Belknap County delegation hears hours of public comment on request to reinstate funding for UNH Cooperative Extension, conservation district and CASA

The Belknap County delegation held a public hearing at 6 p.m. to receive testimony on a commissioners’ request for a supplemental appropriation to restore funding for three outside agencies: UNH Cooperative Extension, the Belknap County Conservation District (BCCD) and CASA of New Hampshire. The chair said the request was made “pursuant to RSA 24:14‑a,” and the hearing was limited to public comment; the delegation will deliberate and vote on the appropriation in two weeks.

The hearing drew more than two hours of public testimony both supporting and opposing the restoration of county funds. Supporters said the agencies deliver services—lake monitoring, farm and forestry technical assistance, youth development and court advocacy—that leverage outside grants and benefit the county’s economy. Opponents said the cuts were appropriate given the county’s recent budget vote and raised concerns about duplication of services, accountability and using county tax revenue to fund nonprofit or quasi‑governmental programs.

“Cooperative Extension is funded through a federal, state, and county partnership,” said Amy Loder, who identified herself as working for Cooperative Extension. She described recent local staffing reductions and warned that the county would lose technical services if funding was not restored: “Without a natural resources educator, Belknap residents will not have access to technical assistance and forestry,” she said, and she noted last year’s 99 consultations by extension foresters.

Jamie Irving, identified as chair of the Conservation District, told the delegation that county contributions allow the district to leverage additional grant funds and that cutting staff hobbles that capacity: “By having our budget, you basically hamstring her and her ability to do this. … We turn it into so much more,” Irving said. Jan Hooper, a retired full‑time staffer at BCCD, told the delegation that the district has historically matched county funds to roughly $1 million in outside grants and asked that the district’s request of $51,700 be restored.

Tara Bergeron, representing CASA of New Hampshire, said CASA provides volunteer court advocates for children in Belknap County and that those volunteers are local: “We provide volunteer advocates for the children of Belknap County, and this is being done by citizens of Belknap County,” she said, adding that CASA was “currently serving 17 children in Belknap County.”

Opponents included taxpayers who said the programs should be supported by private donations rather than county taxes. David Strang of Gilmanton said he opposed the request and asked for “accounting” for how agency funds are spent: “Until there is an accounting to me, the taxpayer, I do not support using any county funds to support these non governmental outside agencies,” he said.

Several speakers stressed economic links between the agencies and county revenues. Amy Loder cited farm statistics discussed in testimony—“farms in Belknap that occupy 28,000 acres and sell $8,600,000 in farm products”—and multiple speakers said lake water quality monitoring protects tourism and local businesses. Richard Mark told the delegation the conservation district’s work had leveraged “over $357,000” in grant funding and that the district has historically brought significant grant dollars into the county.

The hearing also included debate over procedure. Representative Lisa Freeman moved to adopt the public comment procedures and conduct; Representative Terry seconded the motion. The delegation took a roll call and approved the rules by a 15‑to‑1 vote, with Representative St. Clair recorded as the lone “no.” The chair repeatedly emphasized the two‑minute public comment limit and said written testimony could be submitted to the clerk and would be accepted into the record if delivered before the next meeting.

Commissioners who attended asked to present a brief PowerPoint during public comment; the chair permitted a short presentation as long as it met the two‑minute limit. At the hearing’s close the chair said the delegation would meet again in two weeks to deliberate and vote on the commissioners’ supplemental appropriation request.

Discussion points recorded during the hearing included the agencies’ ability to leverage county funds into larger grants, the local economic value of lake and farm services, the potential duplication of services with state programs (an argument raised by some speakers), and concerns about accountability and transparency for outside agencies that receive county dollars. Several speakers asked for public answers to follow‑up questions so constituents who did not attend could see responses, and a delegate expressed the same concern about public follow‑up.

No formal appropriation or reversal was made at the hearing; the only formal action taken was adoption of the public comment procedures. Delegates will take up the appropriation at a future meeting as the chair directed.

Ending: The hearing closed after hours of public testimony; the delegation is scheduled to meet in two weeks to deliberate and vote on whether to reinstate the commissioners’ requested funding. Members of the public were told they may submit written testimony in advance of that meeting for inclusion in the record.