Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select board to place conservation 'optional powers' article on March warrant after extended debate
Summary
After a lengthy discussion about control of town conservation funds, the Bow Select Board voted 4-1 to place an RSA 36-A:4-a 'optional powers' warrant article on the March town meeting ballot, allowing the Conservation Commission to use commission funds through qualified organizations such as land trusts.
The Bow Select Board voted 4-1 on Jan. 14 to place an RSA 36-A:4-a “optional powers” warrant article on the March town meeting ballot, a move that would allow the Conservation Commission to transfer commission funds to qualified organizations, typically land trusts, to assist with acquiring and managing conservation land.
Supporters, including Sandy Crystal, chair of the Bow Conservation Commission, and Harry Hathaway of Bow Open Spaces, told the board the optional powers tool would speed transactions and let local land trusts front costs, apply for grants and share monitoring responsibilities. Crystal said the tool had been adopted by more than 40 New Hampshire towns and would let the town leverage external expertise while protecting Bow’s natural resources.
Opponents on the board warned the language would permit the commission to transfer town-controlled conservation money to private nonprofits, potentially reducing direct municipal ownership of conservation easements. Selectman Chris raised concerns that the statute does not require the conservation commission to give funds only to a local land trust and argued for internal controls or policy language to limit transfers to Bow Open Spaces. Several board members pressed for clarity about safeguards and noted voters at town meeting would have the final say.
Town Manager David and Crystal told the board that the statute directs the question to the voters; if the board places the warrant article, voters at town meeting will decide whether to adopt the optional powers. Supporters suggested the commission could adopt administrative procedures to limit how funds are used, such as requiring select-board review above a set dollar amount.
After extended discussion, a motion to place the RSA 36-A:4-a article on the warrant carried 4-1. The warrant placement means the full town electorate will have the opportunity to accept or reject optional powers on town meeting day.
The debate centered on balancing the commission’s ability to close time-sensitive conservation deals and donors’ reluctance to work with municipal governments, against residents’ concerns about when and how municipal conservation funds could be transferred to outside organizations.
