At a meeting of the Belknap County Delegation, members voted to reject a county commissioners’ request for a $130,000 supplemental appropriation and then approved a motion to prevent any additional county funding for UNH Cooperative Extension, the Belknap County Conservation District and CASA beyond sums already approved in the county budget adopted March 29, 2025.

The initial motion to reject the supplemental appropriation was offered by Representative Bulger. He said, “I'd like to make a motion to reject the request for supplemental appropriation as the request did not meet the requirements of RSA 24 14 dash a.” The roll call on that motion was recorded as passing; the chair announced, “11 to 2. Motion passes.”

After that vote, Representative Terry offered a separate, standalone motion to withhold future county funding to the three organizations, specifying the bar would apply “in addition to the sums that already have been approved for each in the county budget that we adopted on 03/29/2025.” Representative Baldrige seconded the motion. The delegation approved that motion by roll call, 9 to 4, and the chair declared the motion passed.

Debate focused on process and the services the agencies provide. Some members said the commissioners’ supplemental request did not follow the procedure required under RSA 24:14-a; Representative Bulger tied his rejection to that statutory requirement. Representative Tom Clark said he would abstain from the later funding-bar vote because of recently adopted ethics rules, stating, “I am going to have to abstain from this vote due to the ethics rules that we passed this year.”

Other delegates argued about the practical effects of reducing county support. One speaker noted the conservation district’s local funds can help secure outside grants and described a claimed “32 to 1 multiplier” for grant leverage tied to county support. Delegates also discussed CASA’s volunteer model and how volunteer-driven services compare to paid alternatives if county funding were reduced.

Supporters of the funding ban framed the measure as temporary and revisitable; Representative Terry told colleagues the motion’s restriction applies “as of today” and that members could bring motions later in the calendar year at a duly called meeting to restore or provide funding.

The meeting record shows additional related public comment and internal discussion occurred during the session, and several delegates emphasized concerns about transparency and procedure in the commissioners’ request. The delegation moved on to other business after the votes, including a personal donation to CASA and brief discussion of 4‑H fair preparations.

The delegation did not adopt the $130,000 appropriation and voted to prevent additional county funding to the three named organizations beyond existing budgeted amounts; members noted the action could be revisited later in the year through a new motion at a properly noticed meeting.