[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6347262,"mediaKeyId","2245822-aa5b58fd548147f48df8a4130cf78a9e","parentId",2245822,"title","Citizen petition would allow homestead food sales in Plaistow; voters to decide on March ballot after minor RSA clarification","audioSeconds",1,"startMs",11852,"endMs",13182,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245822-aa5b58fd548147f48df8a4130cf78a9e&start=11&end=13","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245822-aa5b58fd548147f48df8a4130cf78a9e/thumbnail_11852.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6347262/New-Hampshire/Citizen-petition-would-allow-homestead-food-sales-in-Plaistow-voters-to-decide-on-March-ballot-after-minor-RSA-clarification","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347262-184214a083b0a097b7e1ebf7482298f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166253&Signature=Df~I32nOwHRt00l0c9ylR6dGlT65smLhpJLs6vZsvZL~BXQsc4tbI53weUtxm9xPvg5qL48ljoG0eCVP~zOIIHa8jUumD8R7yAexJxXeVecwllHyBa2NDKA8zRRL9YERzPuzB4i-4nyCSB1aTIzsoSWj5QyDlpPrpGC7ri~T~WXTmTglWuGYPR07-E8xuxyvsuq34A-q6a1S~eJTOtRITd-RtcTiSxNpn319hh~hleRNYUFD7KJTx~CF1PvcrLDUk7eXAD09Yu0Gw79Z6W2CdXjehcEkMpsC4g3r5kn764uA~Qzg~8eGeaffffAEjA9MiCSK14LfjazJ6EJPN7YGJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of Plaistow NH","date","2025-02-01T00:00:00Z","article","Plaistow — A citizen’s petition to amend Plaistow public‑health regulations to permit homestead food operations passed at the Feb. 1 deliberative session and will appear on the official ballot as amended. The amendment corrected a clerical reference to the state statute cited in the petition (RSA 143‑A:12).

The petitioner, Daniel Kane (64 Main Street), asked voters to permit “homestead food products” as defined under state law. Kane told the meeting that the petition would allow small‑scale sales of non‑potentially hazardous foods — for example, baked goods and similar products — and said many New Hampshire municipalities already allow such operations.

Why it matters: The change would allow residents to sell certain home‑produced foods directly to consumers without a commercial kitchen license, subject to state definitions and labeling requirements. Opponents raised public‑health concerns and asked for clarity on which foods are allowed; proponents said state law already limits higher‑risk items and requires labeling.

What was discussed
- State definitions and labeling: Kane and several supporters explained the petition follows RSA 143‑A:12 definitions; supporters noted that state guidance requires labeling with ingredients and allergen information, and that the law distinguishes exempt versus non‑exempt homestead activities.

- Food-safety concerns: Selectmen and some residents asked whether local health enforcement would have adequate tools if a problem occurred. Several residents — including Jessica Pelletier and Julie Labreck — argued the activity is low‑risk and that consumers can choose whether to purchase homemade goods.

Amendment and outcome
Town Clerk and the moderator noted a typographical omission in the petition’s statutory citations (the petition cited “RSA 143:12” where the state statute is coded as RSA 143‑A:12). The petitioner agreed to a small edit to add the missing “A” in the RSA references. As amended, the motion to place the petition on the ballot was seconded and the article as amended will appear on the March 11 ballot.

Next steps
The article as amended will be on the ballot March 11; if approved by voters it would change local public‑health regulations to permit homestead food operations consistent with the RSA definitions and state rulemaking. The town health officer and state guidance would remain reference points for labeling and allowable foods.

Ending note
The petition generated spirited discussion but the assembly accepted the technical correction and sent the amended article to the ballot. Voters who want more detail were directed to UNH Cooperative Extension guidance and the state RSA for the statutory definitions and labeling requirements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Plaistow NH, Deliberative Session 02/01/2025","oneSentenceSummary","A citizen’s petition to allow homestead food operations (non‑potentially hazardous foods) in Plaistow passed to the ballot as amended to correct RSA citations. Supporters and opponents debated food-safety and labeling rules; the article will appear on the March 11 ballot.","taxTitle","Plaistow Board of Selectmen, Plaistow, Rockingham County, New Hampshire","taxId",76018,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6347266,"Selectmen-backed article would allow up to 30-year lease of Plaistow landfill for solar; amendment to require final contract on warrant fails",0,9222,10047,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245822-aa5b58fd548147f48df8a4130cf78a9e&start=9&end=10","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245822-aa5b58fd548147f48df8a4130cf78a9e/thumbnail_9222.jpg","/articles/6347266/New-Hampshire/Selectmen-backed-article-would-allow-up-to-30-year-lease-of-Plaistow-landfill-for-solar-amendment-to-require-final-contract-on-warrant-fails","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347266-ae1756754f6c3a6e74bf03ed654337aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166253&Signature=Fb~-5qMr5A8C~cfdkcacZbwxcfHjG49CNVuxlvZqAwZOzeJZkFJE8IIvty5hyh3JLJkW45Xn9xlnWWizgff08RG9Ddht-VrJk-ZCcEGWFP1EQdCXgrJSH556stqVAATSWXxYoEBxAt16qwAw3cZIwyD732fYE3EgVt0zXHegmXSc6sua3B5TsQdSpcJmss2AOrtYrgdea7U~7B4XWjfxqC9WVf0oC1TW9Nc3R5x1pWlDEXrIxCScjdOHSfOCPAueSUNn2NqDMOBvMv1kfDd1NF8ZcWkBenZvHNgXTUvYoKwJ7UCrjfAh8yh0q0VewWb9x3OEjqy04A-ksA1NuUUEzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Plaistow — Voters at the Feb. 1 deliberative session voted to place a warrant article on the town ballot authorizing the Board of Selectmen to negotiate and execute a lease and related documents allowing a solar energy array on the closed Plaistow landfill (Parcel 32-032-000-00) for a period up to 30 years.

Select Board member Liz Costa, speaking for the town’s energy committee, said the article would allow the town to accept proposals from developers and perform initial due diligence. “We have been talking to a variety of vendors,” Costa said; the article authorizes the board to negotiate lease and power‑purchase terms and execute documents \"on such terms as the Select Board deems reasonable\" if the town approves the approach.

Why it matters: The landfill site is one of the few town-owned properties large enough for a utility-scale array. Developers typically require longer lease terms (two decades or more) to justify investment in site work and interconnection; the article would allow the town to offer the longer terms developers seek.

Amendment and vote
Resident Nolan Pelletier moved an amendment that would have required the final negotiated contract to be placed on the town warrant for voter approval before execution. The moderator called for a vote on the amendment; the floor count recorded 6 in favor to a larger number opposed and the amendment failed.

Supporters and concerns
Supporters said the landfill provides an appropriate location for renewable generation and could provide lease revenue to the town or support municipal energy needs if configured that way. Opponents and some voters asked for stronger protections in any lease — including decommissioning and site‑restoration requirements — and for assurances that heavy site work would not compromise the landfill cap. Selectmen and staff said engineering review and contractual protections (including decommissioning language and removal obligations) would be part of any negotiated agreement.

Process and next steps
By passing the article to the ballot, the selectmen are authorized to continue negotiations with potential vendors. Selectmen and town staff said they intend to hold public information sessions and to involve legal counsel and engineers during negotiations. Any final contract will proceed under the terms shown in the warrant process; the original floor amendment to require a return to warrant was defeated.

Ending note
If approved by voters at the March 11 ballot, the selectmen may negotiate a lease up to the 30‑year maximum stated in the article; specific financial and operational terms would be disclosed in subsequent public materials and any required legal review.","A warrant article authorizing the selectmen to lease the closed town landfill for a solar array passed to the ballot; an amendment to require the final negotiated lease to return to town meeting failed on the floor.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":42,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6347272,"Plaistow debate over $13.3 million operating budget ends with article placed on ballot as written",1292,2976,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245822-aa5b58fd548147f48df8a4130cf78a9e&start=1&end=2","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245822-aa5b58fd548147f48df8a4130cf78a9e/thumbnail_1292.jpg","/articles/6347272/New-Hampshire/Plaistow-debate-over-133-million-operating-budget-ends-with-article-placed-on-ballot-as-written","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347272-2e31461cb79e2605180e2e1b38411376/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166253&Signature=M-B4B5baZIwzbpohBl1WWlIbMQ0-CbKs3lRCHVa1WM6M-JWKoUpmPAkZ8jjo7MIHRs1I3YETJmjypcCk4n95hZQq3j0n7Rbahs~3MyC9vatZvXZjAco3xwra339jr555he51tS71G0GWcs-7W-joyssPR1RK0K53wErHS2kLZpoQxLOdPnpcxmNJNUnb79734GCshiiBO0T~6hELHlJvD1EFaF~PkwhCqMob790wOeu3zXIrn18HbVkTlq4C2xLY20aJejiq~s1xZTb3SNgqVK6zv4YcKYmQTE8TIik5bCDvw1ezhNF7WRNA0hc7oIISFdzNi4BLHvb3~rkGFuvVog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Plaistow — After more than two hours of debate at the town’s deliberative session on Feb. 1, town meeting voters voted to place the proposed operating budget — $13,306,304 — on the official ballot as written, rejecting several citizen amendments that would have drawn on the town’s unassigned fund balance or reduced the bottom-line appropriation.

The proposal drew repeated attention from residents who said the town’s municipal tax rate is high compared with neighboring towns and urged sharper cuts. Holly Patterson, a resident who filed an amendment, said “with 2.6, almost $2,700,000 sitting in unassigned funds, I think at this point we need to take a hard look.” Patterson later withdrew one version of her motion and refiled a different amendment intended to apply $1.5 million from the unassigned fund balance toward the budget.

Why it matters: The operating budget sets the town’s bottom-line appropriation and is a major driver of the 2025 municipal tax rate. Voters at the deliberative session can recommend changes, but the final appropriation will be decided at the official ballot vote on March 11.

Most contested points
- Use of unassigned fund balance: Town Manager and Finance Director Greg Colby explained the unassigned fund balance is “not necessarily all cash,” and the Division of Local Government Finance (DRA) recommends a retention between 5 and 17 percent; he said Plaistow would drop from about 6.47% to roughly 3% of retained balance if $1.5 million were used.

- Ambulance revenue and budget structure: Budget committee member Richard Anthony (explaining his committee vote) raised concerns that revenue from the newly municipally operated ambulance has been deposited to the general account rather than a dedicated enterprise or revolving account. “It’s about $30,000 a month that we net from the ambulance service,” Anthony said; he argued the town has not set up a mechanism to apply those receipts directly against the ambulance line item.

- Size of proposed reduction motions: Several citizen amendments sought to cut the operating budget by various amounts: a 10% cut, a roughly $2.3 million cut to reach $11,000,009.75, and a proposal to return to last year’s budget level ($12,714,410). All these motions failed on the floor after discussion and show-of-card votes.

Key procedural outcomes and votes
- Motion to place Article P-25-02 (operating budget $13,306,304) on the ballot as written — motion made and seconded; the article will appear on the ballot unchanged.

- Motion by Ryan Labrecque to reduce the total appropriation by 10% (to $11,306,000-ish) — seconded and debated; the motion failed on a vote by card (count withheld at first count; ultimately defeated).

- Motion to amend the operating budget to $12,714,410 (last year’s total) — moved and seconded; final tally recorded at 16 in favor, 31 opposed; motion failed.

- Motion to take $1,500,000 from the general fund unassigned fund balance and apply it to the operating budget — motion carried enough support to be debated but failed in the final show-of-card vote (17 in favor; 30 opposed).

- Motion to increase the operating budget by $102,000 to pay for a statistical update to property assessments (assessor quote for a statistical update received after Corcoran Consulting ended its contract) — motion failed on a show-of-cards count (motion did not carry).

Other warrant articles and routine votes
- Voters placed a range of capital reserve, enterprise and contingency articles on the ballot as written (examples): Water Department operating article P-25-03 (water enterprise-funded), Contingency Fund RSA 31:98-a (P-25-04; $85,000), Highway Department equipment trust (P-25-05; $100,000), Building expendable trust (P-25-06; $25,000), Library capital reserve (P-25-07; $55,000), Transportation Infrastructure capital reserve (P-25-08; $50,000), Reevaluation capital reserve (P-25-09; $25,000), and multiple public safety and recreation reserves (P-25-10 through P-25-16). Those articles were reported as “placed on the ballot as written,” and many were followed by successful motions to restrict reconsideration at the session.

Context and next steps
Town officials said voters will decide the final appropriations on the official ballot on Tuesday, March 11 (7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Plaistow Fish & Game Club). Selectmen and town staff repeatedly urged voters that the operating budget article is a single bottom-line appropriation; the board and town manager retain authority to move money between line items if the article passes. Several speakers warned that cutting the bottom-line appropriation without specifying offsets could force reductions in services or require the town to seek tax anticipation borrowing to meet cash-flow demands.

Ending note
The budget debate was the deliberative session’s longest and most contentious item. Several residents said they would take concerns raised back to the polls; the town manager and budget committee asked voters to consider constraints such as DRA recommendations and operational cash-flow when judging amendments.

","Residents pressed for cuts and for clarity on use of unassigned funds and ambulance revenue; several proposed amendments failed and the operating budget article will appear on the official ballot unchanged. Dozens of routine capital and enterprise warrant articles also advanced to the ballot.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Citizen petition would allow homestead food sales in Plaistow; voters to decide on March ballot after minor RSA clarification

Selectmen-backed article would allow up to 30-year lease of Plaistow landfill for solar; amendment to require final contract on warrant fails

Plaistow debate over $13.3 million operating budget ends with article placed on ballot as written