Kingston Select Board, budget committee express opposition to SB 297 risk-pool changes

The Kingston Select Board voted unanimously to send a letter opposing SB 297, legislation that would change supervision and assessment rules for municipal pooled risk programs, after public comment and a draft letter presented by resident Pam Brown.

Brown, who has followed legislative hearings on the bill, warned the board that the bill — as drafted and discussed at committee work sessions — could require municipalities to absorb assessments if a pooled risk program became insolvent. “Healthcare is currently Kingston's single most expensive budget item,” Brown said in public comment, and she told the board she had reviewed hearing testimony and minutes indicating some risk pools had underpriced premiums to grow market share, contributing to solvency concerns.

At the meeting Brown asked the board to forward a letter to the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee. She said she had drafted a letter for the board; the text read for the record by Select Board Chair Glenn Koppelman urged committee members not to adopt SB 297 as written because it could require municipalities to pay assessments above annual contributions and transfer regulatory oversight from the Secretary of State to the New Hampshire Department of Insurance.

Koppelman read the letter on behalf of the board: “Moving risk pool supervision rules and regulations from the secretary of state to the New Hampshire department of insurance essentially assures the risk pools would become designated insurance companies, and thus, 100% risk bearers with members being obligated to pay policy premiums.” He said the town strongly urged the committee to consider municipal budget impacts and asked that SB 297 not move forward to adoption.

The board voted to authorize Koppelman to sign the letter and to transmit it to committee members; the motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. Budget Committee Chair Stacy Dion told the board the Budget Committee also voted to send a letter and recommended a second, complementary letter emphasizing the difficulty of absorbing any unexpected midyear assessments. Dion said timing is a particular concern because some municipalities operate on calendar-year budgets and could be forced to respond without the ability to reallocate funds.

Koppelman and board members said they would email the letter to committee staff and also submit it through the legislative comment portal; they noted committee materials showed a subcommittee work session scheduled the following Wednesday. The board did not take any additional formal policy action beyond approving the letter.