Nelson rejects return to part‑time police; approves detail revolving fund

At the March 14, 2026 Town of Nelson meeting, residents voted against Article 17 — a citizen petition to return the Nelson Police Department to part‑time status at the end of the current contract — by paper ballot, 58 in favor and 69 opposed.

The question had been heavily debated. Proponent David Bower presented cost comparisons with nearby towns, arguing contracted sheriff coverage could be substantially less expensive than maintaining a full‑time officer. Supporters of the petition told the meeting that Nelson historically relied on part‑time policing and that a large share of residents are on fixed incomes; one pro‑petition speaker said, in effect, the town could not justify the full‑time cost for a small, largely residential community.

Opponents defended the town’s full‑time officer on public‑safety and community‑engagement grounds. Several residents described personal experience with the current officer (identified in testimony as "Joe") as a reason to retain full‑time coverage.

Lew Derby, the moderator, directed the paper ballot and clarified that a YES vote would have signaled returning to part‑time policing and that any change would affect the 2027 budget rather than the already approved 2026 operating budget.

Separately, voters approved Article 12 to establish a Police Revolving Fund under RSA 31:95‑h. The revolving fund (opened with a $100 appropriation) allows the town to deposit and carry forward revenues from police special details and to expend them for police purposes upon order of the governing body and the police chief without returning to the legislative body for each expenditure. Brenna Kucinski, who presented the article, said the fund institutionalizes an existing practice and prevents detail earnings from reverting to the general fund at year‑end.

Opponents raised concerns about officer availability for details, bookkeeping burden and possible out‑of‑town detail activity; a proposed amendment to change the approving authority from the "governing body" to the "legislative body" failed on a voice vote. Article 12 passed on a standing vote.

Article 13, an appropriation for patrols/details ($20,000) that anticipated offsetting revenue, was passed over because Article 12, as approved, makes an annual detail appropriation unnecessary.

What happens next: Article 17’s defeat means the police department remains full‑time under the existing contract; the Police Revolving Fund is now authorized and will accept and retain detail income for police use. The selectboard and town staff will implement accounting procedures for the new fund and any budgetary consequences of staffing decisions will appear in the 2027 town budget process.