WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 183

relative to membership of the Pease development authority board of directors.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Debra Altschiller and 3 co-sponsors

SB 183 would change who serves on the Pease Development Authority Board, altering membership rules and appointment processes for governance of Pease development.

Inexpedient to Legislate, MA, VV === BILL KILLED ===; 01/07/2026; SJ 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 183

Summary of SB 183 (2026) — New Hampshire

Title

Relative to membership of the Pease Development Authority Board of Directors

Purpose and Intent

SB 183 proposes changes to the composition of the Pease Development Authority (PDA) Board of Directors. The bill aims to modify who can serve on the PDA board, outlining updated eligibility criteria and/or appointments to reflect governance changes at the Pease International Tradeport development area in New Hampshire.

Key Provisions (as introduced and considered)

  • Board composition and eligibility: The bill would adjust the statutory makeup of the PDA Board of Directors. While the exact textual changes are not provided here, typical provisions in similar bills include:
    • Specifying the number of directors.
    • Designating categories of members (e.g., state officials, local officials, industry representatives, or certain professionals).
    • Establishing qualifications and disqualifications for service (e.g., residency requirements, conflicts of interest, term limits).
  • Appointment process: The bill may alter how directors are appointed (e.g., by the governor, by a state department, or with legislative confirmation) and delineate appointment terms and staggered terms.
  • Term limits and removal: Provisions could set term lengths and procedures for removal or replacement of directors.
  • Responsibilities and authority: The bill could clarify or adjust the duties of the PDA Board, including oversight of development activities, budgeting, and policy directions for the Pease region.

Note: The available information does not provide the exact textual language, so the above reflects typical elements associated with governance-reform measures for public authorities. The core aim is to redefine who serves on the PDA Board and under what processes.

Affected Parties and Entities

  • Pease Development Authority (PDA): The primary entity affected, as its Board of Directors would have its membership defined or redefined.
  • State government and relevant agencies: Depending on who appoints or approves directors, state executive offices or departments may be involved in appointments.
  • Pease region stakeholders: Local governments, businesses, and residents within the PDA’s jurisdiction could be affected by governance structure changes, oversight, and potential policy direction.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduced and referred: SB 183 was introduced in January 2025 and referred to the Executive Departments and Administration committee.
  • Committee activity:
    • March 13, 2025: Rereferred to the appropriate committee (with committee votes indicating ongoing consideration).
    • February 12, 2025: Public hearing scheduled (Room 103, State House).
    • October 13, 2025: Committee reported back with a determination of “Inexpedient to Legislate,” indicating the committee did not recommend advancement.
  • Final disposition: On January 7, 2026, the bill was deemed “Inexpedient to Legislate” (i.e., effectively killed), with SJ 1 noted as the record of disposition in the Senate Journal.

Status

  • The bill was ultimately killed in the legislative process and did not proceed to final enactment.

Potential Impact (if enacted)

If SB 183 had become law, the PDA Board would have operated under revised membership criteria, potentially affecting governance dynamics, oversight, and decision-making for Pease development initiatives. Changes could influence:
- Strategic direction and oversight of PDA programs.
- Appointment timelines and stability of board leadership.
- Interaction with state and local stakeholders in Pease development projects.

Notes

  • The committee ultimately deemed the bill inexpedient to legislate, indicating no path forward for enactment in its current form.
  • For stakeholders, ongoing governance reforms at PDAs or similar authorities may be pursued in future proposals with revised language.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.