Your area Not set — showing everywhere
How it works Support this town
Meeting report · Town Council
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Town Council — July 8, 2026

The meeting featured a spirited public hearing with significant community opposition to a major grant application, resulting in a failed vote.

Date Wednesday, July 8, 2026 Duration 3.2h Speakers 34 Public comments 12 Decisions 9 Spirited
▶ Video

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

At the July 8 Town Council meeting, Hooksett residents made their voices heard regarding a proposed $750,000 federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The grant was intended to fund renovations for Elm Grove Companies to convert a building at 512 West River Road into 76 units of workforce housing.

During the public hearing, community members raised serious objections, arguing that the grant would essentially use the town's name and credit to benefit a private corporation. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential displacement of current tenants and the long-term regulatory implications for the town. After a period of debate concerning zoning and due diligence, the Council ultimately voted against the grant application.

Additionally, the meeting highlighted internal communication issues within our local government. Council members expressed frustration over a lack of timely updates from town boards and committees regarding approved developments. To address this, the Council is discussing making regular reports from these boards a standing item on future agendas to ensure better oversight and transparency.

Jul 8, 2026 3.2h long 34 speakers 12 public comments 9 decisions Spirited
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“A private company that already owns a 76 unit apartment complex is asking the town of Hooksett to apply for 750,000 of federal money in the town's name.”

— Unidentified speaker · Opposing the CDBG grant application during public comment. ▶ 39:05

“This is not the town seeking a grant. It is a company seeking the town's signature.”

— Unidentified speaker · Criticizing the nature of the grant application during public comment. ▶ 42:34

“The general court shall not authorize any town to loan or give its money or credit directly or indirectly for the benefit of any corporation.”

— Unidentified speaker · Raising a constitutional concern regarding the use of the town's credit for a private entity. ▶ 1:00:01

“The council needs more information regarding resident displacement and notification before deciding on the grant.”

— Unidentified speaker · Debating the Elm Grove workforce housing grant. ▶ 1:42:02

“The town is using a circuit planner from the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission to fill the vacancy left by the Town Planner.”

— Unidentified speaker · Town Administrator's report regarding personnel. ▶ 2:18:21

“One ordinance has 33 criteria attached to that and you have to meet that in order to get that special exception and that that's a little bit much.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussing the difficulty of obtaining special exceptions due to current town ordinances. ▶ 2:41:41

“Maybe we should do something where the planning board and the zoning board let the council know what was approved.”

— Unidentified speaker · Highlighting a communication gap regarding approved developments. ▶ 3:06:35
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Conversion of a 70-unit building to 76 units of workforce housing via a $750,000 federal grant.

What happened

The motion to approve the grant application failed.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The Council conducted elections for the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary positions for the new fiscal year.

What happened

Lindsey LaLiberte was elected Chair, Jim Sullivan was elected Vice Chair, and Randall LaPierre was elected Secretary.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Council members volunteered for various town boards and committees for the upcoming term.

What happened

A full list of council assignments to various boards (Assessors, Budget, Economic Development, etc.) was established.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A public hearing was held regarding a $750,000 Community Development Block Grant for renovations at 512 West River Road; the council later debated and voted on the grant application for workforce housing.

What happened

The hearing was held to gather public input. The motion to approve the grant application for the Elm Grove workforce housing project failed.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Authorization for the issuance of civil forfeiture warrants for approximately 200 unregistered dogs.

What happened

The motion to approve the civil forfeiture process was approved.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Updates on personnel changes, upcoming community events, and infrastructure projects.

What happened

Information was presented for council awareness.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A summary of the ZBA's activities, including variances and special exceptions granted during the year; review of past year's activities including slow uptake of ADUs.

What happened

Report presented to the council. The board acknowledged a relatively quiet year.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

An overview of the Planning Board's activities, including application approvals, subdivision work, and development regulations.

What happened

The report concluded that this was a busier year than the previous one.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion regarding the timeline and process for proposing updates to the town charter or rules of procedure.

What happened

The council discussed the need for a collective input process rather than individual proposals.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A discussion on improving the flow of information from town boards and subcommittees to the Town Council.

What happened

The council agreed to explore making subcommittee/committee reports a regular item on the agenda.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Elm Grove Companies CDBG Grant Application

The grant proposes $750,000 in federal funds for a private developer to renovate a 70-unit building into workforce housing. Residents expressed concerns regarding the use of the town's name for private gain, potential resident displacement, and long-term federal regulatory burdens.
Board position: The council ultimately rejected the grant application after a period of debate.
Internal dissent
The board was divided on whether to approve the grant, as evidenced by the failed motion following the public hearing.
high concern

Split votes

Election of Town Council Chair
4-2
Approval of the grant application for the Elm Grove properties workforce housing project
Failed
Motion to enter non-public session
6-1

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
11
Speakers
12
Comments
3
Addressed
3
Partial
6
Not addressed
Alyssa Ehl
▶ 38:00
Partial
The speaker argued against the grant application, stating that a private company is essentially using the town's name to secure federal funds for its own property renovations. She also expressed concern about the displacement of residents and their children from Hooksett schools. Key concern
Opposition to the grant due to private benefit and potential resident displacement.
Board response
The board (via the Town Administrator and project representatives) explained that the grant is a public-private partnership and that displacement would be minimal, though specific relocation options were not guaranteed.
The board/representatives answered the mechanics of the grant and displacement, but did not address the philosophical concern of the town 'lending its name' to a private entity.
Pam McMahon
▶ 41:30
Not addressed
The speaker questioned why federal grant money should be used for luxury-style amenities like a dog park and paver patio on a private, income-producing property. She argued that private landlords should pay for their own improvements. Key concern
Objection to using public funds for private property amenities.
Board response
The project representative explained that the grant is part of a larger re-syndication to workforce housing, but the board did not provide a direct rebuttal to the fairness of the principle.
The board and developer addressed the project scope but did not address the core argument regarding the equity of private landlords receiving public funds for amenities.
Bob Barker
▶ 42:30
Partial
The speaker raised multiple concerns, including the lack of town control over federal requirements, the potential for legal liability, and the use of unfinished administrative templates. He also noted that the project provides very little new housing supply relative to the amount of money involved. Key concern
Town liability, lack of prepared administrative plans, and minimal community benefit.
Board response
The Town Administrator and representatives addressed the lack of fiscal liability and the purpose of the grant, but the council did not resolve the concerns regarding the unfinished templates or the 'borrowed name' issue.
Administrative/fiscal questions were answered, but the concerns regarding the quality of the prepared plans and the fundamental nature of the transaction were not resolved.
Linda Helm
▶ 1:18:00
Not addressed
The speaker argued that the decision-making process is being rushed due to a developer's deadline rather than a town-driven timeline. She requested that the matter be tabled to allow for proper deliberation. Key concern
The urgency of the vote is dictated by a private company's deadline rather than town policy.
Board response
The board did not table the motion; they proceeded to a vote, which ultimately failed.
While the board eventually voted 'no' (effectively siding with the sentiment), they did not address the request to table the matter for more time during the actual hearing.
Debra McLaughlin
▶ 1:21:30
Addressed
The speaker asked what would happen to current tenants who earn above the new income limits once the building converts to workforce housing. She noted that the relocation plans provided were merely unfinished templates. Key concern
Fate of current residents during the transition to income-restricted housing.
Board response
The developer stated they would communicate with tenants and that displacement would be minimal, but confirmed that some might not qualify for the new limits.
The developer and board addressed the specific question regarding the residents' status and the income thresholds.
Ron Charpentier
▶ 1:24:53
Partial
As a contractor, the speaker warned that federal money comes with stringent requirements like Davis-Bacon prevailing wages and environmental reviews that can impact local control and costs long after the grant ends. Key concern
Long-term federal regulatory burdens and loss of local control.
Board response
The developer mentioned that some requirements (like Buy America) would apply, but the board did not provide a detailed policy response to the loss of local control.
The developer acknowledged some federal requirements, but the broader concern of long-term regulatory burden on the town was not fully addressed.
Chau Kelly
▶ 1:25:31
Not addressed
The speaker alleged that this is a common 'playbook' used by developers to borrow a town's name to secure grants. She also suggested that the town should not take on liabilities for private company benefits. Key concern
The pattern of developers using municipal names to acquire funds for private gain.
Board response
The developer mentioned other towns where they have done similar projects, but the board did not address the critique of the 'playbook' itself.
The developer provided examples of other projects, but the board did not address the concern regarding the pattern of behavior or municipal liability.
Ernie Benjimanga
▶ 1:28:33
Addressed
The speaker questioned the impact of the project on tax bills, how long the property must be held, and who would benefit from any future profits. He also urged the council to protect the town's credit and name. Key concern
Tax impact, property ownership duration, and profit distribution.
Board response
The developer explained that the property must be held for 15 years due to loan requirements and that the increased valuation would likely increase tax revenue.
The developer provided specific answers regarding the holding period and the tax implications.
David Ross
▶ 1:31:41
Not addressed
The speaker argued that the grant should benefit the community directly rather than a private developer. He suggested the town use funds for existing community needs like transportation or finishing other public projects instead. Key concern
Misalignment of grant purpose (community development vs. private development).
Board response
The board/developer did not respond to the suggestion of using funds for other specific community projects.
The speaker's alternative suggestions for community development were not addressed.
Jason Gerhard
▶ 1:39:01
Partial
The speaker raised a constitutional issue, suggesting that the town might be violating the state constitution by loaning its credit to a private corporation for profit. He also mentioned the potential for grand jury investigation into government corruption. Key concern
Constitutional legality regarding the lending of town credit to private corporations.
Board response
The Town Administrator defended the legality by stating that CDBG grants must go through a municipality and are common in public-private partnerships.
The Administrator provided a practical explanation of how the program works, but did not provide a legal rebuttal to the specific constitutional argument raised.
Alyssa Ehl
▶ 3:10:01
Addressed
The speaker asked for an update regarding the town assessors and questioned the legitimacy of a bid from a contractor who had lost their certification. Key concern
Integrity of the assessor bidding process.
Board response
The Town Administrator stated they would follow up with legal counsel to ensure due diligence was followed and noted the contract was structured as yearly renewable.
The Administrator addressed the inquiry and committed to a follow-up with legal counsel.
Anne Stomach
▶ 3:10:01
Addressed
The speaker provided a summary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment's activities over the past year, including variances, setbacks, and challenges with non-conforming lots. Key concern
Routine report/update on ZBA activities.
Board response
The board acknowledged the report.
This was a presentation of information rather than a request, which the board received.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Election of Town Council Chair
Lindsey LaLiberte was elected as Chair of the Town Council.
Passed (4 in favor, 2 against)
Election of Vice Chair
Jim Sullivan was elected as Vice Chair.
Passed (uncontested)
Election of Secretary
Randall LaPierre was elected as Secretary.
Passed (uncontested)
Approval of Town Council Rules of Procedure (Sections 2A, 3-12)
The council approved the specified sections of the Rules of Procedure.
Passed
Approval of the grant application for the Elm Grove properties multi-family workforce housing project at 5 Tallest Woods Road.
The motion was made by Councilor Duhaime and seconded by Councilor Lacoste. The roll call resulted in a failure to pass.
Failed
Approval of the civil forfeiture process for the licensing of dogs for the 2026 years presented by the Town Clerk.
In accordance with RSA 466-14, authorizing warrants for approximately 200 unregistered dogs.
Approved
Nomination and appointment of David Russell and Sheena Gilbert to the Planning Board for terms ending June 30, 2029.
The motion was made by a speaker and seconded. The transcript implies approval following the discussion of the motion.
Approved
Approval of the minutes from June 24th to June 26th.
The motion was made by a speaker and seconded by a speaker. Two members abstained due to absence.
Approved
Motion to enter non-public session under RSA 91-A:3, 2(a), (c), and (l).
Roll call conducted. Councillor Smith voted no because they had to leave.
Approved (6 Aye, 1 No)

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Community concerns and the outcome of a high-stakes decision
Hooksett Town Council rejected a $750,000 federal grant for the Elm Grove workforce housing project at 512 West River Road during the 7/8 meeting. Residents raised major concerns about resident displacement and using the... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hooksett/town-council/2026-07-08/ #MeetingWatch #HooksettNH
311/280 chars
Internal governance and information flow issues
At the 7/8 Town Council meeting, members admitted to a communication gap, noting they aren't getting timely updates from town boards on approved developments. The Council is now looking into making board reports a regular... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hooksett/town-council/2026-07-08/ #MeetingWatch #HooksettNH
312/280 chars
Split votes and board direction
The Hooksett Town Council is divided. The 7/8 meeting saw a 4-2 split vote on the election of the new Council Chair and a failed motion regarding the Elm Grove CDBG grant application. Internal divisions remain visible. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hooksett/town-council/2026-07-08/ #MeetingWatch #HooksettNH
306/280 chars

X thread

1
The July 8 Hooksett Town Council meeting was contentious, defined by a heated public hearing and split votes. Here is what residents need to know about the decisions affecting our community. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #HooksettNH
218/280
2
The biggest item: A $750,000 federal grant for Elm Grove Companies to convert a 70-unit building into 76 units of workforce housing. Public speakers argued the town shouldn't lend its credit to private developers or risk displacing current residents.
250/280
3
The outcome: After significant debate over zoning and resident notification, the Council voted NO on the grant application. The Council is now reviewing the public feedback received during the hearing.
201/280
4
Beyond the grant, the Council admitted to transparency gaps, noting they often lack timely updates from municipal boards on approved projects. They are currently exploring ways to mandate regular reports from subcommittees to ensure oversight. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hooksett/town-council/2026-07-08/
267/280

Facebook — long form

At the July 8 Town Council meeting, Hooksett residents made their voices heard regarding a proposed $750,000 federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The grant was intended to fund renovations for Elm Grove Companies to convert a building at 512 West River Road into 76 units of workforce housing.

During the public hearing, community members raised serious objections, arguing that the grant would essentially use the town's name and credit to benefit a private corporation. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential displacement of current tenants and the long-term regulatory implications for the town. After a period of debate concerning zoning and due diligence, the Council ultimately voted against the grant application.

Additionally, the meeting highlighted internal communication issues within our local government. Council members expressed frustration over a lack of timely updates from town boards and committees regarding approved developments. To address this, the Council is discussing making regular reports from these boards a standing item on future agendas to ensure better oversight and transparency. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hooksett/town-council/2026-07-08/ #MeetingWatch #HooksettNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Discuss moving the timing of certain board meetings from Friday mornings (8-12) to evening hours.
Assigned: Town Council
Designate a councilor to coordinate the annual town council old home day booth and employee appreciation picnic closer to the date.
Assigned: Town Council
Follow up with legal counsel regarding a constituent inquiry about the certification status of the town assessor vendor.
Assigned: Town Administrator / Legal Counsel
Resume monitoring of excavation permit sites and conduct tours of facilities.
Assigned: ZBA / Code Enforcement
Resume monitoring of excavation permit sites, beginning with Brock's.
Assigned: a speaker (ZBA Chair/Staff) · Due: This year
Coordinate 'off Wednesday' dates for a non-public meeting to discuss rules and procedures and coordinate with legal counsel.
Assigned: a speaker (Councilor) · Due: Between late July and August
Write up a charter amendment proposal for collective council input.
Assigned: a speaker (Councilor) · Due: By the next meeting
Provide a detailed report regarding the potential cell phone tower in South Hooksett.
Assigned: a speaker (Councilor)
Support coverage

Creating this report cost ⁠real money.

MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Hooksett.

Report composed by gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning, grok-4-fast · analyzed 2026-07-09.