Speaker's logic fails common sense test

The debate over cost-shifting continues in the Foster's Daily Democrat. Democrats in the NH Legislature claim their budget increased aid. The paper puts it like this - "The bottom line is that the state budget has forced local officials to play Twister with their budgets."

Monday, August 17, 2009

If N.H. House Speaker Terie Norelli and Sen. Maggie Hassan are correct — that the Legislature did not trim funding to cities and towns — why do those cities and towns think they did?

Case in point: Last week the speaker took Foster's to task for an Aug. 10 editorial, "Don't play the Concord Game."

That editorial discussed the loss of block grant money to cities and towns. Specifically noted was Dover's struggle to "fill a $600,000 gap in revenue."

In an editorial response published on Saturday, Aug. 15, the speaker took Foster's to task: "The editorial in Monday's Foster's Daily Democrat asserted that the state has 'piled a load of expenses' onto local communities and local taxpayers. This is simply not true."

The speaker then went on to point out how good a job the Legislature did in making "prudent choices," comments echoed in an earlier opinion piece by Sen. Hassan and published in Foster's.

What the speaker failed to address was Dover's non-shortfall shortfall in state funding of $600,000. Instead she changed the subject and defended the Legislature's decision to make cities and towns pay a greater share of retirement costs.

But as noted by Foster's before and here, isn't that cost shifting?

Well, approximately 155 of 193 municipalities and about half the school districts in New Hampshire think it is. Those are the numbers of expected participants in a lawsuit being mounted to challenge that decision. (more)

Don't play the Concord Game

The Foster's Daily Democrat explains the impact of the NH Legislature shifting the cost of state government onto local taxpayers.

Monday, August 10, 2009

The state may not be out of its budget crunch yet, but among the few things certain is that a chunk of the cost is being passed on to New Hampshire's cities and towns.

Before the Legislature went home in June, it piled a load of expenses onto the backs of the people who pay local property taxes.

"Oh, no," lawmakers will say. "It's not our fault. The law requires us to pass a balanced budget, and local officials are the ones who affect property taxes."

As insulting as it might sound, it will be the city councils, boards of aldermen and selectmen who will take the heat in the wake of property tax bills. (more)

Rye considers suing state over downshifted costs

The Portsmouth Herald reports that another town is thinking about joining a lawsuit against the state.

By Beth LaMontagne Hall

news@seacoastonline.com

July 24, 2009 4:20 PM

RYE — The Board of Selectmen will discuss at its meeting Monday night whether to join a possible lawsuit against the state over what it says are unfunded mandates that violate the state Constitution.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association, along with the New Hampshire School Boards Association and the New Hampshire Association of Counties, is currently considering legal action against the state for shifting some of the state’s financial responsibilities to local governments. The groups said this move is in violation of Part 1, Article 28-a of the State Constitution.

Portsmouth, North Hampton and Seabrook have already expressed an intent to join the suit.

The Legislature has shifted more than $117 million in state costs to local governments in the 2010-11 state budget, according to NHMA. Part of this includes reducing the state’s share of the employers’ retirement contribution for teachers, police, sheriffs and firefighters.

The request came in a letter sent by the NHMA July 9 and asks the town of Rye to contribute $1,048.13 to the proposed lawsuit. The selectmen would need to vote on the allocation and designate a primary town contact for relaying information with the NHMA.

The New Hampshire Retirement System has informed local governments that the first payment for the increased employer retirement payment amount is due next month. The three associations representing municipalities, counties and schools are recommending to their members that they pay the amounts owed, but do so under protest to preserve their right to sue the state for violating Article 28-a.

.