Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reduced Default Budget Sb2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to let SB2 communities offer reduced default‑budget option draws institutional opposition
Summary
A bill to allow SB2 communities to place a reduced default‑budget option (1%–10%) on the official ballot drew opposition from school boards and municipal groups during a Senate committee hearing.
Representative Juliet Harvey Bollier introduced House Bill 613 to allow local subdivisions that have adopted the SB2 official‑ballot referendum form of meeting to add a reduced default‑budget option on the ballot. Under the bill as presented, a local governing body could place on the warrant a reduced default‑budget option of between 1 percent and 10 percent, and adoption would require a three‑fifths (60 percent) vote on the official ballot.
Sponsor testimony said the change gives voters an additional, simple percentage choice aimed at limiting year‑over‑year increases in operating budgets and property taxes. Representative Bollier said it would provide “some semblance of predictability” and allow communities to target modest year‑to‑year reductions.
Opponents included the New Hampshire School Boards Association (Barrett Christina) and the New Hampshire Municipal Association (Brody Deshaies). Barrett Christina testified the association opposes creating a “third” budget option and noted practical concerns about implementation and workforce shortages. Brody Deshaies said an arbitrary reduced default percentage could create funding shortfalls that conflict with contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements, and he warned the option might hamstring local leaders.
Public testimony in the online hearing record leaned against the bill: the committee’s record shows six online comments in support and 23 opposed. Supporters including Aubrey Friedman said the provision would give taxpayers more control and the official‑ballot requirement (not a voice vote) would allow voters to express choices privately.
The committee held a full public hearing on the bill and closed public comment; the transcript records extensive debate. The committee discussion in executive session is recorded but the transcript provided does not include a final, confirmed roll‑call committee recommendation for HB 613. The chair and members discussed related budget issues and referenced other bills the committee had been considering; one senator suggested tabling some bills on the Senate floor to allow sponsors to return in the fall to refine language.
Because no final committee recommendation for HB 613 appears in the supplied transcript, the bill’s committee status remains the public‑hearing record and any subsequent action will be reflected in the official committee report or Senate calendar.
