Hudson voters rejected two citizen petition warrant articles at the polls last week, signaling strong support for maintaining the town’s current structure for both the Planning Board and the default budget process. Both articles were defeated by wide margins.
One petition asked voters whether Hudson should change the method of selecting Planning Board members, shifting from elected positions to appointed ones. The proposal would have returned the Planning Board to a structure used in the past, with the Board of Selectmen responsible for appointing members under RSA 673:2 and RSA 673:5. Current elected members would have been allowed to finish their terms before the change took effect.
The Board of Selectmen voted 3–2 not to recommend the article, and voters ultimately agreed. The measure failed decisively, with 2,151 residents voting against it and 552 voting in favor. The result reflects a clear preference among voters to keep Planning Board members directly accountable to the electorate rather than appointed by town officials.
A second petition warrant article asked whether Hudson should adopt RSA 40:14b, which would delegate responsibility for determining the town’s default budget to the Budget Committee instead of the Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen was split on the issue, with Selectmen Heidi Jakoby and Xen Vurgaropulos supporting the article and the remaining members opposed.
During earlier discussions, Board Chair Dillon Dumont expressed concerns about shifting that authority. “I think the Budget Committee, in controlling both of these articles, can possibly be a little self serving,” he said, noting that the committee already plays a major role in shaping the town’s financial decisions.
The Budget Committee itself opted not to make a recommendation, explaining that because the petition carried no monetary value, it was not required to weigh in. However, committee members did discuss the history and intent behind the default budget process.
Budget Committee member Shawn Jasper offered a detailed explanation of how Hudson’s default budget system evolved after the town adopted Senate Bill 2 many years ago. He noted that the default budget was originally intended to be a restrictive fallback option that encouraged cooperation in crafting a reasonable operating budget. “Before, the default budget and the proposed operating budget were always worlds apart,” Jasper said.
Over time, however, Jasper explained that the default budget has occasionally exceeded the proposed operating budget, something he said should be nearly impossible if the law is followed strictly. He emphasized that there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure the default budget is calculated as intended, which has contributed to ongoing debate about who should control the process.
Jasper said that while he personally dislikes seeing the default budget pass, he believes it is an important option for taxpayers and that delegating its calculation to the Budget Committee aligns with the original intent of the law. He ultimately supported recommending the proposed operating budget but said the petition’s goal was understandable.
Despite the discussion, voters rejected the article 1,883 to 747, opting to keep the current system in place.
Both petition articles generated significant conversation in the weeks leading up to the election, but the results show that Hudson residents were not persuaded to make structural changes to either the Planning Board or the budget process this year.
