GOFFSTOWN, N.H. – After four hours of deliberation, the Hillsborough County Delegation Convention approved a $148,319,029 budget for Fiscal Year 2026. That amount included $1,624,206 for covering the cost of three new collective bargaining agreements with county employees and did not include a $734,781 amount for a potential contract between the county and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.
The budget figure presents an approximately 20 percent increase in the amount raised through county taxes from the previous year, with that figure coming out to $82,553,681 with an amount of $3,650,667 of the final surplus figure from the Fiscal Year 2025 budget to be used for the purpose of reducing the county tax rate.
Hillsborough County Administrator Chad Monier said that the primary driver for this increase came from an increase in the county’s Medicaid funding responsibilities, which rose to $44 million in this budget while support from the Proportionate Share or ProShare from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – a significant source of financial aid for the county – continued its downward trend over the past several years. In this budget, that amount had reached $2 million, down from a one-time peak of $13 million.
Several Republicans voiced concerns with the size of the increase, with some threatening to walk out of the meeting entirely if they could not be given a recess to caucus and determine how they would approach the situation, a request they were eventually granted after significant confusion. One Republican, State Representative Ross Berry of Weare, decided to leave early regardless, feeling that being forced to accept such an increase was not a reasonable request.
“I think a 20 percent property tax increase right now is insane and the fact that we’re having this conversation right now is honestly offensive,” he said. “No one’s property values went up 22 percent, but apparently the county needs 22 percent more of their money.”
While some members of the convention noted that surplus fund balances could be used to offset the amount of money needed to be appropriated through county taxes on property owners, it was also noted that the county currently has approximately $10 million in its unreserved fund balance, basically its “rainy day fund,” drawing down too much of that amount would negatively impact the county’s bond rating given unofficial guidance noted by those at the meeting to keep that balance at certain recommended percentages of the total budget in case of unexpected significant expenses.
Additionally, without enough funding in that account line, which Monier told the convention was not in the form of cash, such unexpected significant expenses would result in either much larger tax increases or significant cuts of county government staff.
The idea of tax anticipatory notices or TANs – type of ultra-short term bond – was offered as a solution if the convention decided to significantly draw down the unreserved fund balance before the bulk of new appropriations revenue came to the county in December. The county has not used a TAN in over 20 years and Hillsborough County Treasurer David Fredette said that TANs were no longer generally offered, but Citizens Bank could offer a similar financial instrument to the county with a 4 percent interest rate.
A motion to use that $10 million of the county’s unreserved fund balance failed on a roll call vote, 58-39 (see list above). Later in the evening, the final vote on the budget passed on a roll call vote, 58-31 (see list below.)
Like Ross, several Republicans expressed their frustration after the meeting with the results of the vote on the budget.
“It was a huge increase,” said Keith Ammon (R-New Boston) on the budget. “Almost all Democrats voted for it, almost all Republicans voted against it. So when you want to know why your taxes are going up, which party are you going to believe?”
Although Monier’s position is apolitical, he was pleased that a budget of any kind was passed, as state statute does not have a specific response for what would happen if a budget were not in place by the beginning of the next fiscal year on July 1, potentially necessitating a continuing budget resolution from the committee before that point to avoid not having any funds at all for county services after that point.
Democrats argued that the removal of the $734,781 for the line item that would allocate money to the potential ICE contract would help in regard to reducing the budget, although several Republicans countered that the funding allocation was meant to exist in contingency in advance of the possible contract agreement and may not be fully used. They also noted that the money was intended to provide enough resources so ICE could later reimburse the county rather than just use local resources without any reimbursement, although Democrats expressed concerns that reimbursement requests would be honored after reports of issues from other local governments elsewhere in the country.
Mark McKenzie (D-Manchester), Vice Chair of the Convention, stated that he was moved by the comments during Wednesday’s public comment session where county residents spoke out against the proposal in a 26-to-1 margin. And while some of his colleagues stated that the contract would be a boilerplate agreement, he said that he could not support it at this time given that specifics of the agreement remained uncertain.
“I don’t want to be in this business, and I can’t do it right now because I can’t go to the people of Manchester and say ‘I don’t know’ when they ask me about details of this contract,” he said.
Non-financial aspects of the agreement, which would in theory allocate somewhere between 30 and 92 beds for ICE use at Valley Street Jail for detainees until they are transferred for deportation, were also a source of contention. Republicans’ views state that ICE immigration enforcement and detainment would happen in some form with or without this agreement and it removed dangerous undocumented non-citizens from the area. Democrats argued that ICE actions are not just targeted at more dangerous individuals and undermines trust between the public and law enforcement. Patrick Long (D-Manchester), not to be confused with State Senator Pat Long who was also a long-time Democratic state representative from Manchester, was one of the Democrats speaking in opposition to the ICE agreement.
“Multiple Republican state representatives misrepresented who ICE detains, indicated that they are either misinformed about the issue or intentionally misleading the public: it is not just serious criminals,” said Long, who is also an attorney. “President Obama focused his deportation efforts on serious criminals, but it hasn’t really worked that way since then. I think the issue would be far less contentious if their claim was true. I agree with deporting serious criminals and I think most other Democrats do, too. But that’s an Obama policy, not a Trump policy. (Trump’s) scattershot approach takes resources away from deporting serious criminals.”
A motion to table the removal of funds for the ICE agreement was later discovered to be out of order under Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary system used by the convention. That moment was one of several moments of parliamentary confusion during the meeting led by Megan Murray (D-Amherst), such as the numerous occasions when Convention Clerk Linda Harriott-Gathright (D-Nashua) struggled to pronounce the names of large portions of the convention during multiple roll call votes and other moments where motions were accepted only to be paused after there was uncertainty whether they would need more than a simple majority for acceptance.
The roll call on the motion passed 54-40 (see list below)
“I think there was a lot of concern among the delegation,” said Will Darby (D-Nashua), the initiator of the motion. “We heard a lot of concern out of our constituents yesterday that we don’t want to be unnecessarily detaining people in the county jail, and I think the delegation heard that concern loud and clear tonight.”
Darby also helped shepherd another motion across the finish line that would effectively eliminate per diem payments for state representatives attending other county meetings for the rest of this year and next year.
An initial motion to reduce that funding was found to be out of order as it had to align with a specific line item and reduction amount in the budget. The total cost savings was calculated at $12,000 and another motion was made by Jeremy Slottje (R-Hudson) using that amount and the specific line item in the budget, with a roll call vote on the item passed 67-24 (see list below). However, Darby noted that under state law, another motion would be needed to suspend the rules of the convention to allow this motion, as under New Hampshire Revised Statute Annotated Chapter 24:9-ee, the members of the convention were legally entitled to the money and the previous motion would have technically violated state law without the suspension of the rules. This motion passed on a 72-2 division vote.
“It’s a way for us to give a little bit back, right?” said Slottje. “I really enjoy the fact that we have a volunteer legislature and if we’re asking taxpayers to give up more, it only stands to reason that we give some (money) back as a balance to show that we’re sensitive to their concerns and we’re trying to send the right message.”
