The Dec. 17 meeting of the Hudson Budget Committee highlighted ongoing uncertainty over what should – and should not – be included in next March’s default budget. After reviewing the latest figures, members raised concerns about several spending increases that appeared in the default despite questions about whether they qualified as required obligations.
“I just thought that the default budget, regardless of whether it’s the school or town, is dictated by our say as we’ve read out loud, and it’s supposed to be very definitive over what is allowed in and what’s not allowed in,” said Selectmen Liaison Xen Vurgaropulos.
Default budgets typically include only the previous year’s approved budget plus any recurring or legally mandated costs, such as contractual salary and benefit obligations. But determining what qualifies as an obligation has not always been straightforward. According to Budget Committee member Shawn Jasper, that ambiguity has sometimes allowed questionable increases to slip into the default.
“Unfortunately, the RSA does not say what I think it should say,” Jasper said. “At this point, it’s really what the School Board and the town Selectmen decide what’s going to go in there, and there’s not much we can do about it.”
The New Hampshire Municipal Association provides guidance on how towns should calculate default budgets, but Jasper expressed doubt that the organization would intervene if a town or school district stretched the definition of “obligation.”
“I don’t see the Municipal Association being in a situation where they say, ‘The town and the school district can’t put those things in,’” Jasper said, adding that the default budget was intended to be the “painful” alternative when voters reject a proposed budget.
Committee Chair James Lawrence agreed that the authority ultimately rests with the School Board.
“We may feel that some of these items may not have been calculated in accordance with the state statute. The authority to calculate this default budget squarely resides with the School Board,” Lawrence said. “We can ask them to take a look at it, and I’m going to formally ask Mr. Kilgour to take these items into consideration, but it takes action on their part to resolve it.”
Among the items flagged as questionable were $50,000 for a summer STEM program, increases to the school transportation budget, and higher healthcare costs.
“If you have a transportation contract which is signed that says, ‘This will be the increases for 2026–2027,’ that’s different. You don’t have a signed contract for your health insurance that says, ‘This will be the cost,’” Jasper said. “By the time we get done, our recommendation is going to be lower than the default budget since we’re so close to begin with.”
This is not the first time the default budget has been criticized for being too close to the proposed annual budget.
“I would like the School Board to really, really look at this much better. I find it hard to believe that the default budget is just shy of $1 million lower than the proposed budget,” said Vurgaropulos. “This is the default. It means we failed. This is what we get, but as written, it still says they get everything, the way I see it. I don’t think this is a good default budget in my opinion.”
School Board member Dan Kilgour said he would bring the disputed line items to the Board for further review.