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.