{"id":7809,"date":"2012-04-26T12:42:42","date_gmt":"2012-04-26T16:42:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/new-hampshire\/?p=7809"},"modified":"2012-04-26T12:42:42","modified_gmt":"2012-04-26T16:42:42","slug":"why-a-60-year-old-contract-has-massachusetts-and-nh-at-loggerheads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/new-hampshire\/2012\/04\/26\/why-a-60-year-old-contract-has-massachusetts-and-nh-at-loggerheads\/","title":{"rendered":"Why A 60-Year Old Contract Has Massachusetts And NH At Loggerheads"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

dlcampos \/ Flickr<\/p>

Flood control, town tax reimbursements, and tight state budgets have NH and Mass wrestling over back payments<\/p><\/div>\n

Since the economy tanked and the legislature started slashing the budget, there’s been talk at the town level about so-called “down-shifting.”\u00a0 That’s when the state stops supporting local programs or making certain payments to towns, forcing localities to pick up the slack.\u00a0 Now, the legislature’s considering what to do when not only New Hampshire, but Massachusetts, has shifted costs.<\/p>\n

At issue is the drily titled 1953 Merrimack River Valley Flood Control Compact.\u00a0 As Tricia Nadolny reports in the Concord Monitor<\/em><\/a>, 18 New Hampshire communities agreed to give up a set amount of land for flood control.\u00a0 In exchange, Massachusetts would reimburse the state for 70 percent of the towns’ lost tax revenue each year.\u00a0 New Hampshire would pony-up the other 30 percent, and between the two states, the towns would get their lost tax funds.<\/p>\n

But, Nadolny writes:<\/p>\n

“About seven years ago, Massachusetts stopped covering its part, leading New Hampshire to pay the reimbursement in full. But in 2011 the state paid only its 30 percent share, and this year New Hampshire hasn’t covered even that much.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So those towns are losing some serious revenue.\u00a0 Here’s a sample:<\/p>\n

Related<\/h4>
Posts<\/h5>