Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband County Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let counties form countywide communications planning committees to explore broadband districts
Summary
House Bill 569 would authorize county commissioners to convene communications‑district planning committees and invite municipalities to opt in or out; supporters said it would unlock economies of scale for broadband, opponents urged municipal opt‑in and warned against county mandates.
The committee heard testimony on HB 569, a bill that would allow county commissioners to establish communications‑district planning committees to study whether a countywide broadband or communications district should be formed.
Representative Howard introduced the bill as enabling legislation that would let counties invite municipalities to form a planning committee and study potential economies of scale for broadband procurement and infrastructure. He said county‑level planning could simplify multi‑town coordination and help rural areas attract grant funding and private investment.
Supporters, including George Maglaras, president of the New Hampshire County Commissioners Council, said the change would remove ambiguity in current law and would be strictly enabling: municipalities could opt out and any actual district formation would still require municipal approval and bylaws. Maglaras said some counties and cities already ask the county to handle cross‑municipal problems and that counties sometimes provide services requested by groups of towns.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) opposed the bill in its current form, arguing that planning committees should be formed by opt‑in from municipal governing bodies rather than by a county commission initiating the process and expecting towns to opt out. NHMA cited existing districts formed organically in Carroll and Grafton counties and urged preserving municipal control over whether to study or join districts.
Testimony included examples: Grafton County has a communications district formed by cooperating municipalities, while Grafton’s letter from a county attorney raised questions about RSA 53‑gs and the authority of county commissioners. Representatives and commissioners discussed committee composition, potential member counts, and the option for towns to opt out at multiple stages.
Public sign‑ins were split: remote sign‑in showed four in support, four opposed and one neutral; paper sheets recorded one in support and one opposed. The committee closed the public hearing with no immediate vote.
Ending: Committee members asked staff to clarify RSA language and how existing districts were formed; no action was taken Monday.
