Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider designating Co's County a 'distressed place-based economy; sponsors seek grant competitiveness while opponents flag implementation questions
Summary
A bill to designate Co's County as a "distressed place-based economy" drew broad local support for improving grant competitiveness and economic development, while committee members raised questions about the bill's second section requiring agencies to consult county commissioners and sought clearer implementation language.
Lawmakers heard extensive testimony supporting a proposal to designate Co's County as a "distressed place-based economy," a status sponsors say will improve the county's competitiveness for federal and other grants and recognize long-running demographic and economic challenges in New Hampshire's northernmost county.
Senator David Rochefort sponsored Senate Bill 180 and described Co's County's economic decline since the loss of major paper mills and resort closures. "We have a state that some where I come from call a chronic state of recession," Rochefort said, citing decades-long job losses and population decline. County commissioners and local representatives traveled to Concord to describe low median incomes, elevated poverty rates and a shrinking workforce.
Supporters said the designation would help the county score better on competitive grant applications that weigh economic distress and could unlock resources for broadband, infrastructure and other investments. Laurie Korzen, a state representative from Co's County, presented comparative data showing lower household incomes, higher poverty rates and job loss in the county compared to other parts of the state.
However, several committee members voiced concerns about a second section of the bill that would require state agencies to consult county commissioners when state decisions disproportionately affect Co's County. Critics described that language as vague and potentially unenforceable, and worried it could create procedural delays or inconsistent standards across counties.
Committee members suggested a narrower approach: advance the designation that improves grant competitiveness while rewriting or removing the agency-consultation language. Representative Scitech and others asked for an explicit sunset or review process so the designation would not become permanent without reassessment. The sponsor agreed to work with the committee on amendments to tighten the second section and consider a time-limited designation.
No final committee vote was taken; the subcommittee withdrew a pending motion and asked sponsors to return with clarified language that preserves the designation's grant-competitiveness benefit while addressing implementation and enforcement concerns.
