To see if the Town will vote to express that it is not necessary or wise for the Hampton Police Department to enter into a Section 287 (g) agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

What it Means:  Hampton’s Police Chief has stated that he does not intend to sign an ICE Agreement.  However, this petitioned Warrant Article seeks to reinforce that position with voter input.  Many statements were originally made in the Article that was discussed at Deliberative Session. Ultimately, there was a successful amendment that removed those supportive statements in favor of the question only: To see if the Town will vote to express that it is not necessary or wise for the Hampton Police Department to enter into a Section 287 (g) agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Those in Favor of Reinforcing the Not Signing a Section 287(g):  Local law enforcement entities who enter into section 287(g) agreements with ICE are required to absorb all costs, including salaries, benefits, overtime, transportation and materials. Our Police staff would be under the supervision of the ICE agents, and could even be deployed outside of Hampton under the 287g agreement. Since most undocumented immigrants are not criminals, we should not deploy the scarce time and resources of the Hampton Police Department, or incur additional unbudgeted costs, to pursue civil complaints against them. If there is a criminal warrant for their arrest or they commit a crime in Hampton, then the Hampton Police Department should pursue them as they would any other criminal, and no ICE agreement is needed.

We already pay federal taxes to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement, we should not allow any of our local resources to be further diminished by what should be covered by federal agencies. Our highly trained and professional police staff should focus on our local issues. We should stay clear of the potential legal and fiscal liabilities involved in current ICE activities.

Those Opposed Say: The Article is unnecessary, since the Chief already stated that he does not plan to sign a Section 287(g) Agreement.  It would be advisory only, since state law already defers to the local Police Chiefs regarding the signing or not signing of the ICE agreement.  It would give Hampton voters the incorrect message that they have some control over this issue.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact.

We the undersigned voters of Hampton, NH, request that the following article be placed on the warrant for the March 10, 2026 Town Meeting of Hampton, NH.  Ban single-use plastic food service products, plastic bags and polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) at special events and activities on town property authorized by the Select Board through special use permits.

What it Means:  The petitioners are asking the voters to institute a policy of banning single-use food service items at special events on town property requiring a Special Use Permit. For example, the Seafood Festival occurs on Town property and requires a Special Use Permit, as does the Christmas Parade and Tree Lighting Ceremony.

No one spoke for or against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact.

To see if the Town will vote to affirm that decisions regarding the issuance of Public Works trash & recycling carts and the provision of collection services shall remain an administrative policy determined by the Hampton Select Board.

What it Means:  The original petitioned Warrant Article sought to restrict the number of carts assigned to households and to businesses, as well as to limit or remove trash/recycling for certain types of multi-residences and businesses. Apparently, there was much discussion prior to Deliberative Session about whether this was the correct approach. Therefore, at Deliberative Session, the petitioners attempted to change the structure of the question such that a “yes” answer would form a committee to study the question (rather than to spell out the specifics of what should change in the DPW policy). That amendment was defeated. There was a subsequent and successful amendment to instead confirm that decisions related to DPW Trash/Recycling policies should remain with the Board of Selectmen.  Whether you vote “yes” or “no” for this Article as now written will not change any policy.  If you are comfortable with the current trash/recycling schedule including the extra pick-ups in the summer for beach businesses, vote “yes”.  If you think policies should be changed, vote “no” – but either way it is an opinion question as now written.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact as now written.