Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Governance Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grafton County redistricting, five‑commissioner plan draws heavy public opposition
Summary
House Bill 643, which proposes expanding Grafton County commissioners from three to five and standardizing two‑year terms, drew opposition from county officials, local voters and the county commissioners council who said the change was politically driven and would raise county costs.
House Bill 643, proposing to expand Grafton County’s board of commissioners from three to five and to require two‑year terms for all commissioners, drew extensive testimony and opposition at Monday’s hearing.
Representative David Walker introduced the bill. Local residents, county officials and county commissioners testified largely against the change. Speakers described the proposed districts as disparate in population, noted a drafting error that excluded the town of Piermont from the proposed map and warned of increased costs to taxpayers.
Grafton County officials — including Commissioner Kate Hedberg and County Administrator Mark Brady — told the committee the change would increase county spending roughly $40,000 a year and undermine a rotating four‑year term system designed to preserve institutional knowledge. Hedberg said the proposed districts appeared to be drawn by geographic size rather than population and that one town was omitted from the draft map.
Public testimony included multiple local leaders and voters who said the county delegation had not requested the change and that the measure appeared politically motivated. Commissioner George Maglaras, president of the New Hampshire County Commissioners Council, urged the committee to let county delegations consider internal governance changes and said historically such decisions were made locally.
Remote sign‑in showed 72 opposed and zero in support; the paper blue sheet recorded one in support. The committee closed the public hearing with the matter pending further committee action.
Ending: Committee members noted the scope of local opposition and the drafting issues raised by multiple witnesses; no committee vote was taken at the public hearing.
