rents at PHA as PHA does not pay the full assed value on their properties, but pay an amount in lieu of taxes.

We have several projects in the pipeline besides Sherburne. I think it’s important to get those projects built, especially the two private sector ones. Allocation of additional land is not the bottleneck; construction and financing are.

Did not respond.

I don't think the city has done enough, at all. The majority of retail and service workers do not live in Portsmouth. As the surrounding towns increase their development the allure of commuting to Portsmouth for higher wages will be minimized with the same jobs in Kittery and Dover with a lower cost of living.

Unfortunately, we are not the only community facing housing challenges. This is a nationwide problem. The entire Seacoast area is experiencing significant housing shortages, and we need regional investment in affordable housing to solve our problems. Portsmouth needs more housing, specifically for our workforce and lower income seniors. It will be difficult for the city to retain workers and for seniors to remain here after retirement if we do not find ways to build more affordable housing. The city government owns very little property that is buildable. The few undeveloped, city-owned, buildable lots remaining should be considered for affordable housing projects. By committing to building housing on those lots, we will have the opportunity to retain more workers and keep seniors in our community.

More importantly, what else can we do to increase housing options for those who cannot afford to purchase a home or condo in Portsmouth? We need to consider changes to our zoning code to gently increase density in our community and provide more rental housing for younger workers and retirees. This can be accomplished by allowing home conversions to duplexes or multi-family units. The density in the South End Neighborhood and the Islington and Middle Steet corridors offer a good example of this type of gentle density. This also allows people to stay in their homes longer, because they can subdivide their homes into housing for their multigenerational families.

I think that the short answer is yes, there is so much more that can be done to ensure we are providing housing to working people. I think the lot at Granite Street, which is located between Market Street and Woodbury Avenue across from Nature’s Path, is an interesting possibility as you have services (grocery and shopping) right there and a safe walking/biking corridor into down town.

Portsmouth has taken real steps towards affordable housing. The Sherburne School project is a great example—using city-owned land to create more than a hundred deed-restricted, below-market units through the Housing Authority. While some neighboring towns have simply focused on long-term plans or zoning overlays, Portsmouth has moved further into actual production. That’s not to say we’ve solved the problem—housing here is still out of reach for many families—but it shows that we’re willing to lead with concrete action.

I believe we should continue to use city-owned land strategically, while also pursuing cost-effective measures like updated zoning, streamlined permitting, and accessory dwelling units. The next step is building on this momentum so teachers, nurses, and young families can continue to call Portsmouth home.

Portsmouth has done its part — we changed zoning, loosened ADU rules, and even eliminated parking requirements. Yet 96% of the time, developers still choose market-rate over affordable housing. Now the current council wants to give away city-owned land to build “affordable” units — shifting the cost onto taxpayers who are already struggling to stay in their own homes. Residents shouldn’t have to pay more just so others can move here at a price they think is affordable. True affordability starts with protecting the people who already call Portsmouth home.

I firmly believe that we are making significant strides in the public sector to support the creation of affordable housing units. I'm optimistic that we can encourage the private sector to come forward and contribute as well.

Since 2020, the escalating costs associated with construction, land, and tariffs have become increasingly burdensome, adversely affecting all forms of housing, whether subsidized or not. This has coincided with a decline in federal and state funding that has historically supported affordable and below-market-rate developments.

Portsmouth has made strides, but we have not done enough. City-owned land offers a powerful opportunity to guide development in a way that benefits residents directly. We should continue to identify underused parcels where affordable and mixed-income housing can be thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods.

That said, development must be context-sensitive — respecting the character of the area while addressing the real need for housing. This is not about large-scale, high-rise projects. It’s about leveraging what we have to build housing that works for a wider range of people: seniors, young professionals, working families, and more.

We should keep using city-owned land when it can make a real difference. Not every parcel is suited for housing, and there are other city needs, but some can be developed to help people who might otherwise be priced out.

We also need to prioritize working with our larger SAU 50 school district, Greenland, Newington, New Castle and Rye. Portsmouth Housing Authority was enacted through the State to serve as a regional housing authority, and we need to continue to look at opportunities to encourage, via our existing infrastructure, our region to take on this challenge with us.

The words "truly affordable" are not really the basis for a well informed discussion. What is truly affordable to a welder working in the ship yard is unaffordable to a part time employee at McDonalds. It also implies that the answer expected to the previous question is that the plans for Sherborne are somehow inadequate, which I've already stated I do not believe to be the case.

Instead, we should use the nascent master planning process to define specific housing stock needs at specific price points that fit into the community's vision of our future. Housing affordability isn't only a matter of accommodating the needs of a limited segment of workers with rental units. It is also a fundamental issue of providing the residents of Portsmouth with a reasonable opportunity pursue the American dream of owning their own property and participating the prosperity that comes with that. It will take a couple of years to flesh out the new master plan. In the meantime, the City should allocate its scarce land resources sparingly.

I do not support using city-owned land directly for creating affordable housing. City owned land should be used for the benefit all of the citizens of the city and devoting land to housing deprives most of the citizens of the city of that benefit. Moreover, providing housing is not a traditional obligation of municipalities in New Hampshire. That obligation is better left to organizations which are designed to satisfy it, such as housing authorities.

The city's role in providing housing is better exercised through zoning and planning authority rather than providing public land to a developer.

There are still properties that the city owns which could be used for housing — the Community Campus area has several parcels which could provide more housing opportunities for PHA or other private developers.

We’re facing an unexpected CIP expense of roughly $12.4 million in upgrades to New Franklin School. Since the health and safety issues have already been addressed, I see the efficiency upgrades as less urgent. At the end of the day, I believe investing in competitive pay for our police and municipal employees is a higher priority than putting those funds into buildings.

Hello, Portsmouth! For over 12 years, I've dedicated myself to our city’s well-being, serving both as an advocate and as a candidate for City Council. My journey has always been driven by a commitment to making Portsmouth a place where everyone can thrive.

Throughout these years, I've witnessed firsthand how rising housing costs have impacted our community. Families, including my own, have felt the strain of affordability as new developments have pushed prices beyond reach. I’ve consistently advocated for policies that ensure affordable housing remains a priority, so that everyone can call Portsmouth home. 

Yes, I think the current City Hall/ Police Station has an incredible amount of space that could be repurposed with a renovation rather than building a new police station, or City Hall on another location.

As one of the co-chairs of the Municipal Buildings Committee, I have worked to get a clear assessment of staffing and space needs for the Police Department and general government. We have already drastically reduced the initial scope of the police station project by deciding not to build a free-standing station. However, to address the needs of the Police Department, we will have to renovate other space within the municipal building. That will require reconsideration of the spatial needs of the other departments in City Hall. We are still working to review the municipal complex with our design team who will help find space efficiencies in the current building, potentially reducing the scope of the project.

While I do not agree that we need all of the items requested by the Police Department in a renovated facility, there are parts of the renovation request that we should address. We do not need to initiate a $42M project all at once. The project could be phased over 10-15 years, reducing our immediate obligation in the capital budget, and allowing for longer term financing, thereby reducing the financing impact on residents. I also believe opportunities remain to lower the overall cost of the project.

The more important question is: what are our city priorities? We currently have elementary schools without air conditioning or special education classrooms. We must decide as a community what our priorities will be before moving forward with any major project.

First, let me say that I believe this is a critical project that should move forward in the 2025–26 fiscal year. I support a dual-location model that maintains a police presence on Junkins Avenue to ensure continued visibility in the community, while also allowing for a state-of-the-art facility on municipal property. I understand several sites are under consideration, and the City Hall Lower Lot appears to be a reasonable option.

That said, I believe the city should carefully reconsider the scope —$42 million is a significant investment, and we need to ensure it aligns with both current needs and long-term value. Additionally, costs have already risen and will likely continue to increase the longer the decision is delayed.

My main concern is that the new station, wherever it is ultimately located, does not disrupt existing community spaces and that emergency access remains safe and efficient. While I don’t have all the technical details, I believe this project is a high priority and deserves ongoing thoughtful planning and meaningful public input.

Both our police station and City Hall are still operating in a century-old hospital, with only partial renovations from the ’80s and ’90s. A professional study flagged serious gaps—outdated systems, ADA non-compliance, and an undersized dispatch center that’s straining to keep up. Those are not optional fixes; we need safe, modern spaces for public safety and city services.

At the same time, $42 million is a major investment, and residents are right to ask if we can separate essentials from nice-to-haves. Earlier concepts soared past $70 million, so staying on the existing campus was the responsible move. Now the task is to right-size: fund core needs first—dispatch, holding, ADA, HVAC—and phase in enhancements as budget allows.

I believe we should refine the scope, not to delay, but to keep public trust and deliver a facility that’s safe, functional, and financially responsible—fixing what’s broken without overburdening taxpayers.

Yes, I believe the city should reconsider and refocus the scope of this project. Four years ago, the projected cost for a new police station alone was $42 million. Since then, the city has already spent $1.5 million on mold remediation and refurbishing the existing police space, and more money continues to be requested. At the same time, City Hall has been refreshed with new paint and carpet.

The priority should be clear: focus on the Police Department’s long-term needs first. Public safety is essential, and the Police facility has been patched and piecemealed long enough. If this project is going to be done in multiple phases, then phase one should be the Police station. Only after that is resolved should we consider more City Hall upgrades.The city has already paid for several “new build” plans and is now working on a combined municipal/police facility plan. But combining the two only risks delaying what matters most. Let’s get the police station right before layering in additional projects.

The committee is evaluating several cost options for this project that will soon come before the city, and we need to carefully weigh each option. It is essential to find a balance regarding both size and scope for the police project while also considering the importance of other projects, such as the renovations for New Franklin and the high school, which are equally significant to the updates at the police station and city hall.

In light of the recent updates from the space study, I propose that we explore the possibility of relocating the dispatch center to Fire House 2. This facility has a fully operational command center and could help us free up valuable space in the current station. We need to be innovative in our approach to space utilization, even with a smaller addition.

Yes, the scope of this project absolutely warrants reconsideration. A $42 million investment is substantial, and we must be certain it reflects urgent needs, not just long-term wish lists. We should assess what is essential to maintain safety, accessibility, and efficiency — and what can be phased in, scaled back, or reimagined.

Both the police department and City Hall staff deserve functional, modern workspaces, but in a time of rising costs and high taxes, we must weigh this investment against other priorities like affordable housing, infrastructure, and school funding.

Every major capital project should be approached with fiscal discipline and a strong sense of purpose. If residents are expected to foot the bill, they deserve full clarity on how their money will be spent.

We had budgeted $42 million my first year on the council six years ago. When we received project estimates in 2023, it was north of $70 million, and we paused to reassess. Since then, we’ve looked for efficiency and cost savings by better integrating City Hall with the police building it sits within and have been able to bring down costs below the proposed budget from 2021. The goal is to meet the department’s needs while staying within what the city can afford and has earmarked for this project, while driving costs further down.

The priority is functional, efficient buildings that serve the public without overspending. We can save money through phasing, energy-efficient design, and reusing existing space.

Public safety is the first and foremost responsibility for city government. So getting our first responders the resources they need to effectively carry out their responsibilities is of the highest priority.

The current police station is inadequate to the needs of today. A new police station must be designed to be adequate to the needs of the several decades. So I support an upgrade or replacement project.

With regard to the projected cost, my first concern is the credibility of cost estimates for projects in our capital improvement plan. For example, the recently completed Islington St project ended up costing approximately twice the original projection of around $12m. The Peirce Island waste treatment plant was originally projected to cost $38m; it finally was completed at a cost of over $90m. I want to understand why our cost projections are so unreliable. They can't be trusted as a basis for executive decisions. I want to be assured that the scope we lay out for the police station is truly what is needed and does not change over time. I'd rather have the cost right from the beginning even if it is higher than the current projection.

Second, we residential tax payers need help in carrying the burden of funding projects like this. I want to allow the planning board to assess development impact fees to developers to help cover the increase in demand they create for public safety, traffic, and municipal services. This is a matter of fairness.

I would like to see the state remove this building from historic preservation regulations so it could be torn down. It’s an unsightly structure that doesn’t fit the character of our town. Other than that I think we have wasted far too much time and money on the McIntyre.

Did not respond.

While it is unfortunate that the city has a large empty building in the downtown, it is not the responsibility of the city government to change zoning to make development more lucrative for developers. If we were a community needing widespread redevelopment, then we would consider alternative zoning to make that happen. In this case, the zoning restrictions that govern this area were in place before the sale of the property. Like any property owner, the developer should have been aware of those limitations before purchasing the site.

Yes, Portsmouth should absolutely take steps to encourage development at the McIntyre site. Losing ownership of such a valuable property, in a prime downtown location was a missed opportunity. But that doesn’t mean the city should remain passive.

If zoning laws are creating barriers to redevelopment, then that’s a signal for the city to revisit those regulations and explore more collaborative solutions. This is a chance to build a stronger partnership with the current owner, Mr. DiLorenzo, and align redevelopment goals with community needs.

Downtown Portsmouth faces real challenges—especially around space and parking—but thoughtful planning could turn the McIntyre site into a vibrant asset. Ideas worth exploring may include:

• Creating more green space or a public park.
• Developing mixed income housing.
• Establishing a small conference center to complement the city’s hotels and restaurant.

Portsmouth is a destination city. Let’s make sure its core reflects that — by encouraging smart, inclusive development that benefits residents and visitors alike.

The McIntyre property sits in our Character District 4 (CD4) downtown district, which has special rules to keep new projects in scale with the historic core. If they want extra height or flexibility, the ordinance requires two things: at least half of the site must remain as open community space, and some of the housing created must be reserved for our workforce. McIntyre is also covered by a federal historic easement. That means the exterior can’t just be torn down; redevelopment has to respect the building’s historic character. Those rules do make development tricky, but they were in place when the property was purchased, and they reflect what residents have consistently asked for — more affordable places to live and a welcoming public square in the heart of downtown.

Portsmouth has a solid track record of working with developers who meet us there. We’ve approved projects that brought workforce housing, new walkways, and active storefronts because they gave something meaningful back to the community. McIntyre should be no different. Leaving the building empty isn’t good for anyone, but neither is lowering the bar. If the owner comes forward with a plan that delivers a public market, green space, and workforce housing, the city should move quickly and fairly to get it done. That’s how we honor our rules, respect our history, and turn McIntyre into a space that truly serves Portsmouth.

I believe it’s important for the owner to have conducted thorough due diligence prior to acquiring the property. Any concerns should have been addressed and researched well in advance of the purchase.

Over the years, we've seen various plans proposed for this space, given its existing zoning. I am confident that the owner has the capability to develop a successful project here, and I hope that vision comes to fruition.

Yes, we should do more to break the logjam at the McIntyre site. This is a centerpiece of downtown, and leaving it underused is a missed opportunity. At the same time, we must ensure that any redevelopment honors Portsmouth’s architectural character, public access, and the vision that residents have long expressed for this site.

It’s possible that current zoning is too rigid for productive reuse. The city should work collaboratively with the property owner and the public to reassess the zoning without compromising on design standards or public benefit.

This will come up as part of the master planning process. During this term, the Council eliminated a loophole that let developers choose between loosely defined “community space” or affordable housing. Some developers have used the new rules to add affordable units in exchange for more density, but most have not, including at the McIntyre site.

I expect the master plan to allow more creative options, like contributing to a housing trust or supporting land swaps. The McIntyre site could be part of that approach if it helps deliver the public benefit that residents want to see from development projects.

The City Council has had an abysmal history of ineffective management of potential projects at the McIntyre building site and should not reengage in any new efforts there.

The site is a prime location and the current owner is free to propose designs and seek zoning variances if they are justifiable under the law.

Our land use boards are specifically here to consider such requests and variances are often granted when it can be shown that the requested variances do not frustrate the purposes of the zoning ordinance and that strict adherence to the ordinance would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property.

So my advice to the property owner is to follow the established process.

My advice to the City Council is the same.

The biggest barrier to developing McIntyre is not the zoning, in my opinion, but the prohibition on building over the one-story post office wing. It makes no sense to a quarter of the site in the densest, tallest part of town limited to one story, holding back economic viability. There may be an opportunity with the new state and federal administrations to change this limitation. That’s worth pursuing before changing zoning. Also, changing zoning for a single property is illegal “spot zoning.”

I was once on the McIntyre Subcommittee not so long ago. I served with the current Mayor, then a councilor. With all due respect, Portsmouth had the chance and then some to "do something to encourage development." We had the chance to purchase the McIntyre building. This city council voted not to. The building could have been a police station or city hall or better yet, affordable housing. That train has left the station. The building will likely be demolished and the owner will start fresh with by far, some of the most valuable land in the city. The chance was had by the city. The city council could of, should of, but didn't.

Portsmouth is under a mandated consent decree to separate stormwater and sewer systems. When we dig up the roads to replace aging infrastructure and complete these projects, it’s a cost-neutral opportunity to consider street and landscape reconfigurations. Whenever possible, I think we should prioritize walkability. There’s a reason our downtown is thriving while the mall is being torn down.

Did not respond.

I think sidewalks/walkability is essential throughout Portsmouth. A study to change the traffic flow on either street is a waste of money. At the minimum, you would lose ALL off street parking to try and make it two-way. It would not go well to tall the residents of those streets, in a city that already faces parking struggles, they will no longer be allowed to park on the street.

Look at Richards Ave. by the library to see what the new State Street would look like.

The planning for our current Market Square occurred 50 years ago. We are now at a different time in history. People are less dependent on cars, the downtown is a vibrant space, and more people live downtown. We also have increasing numbers of pedestrians, cyclists, and scooters in Market Square. Unfortunately, outdated infrastructure, from sewer pipes to an aging electrical grid, will not support current downtown business needs. We are under federal order to separate our stormwater and sewer lines. We must find spaces downtown to house electrical equipment, trash and recycling, and alternative transportation.

We also need to slow traffic through the downtown area so we do not have an accident involving a pedestrian. The 2025 Market Square Master Plan Study, completed by an engineering design firm, studied traffic flow through our downtown and determined that we should reduce the number of lanes on Pleasant and Congress streets. This would allow for more pedestrian flow near critical parking lots, and clarify traffic patterns. The traffic engineer determined that this would not heavily impact traffic in that area. The same is true of the State Street proposal. A traffic engineering study was performed a few years ago that determined that making State Street two-way would slow traffic but not significantly increase back-ups on State Street when the bridge is up. The benefit would be a reduction in speeds on State Street, and a reduction in vehicle traffic in Market Square.

I was not in favor of the city allocating $50,000 for the traffic and walkability studies on State Street. While I understand the funding has already been approved, I remain skeptical about the necessity and direction of these efforts.

Regarding the project to widen the sidewalks on upper Congress, foot traffic in that area of downtown Portsmouth doesn’t appear overtly dangerous, which leads me to ask: what specific problem are we trying to solve? The decision to widen the sidewalk seems precautionary, I couldn’t find any evidence of pedestrian incidents on the upper section of Congress Street. Consideration around accessibility in that section of Congress would definitely be worth considering but these changes seem more geared toward aesthetics and tourism than addressing concrete safety concerns for residents.

Concerns have been raised about diverting traffic from the Memorial Bridge onto State Street. As a local resident, I don’t experience this as a major issue — I often take the route through Prescott Park to South Street without difficulty. From my perspective, traffic flow in that area is manageable.

Moreover, narrowing streets could introduce new risks. State Street is already tight—drivers often navigate close to parked cars—and further constriction may worsen that. I believe the city should prioritize targeted improvements that enhance walkability without compromising traffic flow, and most importantly, ensure that resident input guides these decisions.

I support people-first design — building wider sidewalks on Congress St. and studying the pros and cons of a two-way State Street are ways to intentionally create space for street life, making it easier for residents and customers to get around, and helping businesses thrive. The key is pairing these changes with clear wayfinding and parking guidance, so drivers can still find their way without frustration.

That balance — safety, accessibility, and downtown vitality — is what I believe Portsmouth should aim for.

Our downtown is vibrant because people can easily visit businesses, dine, and shop — and parking plays a big role in that. The council’s plan to narrow Congress Street, our main artery and eliminate more parking may actually hurt our downtown economy, reduce parking revenue, and create the need for costly new garages.

I believe there’s a better way. We can widen sidewalks strategically in high-foot-traffic areas without removing essential parking and pilot any changes before making permanent decisions. By balancing pedestrian improvements with parking preservation, we create a downtown that’s accessible, thriving, and fiscally responsible — without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for unnecessary projects.”

Addressing the State Street — Yet another study for making State Street a two-way street. How many times and how much money are we going to spend to study this question, until someone gets the answer they want? This is a "state" road, there is a good reason it is a one-way — leave it alone!

It is essential to acknowledge that the impetus for any updates on Congress Street is rooted in the water separation project. This initiative builds on the previous work completed on Islington Street and aligns with the requirements set forth by the EPA consent decree, which mandates the establishment of separate sewer and stormwater systems.

This endeavor also coincides with the revitalization of Market Square. A citizen committee has been actively engaged in providing input over the past year, collaborating with a consulting firm that has diligently gathered feedback from residents. Within this committee, various topics have been explored, including the potential to limit motor traffic in the core of Market Square, expand sidewalk widths, enhance certain street dimensions, modify traffic flow, and implement updates to greenery and spatial design.

In our analysis, the consultation has presented a variety of options, such as reducing the number of lanes on Congress Street, widening the two lanes and sidewalks, and reevaluating the placement of parking and loading zones. I am confident that these changes could significantly enhance the walkability of the central access to Market Square.

Regarding State Street, I look forward to the insights we will glean from the study approved last year. However, I remain cautious about the idea of converting it into a two-way street, as I question the practicality of that approach.

Improving walkability and traffic flow is essential to keeping downtown Portsmouth vibrant, safe, and enjoyable for everyone. Efforts to calm traffic, expand pedestrian space, and prioritize alternative modes of transportation are steps in the right direction.

State Street and Congress Street are key corridors for both locals and visitors. Enhancing crosswalks, reducing speeding, and reconfiguring intersections can improve safety and encourage more foot traffic for downtown businesses. At the same time, we need to be mindful of how changes affect delivery vehicles, emergency response, and parking access.

Any redesign should be data-driven and shaped by robust public input. Temporary or pilot projects are a great way to test ideas before making permanent changes. Ultimately, creating a downtown that’s safer, greener, and more accessible will support our economy and improve quality of life for all who live, work, and visit here.

They are two very different situations. On Congress Street, the water and sewer infrastructure needs repair. Because the street will undergo major construction to fix the infrastructure, it’s the right time to ask how we put it back together. The Market Square Master Plan included significant community input on balancing outdoor dining, walkability, and parking and the suggested changes are based on this robust planning process.

State Street is a different scenario given there is no planned infrastructure project and no community plan to make any changes. If we test a two-way configuration as a way to ease congestion during construction elsewhere, that makes sense. But it should be tested first, not assumed, and I don’t support funds for a study at this time.

The city has been working on the Market Square Master Plan since late 2023. Early feedback indicates a desire to make Market Square and the surrounding core of downtown a more pedestrian-friendly experience. A significant obstacle to achieving this is the present traffic pattern that sends all U. S. Route 1 southbound traffic through Market Square to the end of Congress St. This traffic flow was created in the car-oriented 1950s to provide more exposure for downtown businesses. Another issue is that DPW is planning to perform a major utilities project in the next few years that will be extremely disruptive to Congress Street traffic.

It makes sense that we at least perform a detailed study of the feasibility and cost of alternatives for routing major traffic around Market Square, including returning State St. to being two-way. The intent is not to ban vehicles from Market Square but to emphasize pedestrian access, and limit the downtown core to ADA Accessible and short duration parking, as well as loading zones. This will also reduce vehicles circling through Market Square looking for parking. DPW has conducted trial periods of various traffic calming and realignment concepts in other parts of the city. The Congress St. utilities project may provide a similar opportunity to make temporary changes to traffic flow around Market Square and Congress St. to help understand the impact and desirability of such changes.

In my discussion with residents of Portsmouth and in reading the many letters to the editor on this topic, there is no compelling need being expressed by the citizens and indeed much skepticism about pursuing these projects.

In my personal experience as well as everyone else's with whom I've spoken, there has never been a problem in being able to walk down the sidewalk on Congress Street. Nor has traffic congestion been seen to be caused by one-way traffic on State Street, or spillover onto Court St. in the opposite direction.

So why would the City Council be spending its limited time and taxpayer resources in pursuit of these projects? The answer to this mystery eludes me.

Instead, I'm sure that if the City Council would consult with the city manager and the Department of Public Works, they could be quickly informed about more pressing needs in our city's transportation infrastructure and allocate resources accordingly.

I support the Market Square Master Plan that calls for wider sidewalks and two instead of three traffic lanes on Congress St. We’ve already proved this is workable with outdoor dining. Prior to 1979, Market Square was almost all asphalt for cars. When the city proposed taking what had been parking and travel lanes for the current wide brick sidewalks, residents protested - less easy to drive, harder to park! But the resulting pedestrian experience sparked a revival of the city, made Market Square a superb pedestrian experience, and created the highest real estate values per acre in New Hampshire.

I am cautious about making State Street two-way. Initial studies predicted traffic might back up as far as Middle Street when the Memorial Bridge goes up. I appreciate the vision but we haven't vetted it fully.

We raised prices for garage non-resident monthly passes in July. We just got back the 300 spaces at High-Hanover that were lost due to maintenance. City garages are profitable and improve overall utilization: residents at night, visitors during the day. The resident discount and Foundry worker program help manage parking as an ecosystem rather than a profit center.

Did not respond.

The city should consider additional parking options downtown, specifically an additional garage, according to the recent Parking Utilization Study. While we need to consider this option, the city should also consider alternative modes of transportation and satellite parking to help alleviate parking challenges in the short term. A public transportation loop could alleviate some parking issues in downtown, specifically for workers, while providing them low or no cost parking options outside the downtown area. If we first implement a transit loop and satellite parking, we will be better positioned to delay a major garage project, and we can explore alternative options to address parking needs.

The challenge around building a new parking garage is that the city cannot afford to purchase land to build one without significantly increasing the cost of the project. The logical places for another garage are on existing city property, namely the Bridge Street lot or the Parrot Avenue lot. The city does not own any other land close to the downtown space which could be easily developed into a garage. The other option is to proceed with the underground lot that was proposed in the Worth Lot space in the early planning for a Vaughn Mall redevelopment in 2017. That proposal, while more physically attractive, would be significantly more expensive because it would require extensive excavation. All these options should be considered carefully before moving forward.

If a new garage is needed, I would only support building it underground to protect our historic downtown. Yes, we’re close to the water, but cities like Boston have been doing it for years.

Current zoning doesn’t require developers to provide parking for new residential units. For example, the latest Congress St. “co-living” project intends to rely entirely on the Hanover public garage for parking. Developers shouldn’t rely on public garages at taxpayers’ expense.

Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a new garage so developers can maximize profits? Portsmouth can protect parking, preserve history, and build smart while also ensuring the developers who benefit contribute — keeping it fair for residents and visitors alike.

The recent parking study indicates that, if current demand trends persist over the next 5 to 10 years, we will likely require an additional parking garage.

I propose that the optimal site for this facility would be within a 5 to 10-minute walk from downtown or a major bus route. This could involve incorporating public transit options, such as buses, or even exploring a city-operated shuttle system to alleviate the congestion that often plagues downtown during peak seasons.

It is crucial that we engage in a thorough public consultation process to gather input on potential locations for the garage. We must also be mindful of avoiding any burdens that increased parking may impose on local residents.

Rather than rushing to build another garage, Portsmouth should first evaluate how to manage better and optimize our existing parking resources.

Technology like real-time space availability, tiered pricing, and improved signage can go a long way toward alleviating congestion.

That said, if demand continues to grow—particularly with tourism and downtown events—a third garage may become necessary. If so, it should be located strategically, perhaps in the northern tier or near the Islington Street corridor, where it can support local businesses and new development without further crowding the heart of downtown.

The recent parking utilization study makes a reasonable case for another garage, but before committing to it we should make sure we’ve fully used existing programs that improve access for residents and employees. One way to do this is through resident parking programs that would charge more for non residents, while still providing our existing workforce parking program. This will generate more revenue, and potentially even free more spots.

If we do move forward, I trust the creativity of Portsmouth residents to weigh in on the best location. Any new facility should fit within a broader transportation plan that balances parking with walkability, shuttles, and other ways to get around downtown.

The “Strategic Parking Plan” submitted in January 2025 identified that the city will need to create 500 parking spaces by 2035 to support downtown and nearby areas. To remedy this shortfall in time requires that serious planning begin in 2026. The report also states that in FY25 the city expects to collect $6.4 million in parking revenue, 63% of which will be spent on non-parking related service and salary support. This includes a $2.5 million contribution to the General Fund, which is identified as reducing the tax burden on a median single-family home by $336 per year. While some of the parking revenue comes from residents who purchase monthly passes because they have no parking or insufficient parking, most short-term parking revenue comes from non-residents.

Failure to meet the anticipated parking demand would not only reflect a loss in potential non-property tax revenue for the city but would also put pressure on residential neighborhoods near downtown as non-resident vehicles would be incentivized to park in them. The potential sites for a new garage would need to be studied carefully. Improving transit options between business zones needs to be emphasized, in part to help reduce the need for parking, particularly for downtown and west end residents, as well as to expand options for locating an additional garage.

Yes. As part of the City Council's recent efforts on easing the way for more housing, they have reduced the parking requirements for large projects. This has been accommodated in part by allowing developers to lease spaces in our existing garages. The garages we paid to build.

So, yes, there is a need for another parking garage.

This is another case in support of the need to institute Development Impact Fees, so that the existing residential taxpayers are not disproportionately shouldering the cost of infrastructure to support these projects.

In addition, I'd like to have a more transparent view of where the parking revenue that is being collected by the City now is being allocated in the budget. Parking revenue should be reserved for funding projects like this. Is it?

Let's make sure we have identified the means to pay for it before we launch into studying potential sites and plans.

I first became involved in city politics when COVID hit. My work at the time required extensive international travel, and like so many others, my world changed overnight. Suddenly I was grounded in Portsmouth, watching our community navigate an unprecedented crisis. I became concerned about the survival of our downtown businesses and the cuts to our school budget and personnel, and I felt compelled to get involved.
Since then, serving on the City Council has allowed me to be a strong advocate for our schools, our educators, and our students. I’ve also worked to ensure that as Portsmouth grows and evolves, we prioritize the human experience in our city—not just the car experience. Walkability, livability, and a sense of community are key to why Portsmouth thrives.

I bring a practical engineering mindset to this work—taking time to dig into the details, do the research, and fully understand the challenges before making decisions. My goal is always to deliver the best outcomes for our residents today while planning responsibly for the future.

Did not respond.

My main point for running is to ensure fiscal responsibility — deliver essential services without overburdening taxpayers. I’ll bring transparency to every dollar in the city budget. Maybe there are reasons the city spends the way they do and I just don't know.

The city needs a council that listens, plans, and delivers. I can be that.

As a city councilor, I have worked on numerous issues that do not get a lot of media coverage but directly impact the way our city functions. As chair of the Governance Committee, I have spearheaded efforts to improve transparency of local government, ethics and accountability, training for city volunteers, procurement, administrative functions, and committee efficiency. As a member of the Legislative Subcommittee, I have testified in Concord on bills directly impacting our city. As the arts liaison on the Arts and Cultural Commission and Public Art Review Committee, I have championed our arts community and introduced changes to city ordinances and policies to better support their work. On sustainability issues, I worked for adoption of a Climate Action Plan and initiation of a city solar array project, and I introduced a Skip the Stuff policy to reduce plastic waste in our landfills.

While all of my council work is rewarding, my favorite part of being a city councilor is interacting with community members around town and seeing the time each person invests in making our city an incredible place to live. I have been honored to serve Portsmouth for two terms on the City Council, and I would love the opportunity to continue to represent our community for another term.

I come from a multigenerational Portsmouth family and grew up in the same house my mother was raised in. Although I spent about 10 years away but I moved back in 1993 and have called Portsmouth home ever since. My husband Joe and I have both worked for local companies — first at Bottomline Technologies, where we met, and for the past 17 years, I’ve been with Heinemann Publishing. Between working for those companies, I spent seven years self-employed, based right here in Portsmouth.

Joe and I were married in October 2001, bought our home in October 2002, and welcomed our daughter Zoe in October 2003, followed by our son John in November 2006. We raised our children in this community, supported by the incredible educators at Community Child Care Center (now Seacoast Community School) and the Portsmouth Public Schools.

Portsmouth has given me so much — it is truly my hometown. In what can feel like divisive times, I want to lean in, give back, and help strengthen the community I love. I would be honored to do that by serving on the Portsmouth City Council.

I’m not a career politician — and I see that as a strength. I grew up in a blue-collar town where hard work, fairness, and community were just how people lived. Those values shaped me, and they’re the same ones I carry as a mom raising a young son here, a small business owner, and a former volunteer firefighter who knows what it means to show up when neighbors need you.

Those experiences keep me grounded. I see how city decisions ripple into daily life — from housing costs to public safety to the feel of downtown. Even small things, like story time at the library, remind me how much families depend on city services funded by our budget and taxes. My work as a health care provider has also taught me to listen deeply, ask thoughtful questions, and create solutions that work for real people.

I’m running because Portsmouth is strongest when everyday families, workers, and small business owners have a voice at the table. I’ll make sure those voices are heard.

It's essential for voters to recognize that everyone running for office shares a genuine love for our community. While our approaches, viewpoints, and backgrounds may differ, no one commits to this journey without a passionate desire to serve Portsmouth.

Representing my community has always been my top priority. I decided to run because I sensed a lack of diverse perspectives within our councils. At the time, there were ongoing conversations about the needs of "restaurant workers, downtown employees, younger residents, and renters," yet their voices seemed largely absent from our local leadership. When I was first approached to run, my immediate reaction was, "But I'm not qualified." The reply I received transformed my perspective forever: "If you love Portsmouth, you are qualified."

I hold this belief close to my heart today, just as I did in 2019. My time on the council has truly inspired me and ignited my passion for furthering my education in public administration and governmental law.

I firmly believe that our government should be run by the people — by the everyday Jo(e)s who experience both the highs and lows of life. It's this commitment to inclusivity and representation that drives my enthusiasm for this role. Together, we can make a difference!

Portsmouth has been both my home and my professional base for over 15 years. But, I also spent 30 years as a Realtor in East Tennessee.. As a real estate broker, I’ve spent decades navigating complex negotiations, solving problems creatively, and working with people from all walks of life to help them achieve their goals. That experience has given me a deep understanding of housing, development, municipal regulations, and—most importantly—how to listen, build consensus, and get things done.

Those are the same skills I would bring to the City Council: practical, results-oriented thinking; the ability to weigh competing interests fairly; and a steady commitment to the long-term good of our community.

I’m running because I care about Portsmouth’s future and believe in thoughtful, transparent leadership. I’m not interested in pushing an agenda — I’m here to work hard, listen closely, and help shape policies that keep Portsmouth livable, vibrant, and inclusive for generations to come. I respectfully ask for your vote on November 4th.

I grew up in Portsmouth and live across the street from the house my grandfather built in 1940. I’ve seen Portsmouth grow and continue to believe it is the best place in America to raise a family. I care deeply about this city and the people who make it work. I try to make decisions based on facts and what I believe is in the best interest of our future and to always communicate transparently with residents.

I believe strongly that representatives must provide an open space for discourse and represent a wide range of people and opinions. Throughout my time on the council and as mayor, my door is always open to residents with questions or ideas. Getting to know so many great people in this community is one of the most rewarding parts of the job.

Portsmouth is a strong, well-run city because generations before us planned for the future. My job, if reelected, is to keep us moving in the right direction — managing growth responsibly, keeping taxes predictable, and protecting the character that makes this a great place to live.

My wife Kathleen of 45 years and I moved to the Seacoast in 2013 and our immediate family followed us over the years so that we now have four generations living in New Hampshire. We mean to make this our home now and for generations to come. I joined the Zoning Board of Adjustment in 2021 as a means of serving and getting to know the community at a more intimate level. In that role I have established a reputation as an attentive listener and a rational decision maker, with good working rapport with my fellow board members. I look forward to bringing that same rational and collaborative demeanor to the City Council.

I have had a tremendously rewarding career in biopharmaceuticals, working with some of the most passionate and accomplished scientific and medical professionals in the fields of women's health care, dermatology, and rare pediatric skin disorders; always striving to bring relief to patients.

Aside from seeing our city continue to thrive long into the future, my other passions in life are my growing family, my dog, automobile racing, ham radio, and outdoor sports.

I am not a long-term political insider in Portsmouth, but I am a quick study on key issues. If I am fortunate enough to be elected to serve you, I will strive to bring all these experiences to bear on achieving a great future for Portsmouth. I humbly ask you for your vote.

I have more than 45 years of full-time experience in performing legal work to advance municipal government for cities in New Hampshire. Added to that is more than 40 years of attending City Council meetings in a professional capacity in Portsmouth.

My only motivation in running for the City Council is to provide the benefit of that experience and knowledge to the citizens of the city in partial reimbursement for the career which the city gave to me and which, frankly, I loved.