Progress Portsmouth · Meeting Digest

What's on the table
at City Council

Monday, September 14, 2026 · 7:00 pm

Eileen Dondero Foley Council Chambers, 1 Junkins Avenue · Non-public session at 5:30 pm

The short version

The parking rate vote is back after failing 3–5

Council rejected $3/$6 on August 17, then voted to reconsider tonight. Five more parking motions come with it.

Two of the parking motions cancel each other out

One would restrict the Parrott Avenue lot to residents and downtown workers. Another would pull Parrott out of the program entirely.

Fleet Street goes one-way, with a contra-flow bike lane

Second reading on both ordinances. Eight parking spaces move from the west side to the east.

Parking rules would move out of the zoning ordinance

Most off-street parking requirements would shift to Site Plan Review Regulations, which the Planning Board adopts rather than Council.

54 parcels would leave the Historic District

A Middle Street boundary redraw, replacing a 150-foot line with one that follows property lines.

A $4.1 million solar array at the Jones Avenue landfill

Councilor Tabor asks for a municipal solar plan. The consultant and the city's own committee disagree on the design.

A business asks the city to give up a street it never built

Regan Electric petitions to discontinue 2,340 square feet of Cornwall Street laid out in 1815.

Point of Graves wall repairs get a matching donor

Up to $240,000 to close a gap on a roughly $480,000 project, plus about $6,300 from eighteen smaller gifts.

The parking night

Six motions, one evening

Council members have filed six separate parking motions, on top of two Fleet Street ordinances, a zoning change about parking requirements, and a staff report back. They are listed separately on the agenda but they act on the same system, and some of them act against each other.

15.A · Raise the nonresident on-street rateAsst. Mayor Kelley

$2/$5 → $3/$6. The motion that failed 3–5 on August 17 and was set for reconsideration tonight. Applies to on-street and lot parking; the first three hours at one rate, hours after that at the higher one.

15.C · Leave the resident rate aloneKelley, Cook, Flynn, Hopkins

$1.25/$2.25 stays. A companion to 15.A that holds the registered-resident discount where it is. Together the two would widen the gap between what residents and visitors pay.

15.B · Loosen the Downtown Workforce programKelley, Cook, Flynn, Hopkins

Four changes. Drop the 35-cent per-session fee on Parrott Avenue, raise Foundry Garage stickers from 10 hours to 12, raise the monthly sticker cap from 20 to 26, and write a definition of who qualifies.

15.E · Reserve the Parrott Avenue lotCook, Flynn

Residents and downtown workers only, with some spaces held for District Court defendants. Would close the 183-space free lot to general use.

15.F · Take Parrott Avenue out of the programCouncilor Blalock

The opposite direction. Removes Parrott Avenue from the resident parking policy altogether, undoing the pilot there rather than tightening it.

15.G · Cap the Hanover Garage rateCouncilor Bagley

Hanover at or below on-street. Cites the city's own parking principle that long-term parkers should be steered to garages by price. Today a four-hour stay at Hanover costs more than the same stay on the street.

15.E and 15.F point opposite ways. One would restrict the Parrott Avenue lot to residents and registered downtown workers; the other would remove Parrott Avenue from the policy entirely. 15.B also assumes Parrott stays in the program — its first bullet removes a fee that only exists there. The order these are taken up in will shape what the others mean.

15.A and 15.G are two answers to the same problem. Staff have said the pricing ladder is inverted: a long stay in the garage should cost less than the same stay at the curb, and right now it doesn't. 15.A fixes that by raising the street. 15.G fixes it by lowering the garage. Both cannot be the cheaper fix.

What a four-hour stay costs, from the staff report back
Four hoursOn-streetHanoverFoundry
Before July 1$11$8$4
Today$11$12$8
If 15.A passes$15$12$8

Only the garages changed on July 1 — Hanover to $3 an hour, Foundry to $2. That is what flipped the ladder. At five hours today, on-street is already the most expensive of the three.

Item by item

The Administrative Code currently requires the City Clerk to advertise upcoming board and committee vacancies in the local newspaper. The amendment deletes that requirement and replaces it with a general duty to give reasonable notice to members whose terms are expiring, and reasonable notice to the public of vacancies through the city website or other municipal communication tools.

The City Manager's report presents this as part of a run of ordinance updates removing older processes, citing the procurement ordinance change as a precedent that saved publishing costs and staff time.

Sample motionMove to pass first reading and schedule a public hearing and second reading for the September 28, 2026, meeting.

The longest ordinance in the packet, running about twenty pages. It strips most off-street parking regulation out of Chapter 10 and points it instead at the Site Plan Review Regulations. Requirements for one- and two-family dwellings stay in zoning; everything else — the use-by-use parking ratio tables, shared parking methodology, parking lot dimensions and design, the Downtown Overlay provisions, bicycle parking, loading — moves.

The Planning Board recommended first reading on August 20. The City Manager's report describes the goal as simplifying the zoning ordinance, creating a clearer separation between zoning standards and site plan review, and giving staff greater administrative flexibility in applying parking requirements.

It changes who holds the penZoning ordinance amendments require City Council votes with public hearings and three readings. Site Plan Review Regulations are adopted and amended by the Planning Board. Moving a rule from one document to the other changes which body can alter it later and what process applies. The report back frames the change as administrative; that consequence follows from it either way.
The receiving document isn't final yetThe Planning Board's matching amendments to the Site Plan Review Regulations go to public hearing on September 17 — three days after tonight's first reading. Council's second reading is set for October 13. Tonight's vote comes before the board has voted on what the rules will say once they land there.

Small thing: the ordinance is headed "ORDINANCE #0 -26," a number placeholder, and Article 11 is titled "SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARS."

Sample motionMove to pass first reading and schedule a public hearing and second reading at the October 13, 2026, meeting.

Today the Historic District boundary along Middle Street runs roughly 150 feet back from the street, which cuts through lots and in some cases through buildings. The amendment replaces that with a boundary that follows parcel lines, so a property is either wholly in or wholly out.

54 parcels come out of the district. Of those, the City Manager's report says 38 contain structures — 20 entirely inside the district today, 18 straddling the line. The other 16 are crossed by the boundary but their buildings already sit outside it.

20 parcels are listed as added, but none of them are new to the district. Each is already partly inside; the amendment brings the whole parcel in. The ordinance's own heading calls them additions, which reads confusingly against the report's line that no new parcels are being added.

For the 38 parcels with buildings coming out, the practical effect is that exterior work would no longer need Historic District Commission review. The report frames the change as a matter of clear and defensible boundaries rather than arbitrary distances.

Sample motionMove to pass first reading and schedule a public hearing and second reading at the October 13, 2026, meeting.

This is the ordinance that turned up in the August 3 packet without an agenda item. It had first reading on August 17 and is now at second reading.

Abutter notice. Section 10.234.50 currently requires everyone owning property within 300 feet of a Zoning Board appeal to be notified, with an exemption for Character Districts 4 and 5 and the Downtown Overlay District. Both the requirement and the exemption are deleted, and notice would simply follow state law. The report explains that the Legislature redefined "abutter" in RSA 672:3 in 2024, and says relying on the statute reduces the number of notices, staff processing time and applicant mailing costs.

The report adds that the city set up an electronic subscription service in fall 2025 for agendas and packets, and gives current subscriber counts: 78 for City Council, 65 Planning Board, 57 Zoning Board, 60 Conservation Commission, 53 each for the Historic District Commission and the Technical Advisory Committee. Those are opt-in numbers; abutter notice is not.

Conditional use permits. A permit approved alongside a site plan would stay valid as long as the site plan does. A stand-alone permit could get a first one-year extension from the Planning & Sustainability Director rather than the Planning Board, with any further extension requiring a Planning Board public hearing and capped at one year each.

The section number doesn't matchThe agenda and the heading of the City Manager's report both cite "Section 10.264." The ordinance itself, and the body of the same report, say Section 10.246. The August 17 minutes also say 10.246. It reads like a digit transposition that has carried through to the published agenda.
Sample motionMove to pass second reading and schedule a third and final reading for the September 28, 2026, meeting.

The no-parking ordinance is edited so that the east side of Fleet Street between Congress and Hanover becomes parkable and the west side does not. Eight spaces move across the street.

Staff's reasoning, as set out in the report: with a contra-flow bike lane on the west, parking on the right-hand side means drivers don't cross the bike lane to park, park on the customary side, don't open doors into the lane, and don't back out blind into oncoming bicycle traffic. Moving the spaces also gives a larger turning radius and better alignment with the Hanover Garage ticket gate.

It depends on something outside the ordinanceThe report states the relocation can be accommodated on the east side "with the closing of the Gilley's parking lot and construction of new sidewalk and curbing along the Gilley's site frontage." That closure and construction are not themselves before Council tonight.

Also deleted: the current provision that lets trucks load or unload in the west-side space nearest Hanover Street. It is struck rather than relocated.

Sample motionMove to pass second reading and schedule a third and final reading for the September 28, 2026, meeting.

Traffic on Fleet Street would run northbound only, from Congress Street to Hanover Street. The ordinance adds a sentence permitting cyclists to ride the other way within the marked contra-flow lane — which is what makes the lane legal rather than merely painted.

The chain of decisions behind it: utility work required rebuilding the street; the sidewalks did not meet accessibility standards and had to be widened; wider sidewalks, two-way traffic and parking would not all fit. Abutters were surveyed in December 2021 on three options and parking was preferred over two-way traffic. The Fire Department requires 18 feet of clear pavement, which leaves room for a 6-foot bike lane. The one-way flow also stops cars waiting to turn into the Hanover Garage from blocking both lanes.

At first reading, Councilor Bagley said he expected public pushback on the contra-flow lane. Two residents have written in about it since — one questioning whether riding against traffic is even legal, one laying out the design history in support.

Sample motionMove to pass second reading and schedule a third and final reading for the September 28, 2026, meeting.

A three-year agreement running August 1, 2026, to July 31, 2029, so it is retroactive by six weeks. Base salary $130,000, plus an annual stipend of 5% of base contingent on holding a valid paramedic license. Cost-of-living increases in 2027 and 2028 are set at the ten-year rolling average of regional CPI-U, floored at 2% and capped at 5%.

Also included: a city vehicle, which may be used personally given on-call status; a $600 annual clothing allowance; tuition coverage for approved coursework, repayable if not passed; and severance of six months' base salary or the balance of the contract, whichever is less, if terminated without cause. Other benefits track the Professional Management Association unit.

The agreement requires Egan to keep a domicile within fifteen miles of Portsmouth for the term, with failure to do so grounds for termination for cause at the Fire Commission's option.

Two dates for the same raiseOne sentence sets the COLA increases on August 1, 2027 and August 1, 2028. The next sentence refers to "these July 1, 2027 and July 1, 2028 COLA percentage increases." Worth clarifying before signature.
Sample motionMove to accept the proposed Employment Agreement for Deputy Fire Chief Scott Egan as presented.

The collective bargaining agreement covering Portsmouth School District paraeducators expired June 30, 2026. The Board of Education and the union have been negotiating a successor but have not reached one, which the memo attributes to the complexity of possible changes to the health and dental benefit. Negotiations are expected to resume at the start of the school year.

Rather than leave pay flat, the agreement extends the existing contract until the earlier of June 30, 2027 or a successor agreement, and applies a 3.03% cost-of-living increase to the salary schedule and longevity benefit, retroactive to July 1, 2026. Everything else, including the insurance plan and provider, stays as is and remains on the bargaining table.

Both the Board and the union have approved it. A costing analysis by the Deputy City Manager for Finance is referenced as attached.

Sample motionMove to accept the Memorandum of Agreement for Portsmouth School District Paraeducators as presented.

Twenty-three regular meetings and seven work sessions. Four meetings shift to Tuesdays around holidays — January 19, February 16, and September 7. July has a single meeting.

Dates worth putting in a diary now: the budget public hearing opens May 24 and continues to adoption on June 7; the capital plan kickoff is August 16; the joint capital plan public hearing with the Planning Board is November 15; capital plan adoption is December 6.

Sample motionMove to approve the 2027 City Council meeting calendar as presented.
  • New Castle 10K, Sunday, April 25, 2027. Starts and finishes at Great Island Common; about 1.7 miles of the course runs through Portsmouth on Sagamore Avenue, South Street and New Castle Avenue.
  • Halloween Costume Paddle, Sunday, October 25, 2026, 11 am to 1 pm at the Peirce Island boat ramp. Twenty to thirty paddlers; a fundraiser for the Halloween Parade, with a park cleanup alongside it.
  • Pro Portsmouth's 2027 season in a single request: First Night on December 31, 2026, with fireworks over South Mill Pond and Parrott Avenue lot closures; Children's Day May 2; the 50th Market Square Day on June 12 with downtown closures from 5 am; and six Summer in the Street evenings.
  • Active encumbrance permits — three current permits: masonry repointing at 1 Harbour Place, tree removal on Langdon Street, and staging for facade repairs at 222 Court Street.
A funding request is riding inside the consent agendaThe Pro Portsmouth letter asks the city to sponsor the First Night fireworks at $3,000, against roughly $15,000 in outdoor activity costs. The consent agenda is designed for items adopted together without discussion, and the agenda line for this item lists only the event dates. Adopting the consent agenda as presented would not obviously constitute a vote on the sponsorship either way.
Wrong year on the agendaThe agenda lists the New Castle 10K as "April 25, 2026." The organizer's letter asks for the 2027 race on Sunday, April 25, 2027. April 25, 2026 was a Saturday and has already passed.
Sample motionMove to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented.

Regan Electric owns 98 Cornwall Street and is asking Council to release the city's interest in 2,340 square feet of Cornwall Street that crosses its property and dead-ends at the railroad.

The history in the petition: the street was dedicated when an 1815 subdivision plan was recorded in 1845, and served houses on the site into the 1930s. Portsmouth Ice and Coal then bought the lots, removed the houses and blocked the street. A coal shed sat across its full width until it was taken down in the late 1970s, leaving a concrete pad and retaining wall. Sanborn fire maps from 1949 onward show the street stopping at the property line, and the city's tax and GIS maps show the same thing today.

The legal argument is that although Cornwall Street is a Class V road, the city has not maintained this portion for more than five consecutive years, which under RSA 229:5 makes it Class VI — and that under RSA 231:43 Council can vote to discontinue it. The petition notes no lots need it for access and it would lead nowhere if built. Regan Electric proposes keeping a 20-foot easement so the city can reach an existing sewer line running through the area.

Tonight is a referral, not a decision. The proposed motion sends it to the Planning Board and sets a public hearing to coincide with the report back.

Note: the City Manager's report does not comment on this item. Its sections skip from item 11 to grants and donations.

Sample motionMove to refer the request to the Planning Board for a report back and schedule a public hearing on the discontinuance to coincide with receipt of the report back.

Catalogued in full in the correspondence section below. Seven of the ten are about parking.

Sample motionMove to accept and place on file.
  • Resignation: Anna Howard from the Economic Development Commission, effective October 1.
  • Considered: John Bohenko to the Public Art Review Committee — the city's retired City Manager, listing 29 years' residency. Richard Samdperil to the Library Board of Trustees. Jason Goodrich to the Economic Development Commission as a regular member, moving up from the alternate seat he has held for five months to fill the seat Anna Howard is vacating. Thomas Watson, Andrew Ward and Anne Weidman are reappointments to the same commission — sitting members continuing.
  • Voted: John (Jack) Holzman to the Board of Adjustment. This appointment has been carried since July, when it was held after a seat unexpectedly opened.
  • Verbal: appointment of Council members to the capital plan citizen request subcommittee, and a status report on the former recreation area under the I-95 bridge.

Worth watching: only one Economic Development Commission seat actually changes hands tonight. Anna Howard's resignation opens a regular seat, Goodrich steps up from alternate to fill it, and the other three names are incumbents continuing. The consequence is the seat Goodrich leaves behind: the commission's alternate seat becomes vacant, and it appears nowhere on tonight's agenda.

On August 17 this motion was defeated. Assistant Mayor Kelley and Councilors Cook, Blalock and Flynn joined Mayor McEachern against it; Councilors Bagley, Hopkins and Moreau were in favour. Assistant Mayor Kelley then moved to reconsider tonight, which passed 6–2.

The substance is unchanged: on-street and lot parking would go from $2 an hour for the first three hours and $5 after, to $3 and $6. What has changed is that the reasons given for holding off — that Council wanted data from the parking work session, clearer signage, assurance workforce parking would not be hurt, and a better plan for what the revenue does — are now partly answered by the report back at item 17.C, and by the other motions on tonight's agenda.

What the numbers now say. The parking fund ran an estimated gap of about $1.82 million in FY26, covered by drawing down reserves. Staff say the July garage increases alone are expected to close it and leave roughly $430,000 over. The on-street change would add about $1.70 million in FY27 if adopted in October, since only about nine months of the year would be captured; a full year would be about $2.27 million.

These are projectionsThe report back says so directly: figures are projections and observed behaviour can shift them. The earlier $2 million estimate assumed a 5% drop in on-street use and a 5% rise in garage use.
Two small drafting thingsThe published sample motion still carries a bracketed editing note describing the existing rate. And the Administrative Code section is cited as "Section 1.1601" here, where the August packet and the adopted ordinance cite Section 1.601 for the same fee procedure.
Sample motionMove to set parking fees for on-street and lot parking for FY27 at $3 per hour for the first 3 hours and $6 per hour thereafter.

This is the response to what downtown workers and business owners said at the August work session. Four amendments to the resident parking policy:

  • Drop the 35-cent transaction fee on Parrott Avenue for workforce parkers. That fee is charged once per session, not per hour, and goes to the app vendor rather than the city.
  • Raise Foundry Garage stickers from 10 hours to 12. A resident asked for 14 at the work session.
  • Raise the monthly sticker limit from 20 to 26.
  • Define who qualifies: small business owners and employees of restaurant, hospitality, retail and personal service businesses located downtown.

Take-up so far. Foundry workforce use rose from about 130 to 160 parkers a day in July, up 23%. 703 downtown workers are enrolled. On Parrott Avenue, workforce visits grew from 100 in July to 130 in August, with an average stay of about 6.6 hours, and 53 workers have registered there.

The attached policy is already dated as amendedThe copy of Council Policy 2026-01 in the packet carries "Amended on: September 14, 2026" and has the four proposed changes written into its text as adopted language. That is normal for showing what a policy would look like, but the document does not mark them as proposed, and its signature line is blank.
Two definitions, slightly differentThe definition in the motion covers small business owners and employees of restaurant, hospitality, retail and personal service businesses. The body of the attached policy says employees and owners of restaurants, retail and personal service businesses, and the hospitality industry. Close, but not the same sentence, and this item exists precisely to settle who qualifies.
Sample motionMove to adopt the amended City Council Policy 2026-01 Resident Access Parking Program Pilot as presented.

Registered residents currently pay $1.25 an hour for the first three hours and $2.25 after, when using the app. This motion holds those rates for FY2027.

It is the companion to 15.A. Taken together they would leave residents paying less than half what visitors pay for the same curb: at a four-hour stay, about $6 against $15.

Who actually sets these rates is unclearThe resident parking policy says rates in the program zone "are set by the Fee Schedule Study Committee." Tonight's motions set rates directly by Council vote under the Administrative Code fee procedure. Both instruments are in the same packet and they describe different mechanisms.
Sample motionMove to maintain the existing parking fees for residents for FY2027: $1.25 per hour for the first 3 hours and $2.25 per hour thereafter.

Councilor Tabor asks Council to request a plan for solar on city land and buildings, combining near-term small high-return projects with a 1.7-megawatt array at the closed Jones Avenue landfill, carried in the capital plan at $4.1 million, with a report back on October 13. The Energy Advisory Committee voted unanimously on September 2 to make the request.

The case as put. The memo cites committee minutes for a combined single-system array being cash-flow positive from year one at about $167,000 in net savings, rising past $200,000 a year, and over $500,000 a year once the bond is paid; a net benefit of $3.894 million in present value over 25 years; and reductions of 11% in the city's carbon emissions and 36% in its electricity emissions.

The consultant and the committee reach opposite conclusionsApex Analytics recommends splitting the project into two sub-megawatt systems — 950 kW at Jones Avenue and 750 kW wired to the high school — because systems above 1 MW trigger an ISO New England study adding nine to eleven months, which would miss the federal tax credit deadline of December 31, 2027. Apex puts that credit at roughly $1.64 million, enough to more than offset the higher build cost of two systems. Councilor Tabor's memo reports that city staff and the committee did not find the split realistic, judging that Apex underestimated procurement, design review and permitting for a line crossing wetlands. Both documents are in the packet and they do not agree.
UnitsThe memo describes the split as "750 megawatts to Portsmouth High School, and 950 megawatts entering the grid." The consultant's report says 750 kW and 950 kW. A thousandfold difference, almost certainly a slip, but it is in the document Council is voting on.
The capital plan sheet doesn't yet say $4.1 millionProject BI-27-PW-52 currently shows $5,050,000 across FY27–32, structured as $50,000 in FY27, $3,000,000 in FY28 from a power purchase agreement, and $1,000,000 bonds in each of FY30 and FY32. The motion asks Council to carry forward and refine that element as a $4.1 million item — which is a different amount, a different year, and a different funding mechanism from what the sheet shows.

Also referenced: a separate study identified possible rooftop solar at the Public Works building, City Hall and Fire Station 2, and behind-the-meter options at the Madbury water treatment plant and the Pease wastewater plant. Public Works has recommended prioritising those smaller, higher-return projects in the near term.

Sample motionMove that Council request a plan for solar generation on City land and buildings incorporating Public Works recommendations, including near-term high-return projects and a Jones Avenue array as a $4.1 million item in the Capital Improvement Plan, with a report back on October 13, 2026.

Councilors Cook and Flynn would limit the 183-space Parrott Avenue lot to registered residents and downtown workforce parkers, holding a small number of spaces for District Court defendants.

The survey behind it. Staff logged plates on five weekday mornings in August. Registered residents were 9.9% of vehicles and downtown workforce 2.0%. Portsmouth vehicles not registered in any program were 5.9%. Out-of-state plates were 30.4%, two-thirds of them Massachusetts or Maine. The largest share, 51.8%, were New Hampshire plates the city could not match to any program. Of those unidentified vehicles, 61 plates appeared on four or five of the five mornings.

Staff read that as a free lot serving mostly non-residents and commuters enrolled in nothing, and suggest low workforce participation may simply reflect the lot being full by the time workers arrive.

Conflicts with 15.F, which would remove Parrott Avenue from the policy altogether.

Sample motionMove to amend the RAPP Policy to limit parking in the Parrott Avenue Lot to Resident and Downtown Workforce Parking only, with a small number of spaces set aside for Portsmouth District Court defendants.

A single-line motion from Councilor Blalock removing Parrott Avenue from the policy. No supporting memo is attached.

Parrott Avenue is the only street in the program zone open to downtown workforce parkers, and the workforce rate of 30 cents an hour exists there. Removing it would end that arrangement along with the resident provisions.

Interacts with two other motions: 15.E would tighten Parrott Avenue rather than remove it, and 15.B's first bullet drops a transaction fee that applies only there.

Sample motionMove to amend the RAPP Policy by removing Parrott Avenue.

Councilor Bagley's motion would hold the hourly rate at the High-Hanover garage at or below on-street rates, citing the city's parking principle that long-term parkers should be steered toward off-street facilities by price while curb space stays available for short errands.

The inversion is real. Since the July 1 garage increase, a four-hour stay at Hanover costs $12 against $11 on the street. That is the same problem staff cited in May when they first recommended raising on-street rates — but the remedy runs the other way.

If 15.A passes, on-street at four hours goes to $15 and the ladder rights itself without touching the garage. If 15.A fails and 15.G passes, the garage rate would have to come down instead, which would cut into the roughly $2.25 million the garage increases are projected to bring in.

Sample motionMove that the City Council maintain the hourly rate at the High-Hanover Parking Facility at an amount equal to or lower than the on-street parking rates as set forth in Parking Principle #7.

Councilor Flynn asks staff, working with the Portsmouth Housing Authority, to report to Council on where the Sherburne School project stands — progress, timelines, milestones, and any recent developments or challenges affecting next steps.

A verbal item with no attachments and no date attached to the report back.

Sample motionMove to request that City staff, in coordination with the Portsmouth Housing Authority, provide the City Council with a status update on the Sherburne School project.

Councilor Hopkins proposes a time-limited working group to serve as the transit task force called for in the 2026–2027 Council goals, reporting back by January 29, 2027 with either a pilot scope or a consultant-ready design scope.

What the memo says has already happened. A parking shuttle pilot was recommended in 2013. A microtransit request for qualifications went out in 2019. A free shuttle ran from a church lot to the Hanover Garage until June 2020, discontinued for low use — months after $3 employee parking opened at Foundry Place and during early COVID, with no published evaluation of why ridership was low. The 2025 strategic parking plan identified a remote parking reservoir with transit downtown as one answer to projected shortfalls.

The memo's framing is that the city has plenty of studies and no shared starting point, and that defining scope locally first means any future consultant begins from a grounded brief.

Three pressures cited: downtown workers describing the cumulative cost of parking, COAST adjusting service as federal funding declines, and a workday population of roughly 42,000 against roughly 22,000 residents, most of those workers living outside the city.

Membership would run to at least 13 — Council, five city departments, four city committees, and regional partners including the Rockingham Planning Commission, COAST and C&J. No new appropriation is requested; the capital plan already carries a $100,000 transit feasibility study.

Sample motionMove to establish a Shuttle Loop and Public Transit Working Group as outlined in the attached memo, with a report back to Council by January 29, 2027.

Point of Graves cemetery wall. The wall is in substantial disrepair. Plans developed with a landscape architect would rebuild it in stone masonry with granite caps and restore the existing wrought-iron turnstile. The current estimate is about $480,000 and the city has roughly $240,000 available for design, permitting and construction. A South End resident has offered to match up to $240,000 to close the gap and let work start in early 2027. Eighteen further donations, listed individually, total about $6,300, ranging from $50 to $3,000. Friends of the South End have been fundraising too and are recognised separately at item 8.B.

Named in one document, anonymous in anotherThe proposed motion on the agenda, and the motion in the Legal Department memo, both describe the $240,000 donor as an anonymous South End resident. The City Manager's report identifies that donor by name and street address. The packet does not explain which is intended, and it is the kind of thing that is awkward to correct after the fact.

Senior Activity Center — $500 from a member and Portsmouth resident for the senior luncheon fund, given in gratitude for access to the centre and its programming.

Granite bench. A memorial bench for a family with long ties to the South End. The donors asked for Haven Park; Public Works reviewed it and designated Four Tree Island instead, which is where the motion places it.

The parking report back (17.C) is the substantive one and the only item here with attached materials. Ten slides answering what Council asked for on August 17. Beyond the rate and fund figures covered above:

  • Free parking inventory. More than 500 free spaces in city lots open to anyone — Parrott Avenue 183, Pierce Island 115, South Mill Pond 90, the leased Masonic lot 75, and 100-plus in the City Hall lower lot off-hours. Plus 221 street spaces adjacent to downtown, 232 in resident zones, and 78 at the library.
  • What the resident pilot did. Midday availability on pilot streets up 23.6%, evening up 19.9%. Residents are 88% of transactions there; paid non-residents 7%. Nearby non-pilot streets saw small drops — 8.1% afternoon, 4.8% evening — which staff are monitoring for spillover.
  • A volunteer parking pilot. After meeting with the Music Hall about volunteers staffing evening and weekend events, staff propose opening the back of the Middle School lot to registered volunteers during off-hours. Next steps are confirming it with the School Department and setting up registration.
  • The 35-cent fee explained. It is the app vendor's per-session charge, not per hour, and does not reach the city. Registered residents do not pay it. Card processing costs are absorbed by the city and never shown to drivers. A monthly membership at about $3.99 breaks even at roughly 12 sessions a month.

Also: a verbal update on the August 18 Pease Development Authority board meeting; a Mechanic Street pump station feasibility study public input meeting on September 21 at 6:30 pm in Conference Room A; and a new Public Art Review Committee exhibit, "Light Falls," opening in the Portsmouth Room on September 22 with a reception before the September 28 meeting.

No items in this category.

Who wrote in

Ten submissions from nine residents

Seven are about parking. All asked to be part of the public record.

Against raising the rate

  • Joy Curth, downtown business owner — the longest submission in the packet, asking Council not to go to $3. Argues the increase is not isolated: the lower-priced zone was eliminated in 2024 and Foundry monthly parking has reached $200. Says she has had employees quit over parking and hears from customers across the Seacoast who visit less often. Lists recent downtown closures while stating plainly that parking did not cause them, and offers them as a warning sign instead. Her central argument is that parking should be treated as economic infrastructure rather than a revenue source — a dollar of parking revenue is not a win if it costs a $50 or $100 visit.

Supportive of the pilot, with suggestions

  • Jonathan Santiago, Manning Street — recently moved to a home without a driveway and expected trouble; has consistently found parking on Gates Street and supports the program on narrow, crowded neighbourhood streets.
  • Ken Goldman — was a critic of the earlier Islington Creek pilot and considers this one fairer and better designed. His complaint is clarity: many residents still do not realise they need not use the app once registered. Suggests a simple three-step checklist on the website and in the newsletter. Separately asks Council to take public comment before councillor questions at work sessions, out of respect for people's time.
  • Matthew Glenn — three anecdotes arguing that free parking shapes behaviour in ways the city may not intend, and that reliable availability matters more than price. Asks why the meter rate is flat citywide rather than higher in the most desirable spots and at peak times, whether Parrott Avenue revenue could fund local improvements, and supports directing parking revenue to a frequent shuttle loop.
  • Barbara Massar — recalls parking work done through Portsmouth Listens and suggests revisiting it, including reserving part of the free lot with signage as was done during middle school construction, and dropping the 72-hour allowance. Also asks the city to remove the four parking spaces in front of the flag in Market Square.

On Fleet Street and transit

  • Matthew Glenn, second submission — lays out the Fleet Street design history in support of the contra-flow lane: six years of utility planning, sidewalks failing accessibility standards, a 2021 survey in which abutters chose parking over two-way traffic, an 18-foot fire department minimum, and unanimous approval by the Parking & Traffic Safety Committee. Argues 18 feet is too wide for one lane and too narrow for two, and that striping visually narrows it and slows drivers.
  • Margot Doering — asks the city to stop describing its full $998,000 COAST contribution as public transportation, since $282,000 funds senior transportation available only to qualifying Portsmouth residents. Supports keeping that service but says the public transit figure is actually $716,000, less than Dover's.

Other

  • Kenneth Seitz — reports his water meter charge doubling with no explanation, says the sewer charge was never lowered after the new plant was finished, and asks for an explanation.
  • Kyle Reilly — reports accumulated pigeon waste and dead birds in the High-Hanover garage, and asks for both cleanup and a fix for the underlying problem.
  • Peter Somssich — on flags at municipal buildings being lowered to half-staff, arguing municipalities are not required to follow presidential or gubernatorial suggestions and asking Council to set its own practice.

At a glance

6
Council-member parking motions, plus two Fleet Street ordinances
3–5
The August vote on the rate increase, now back for reconsideration
54
Parcels leaving the Historic District; 20 brought fully in
8
Fleet Street parking spaces moving to the other side
$4.1M
Solar array sought in the capital plan for Jones Avenue
$240K
Matching donation offered for the Point of Graves wall
10
Public submissions, seven of them about parking
Oct 13
When the two zoning first readings return, on a Tuesday

Worth asking about

Five loose ends

None of these is a scandal. Each is the kind of thing that is cheap to fix tonight and expensive to fix later.

  1. What order do the parking motions get taken up in? 15.E and 15.F would do opposite things to the Parrott Avenue lot, and 15.B assumes it stays in the program. Whichever is heard first changes what the others mean.
  2. Is it Section 10.246 or 10.264? The agenda and the City Manager's report heading say one; the ordinance, the report's own body and the August minutes say the other. Ordinances are cited by number for a long time afterwards.
  3. Is the Point of Graves donor named or anonymous? The motions and the Legal Department memo say anonymous. The City Manager's report gives a name and address. Anonymity cannot be restored once a public document names someone.
  4. Does adopting the consent agenda approve the $3,000 First Night sponsorship? The request is inside the attached letter but not in the agenda line or the motion.
  5. Which section of the Administrative Code governs parking fees? This packet cites Section 1.1601; the August packet and the underlying ordinance cite Section 1.601. One of them is wrong, and the same citation appears in two motions tonight.

Since last time

Three things that have moved

Following up on items flagged in earlier digests.

  1. The unagendaed zoning ordinance has an agenda item. The Chapter 10 amendment that appeared in the August 3 packet with no corresponding agenda line had first reading on August 17 and is tonight's item 10.D, at second reading.
  2. Fleet Street came back. The first reading that was scheduled for August 3 and did not appear happened on August 17. Both ordinances are now at second reading as items 10.E and 10.F.
  3. The rate increase did not simply pass. The $3/$6 motion, framed in August as a technical follow-on to a mechanism vote, was defeated 3–5 on August 17 after extensive discussion about workforce parking, signage and what the revenue would fund.

Source

Everything here comes from the official packet

This digest summarises the City Council packet for September 14, 2026. Agenda item numbers match the official agenda. Where staff or a councillor have projected a figure or an outcome, that is noted as a projection rather than stated as fact.

Official meeting page and full packet

Meetings are held in the Eileen Dondero Foley Council Chambers, 1 Junkins Avenue, and streamed on the City of Portsmouth YouTube channel. Public comment is limited to 45 minutes and may be given in person or over Zoom; registration is required for Zoom. Adjournment is set for 10:30 pm or earlier. A note on the file: the packet PDF holds 169 pages while its own footers number to 170, so page references may run one out toward the end.