Committee Summary for House Education Funding (03/04/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB563 00:31:26.919 - 10:28:42 AM	Executive Session	relative to adequate education grant amounts for pupils receiving special education services.	Ladd, Rick(R)[B+]2024
HB563 06508 00:33:21.399 - 10:30:37 AM	Executive Session	relative to adequate education grant amounts for pupils receiving special education services.	Ladd, Rick(R)[B+]2024
HB773 0714h 02:33:11.319 - 12:30:27 PM	Executive Session	relative to aid to school districts for the cost of special education.	Ladd, Rick(R)[B+]2024
HB675 0548h 02:59:12.120 - 12:56:28 PM	Executive Session	increasing the total revenue raised under the statewide education property tax, requiring municipalities to remit excess statewide education property tax payments to the department of revenue administration, limiting the authority of school districts to make certain appropriations, and increasing base adequacy costs per pupil.	Sweeney, Joe(R)[A-]2024
HB15 0651h 03:18:17.760 - 1:15:33 PM	Executive Session	relative to Universal eligibility for Education Freedom account program	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #

HB563: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:31:26.919 - 10:28:42 AM; The speaker outlines the agenda for the executive session, stating that they will discuss five bills in a specific order, starting with HB563. They mention that they are still waiting on amending language for one of the bills. The session will break for lunch and resume with the remaining bills.
HB563: Representative Spillsbury Information Only00:32:34.960 - 10:29:50 AM; Representative Spillsbury takes over the session from the chairman and recognizes Representative Laad for a motion on HB563.
HB563: Representative Laad Support00:32:34.960 - 10:29:50 AM; Representative Laad moves to recommend Ought to Pass (OTP) on HB563.
HB563: Unnamed Speaker Support00:32:34.960 - 10:29:50 AM; An unnamed speaker seconds the motion to recommend Ought to Pass on HB563.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:33:21.399 - 10:30:37 AM; The speaker proposes an amendment, 06508, to the bill, which is seconded by Representative Luno. The amendment addresses the adequacy formula for FY 26 and FY 27, with FY 26 maintaining the current formula with a 2% increase, while FY 27 proposes increases in base costs and differentiated aid components, particularly for special education and extraordinary needs grants. The speaker explains the need to adjust funding due to varying costs associated with different IEP categories, particularly highlighting the increased costs for autism services. They also mention the reintroduction of fiscal capacity disparity aid, which would benefit property-poor towns, and note that spreadsheets detailing these changes have been distributed.
HB563 06508: Representative Luno Support00:38:46.319 - 10:36:02 AM; Representative Luno supports the amendment, noting that it moves in the right direction by increasing special education funding and reintroducing fiscal capacity disparity aid. He acknowledges the complexity of the extraordinary needs grant and hopes the committee will continue to address it. Luno sees the amendment as a significant step, though not fully addressing the needs as recognized by school districts.
HB563 06508: Representative Ames Support00:41:19.319 - 10:38:35 AM; Representative Ames expresses support for the amendment, viewing it as a good faith effort to improve the school funding system. He acknowledges that while it may only provide small benefits to most communities, it is a step in the right direction and emphasizes the need for further work on the system.
HB563 06508: Representative Fellas Information Only00:42:19.839 - 10:39:35 AM; Representative Fellas seeks clarification on the fiscal capacity disparity aid cap of $3,750 per pupil in the spreadsheet. He expresses frustration over not having a clear breakdown of how this aid impacts each town and requests more detailed information before making a decision. He also emphasizes the importance of understanding the per pupil grant amounts for comparing different towns.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:43:19.079 - 10:40:35 AM; In response to Representative Fellas, the speaker explains the fiscal capacity disparity aid cap, stating it is intended to benefit about 40 property-poor towns. The speaker clarifies that the formula redistributes funds previously allocated to the extraordinary needs grant, with Manchester being the only town to receive less under this new formula. The speaker also mentions that the necessary additional $28 million for special education differentiated aid will need to come from new sources due to budget constraints.
HB563 06508: Representative Luno Information Only00:50:21.240 - 10:47:37 AM; Representative Luno responds to Representative Fellas' request for more detailed information on the fiscal capacity disparity aid, stating that the overall impact of the amendment can be seen in the distributed spreadsheets. He acknowledges that while 200 out of 245 towns will see an increase in funding, including from special education increases, the specific impact of fiscal capacity disparity aid alone is not immediately available but can be provided by the LBA.
HB563 06508: Representative Ames Information Only00:52:49.920 - 10:50:05 AM; Representative Ames offers to read out the details of the fiscal capacity disparity aid for the 40 towns, stating the total allocation is about $13.3 million. He suggests waiting for more detailed information before proceeding with a decision.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:54:06.119 - 10:51:22 AM; The speaker concludes the discussion by stating that they are waiting for more detailed information on the fiscal capacity disparity aid, which is being printed by the LBA. They express frustration over the lack of time to thoroughly review the proposed changes before making a decision.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:55:42.720 - 10:52:58 AM; The speaker discusses the logistics of obtaining and reviewing a spreadsheet related to the bill. They express concern about the timing and availability of additional spreadsheets later in the day if they take a lunch break. The speaker emphasizes the need to move forward with the bill despite not having all the data, as the bill will be further reviewed by Division Two. They highlight that the bill involves a formula for allocating limited dollars and does not change the SWEPT (Statewide Education Property Tax) as that will be addressed in another bill.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:56:57.440 - 10:54:13 AM; The speaker elaborates on the bill's impact, noting it maintains status quo funding with two significant changes: a methodology change for special education allowances benefiting students across the state and the reintroduction of fiscal capacity disparity aid. They mention the importance of these changes for balancing the funding equation, especially in communities with high real estate tax rates. The speaker inquires about proceeding with a vote on the amendment.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Support00:59:20.880 - 10:56:36 AM; The speaker agrees to move forward with the amendment, acknowledging the lack of complete information but stressing the necessity of the bill leaving the committee to proceed to the House floor and finance committee. They discuss the importance of fiscal capacity disparity aid, noting its reduction from $65 million to $13 million, and express hope that the finance committee will recognize its importance and allocate additional funds.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:01:51.119 - 10:59:07 AM; The speaker highlights the issue of actual fiscal year 2024 funding being higher than proposed for fiscal year 2027 in nearly a third of the towns. They question whether this issue will be addressed now or in the following year and discuss the implications of the hold harmless provision's decline.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:03:00.680 - 11:00:16 AM; The speaker discusses the reduction of the hold harmless provision by 20%, which has decreased funding significantly. They consider how to allocate the remaining funds between fiscal capacity and other needs, noting the challenge due to declining student populations. They mention waiting for a spreadsheet to review before proceeding.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Oppose01:05:11.039 - 11:02:27 AM; The speaker expresses disappointment in the lack of committee discussion and consideration of alternative options for allocating the available funds. They mention the decision to allocate funds to special education and fiscal disparity using a new formula, which was decided by a small group rather than the whole committee.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:06:30.359 - 11:03:46 AM; The speaker clarifies that the money allocated for differentiated aid is new and not taken from the hold harmless funds. They discuss the difficulty in finding additional funds and mention another potential solution to be discussed later. They suggest taking a break for lunch and waiting for the spreadsheet before proceeding with a vote.
HB563 06508: Representative Luno Information Only02:14:03.280 - 12:11:19 PM; Representative Luno initiated a discussion on the impact of the proposed amendment on Manchester's school funding. He highlighted the unique characteristics of Manchester, such as having the highest number of students and the largest number of English language learners in the state. He walked through the details of the spreadsheet provided, focusing on how the amendment affects Manchester's funding, particularly in terms of the base cost, free and reduced-price meals, special education, and English language learners. He expressed concern over the accuracy of the figures for free and reduced-price meal eligibility, suggesting that the numbers might be low based on Medicaid direct certification data.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:17:28.080 - 12:14:44 PM; The unnamed speaker continued the discussion on the amendment's impact on Manchester's funding. They explained the components of the amendment, including how the cost of an adequate education for Manchester is calculated to be about $74.8 million, resulting in a preliminary grant from the state of about $55 million. They detailed the extraordinary needs grant, which is separate from the adequate education grant, and noted that Manchester does not receive fiscal capacity disparity aid due to its high property values. They also discussed the cap on additional targeted aid, which results in a reduction or 'haircut' of approximately $12 million for Manchester.
HB563 06508: Representative Papovich Miller Information Only02:21:39.319 - 12:18:55 PM; Representative Papovich Miller briefly commented on the fairness of the amendment's impact on Manchester, specifically addressing the equalized valuation per pupil and the 'haircut' applied to the extraordinary needs grant. They emphasized the importance of understanding the architecture of the spreadsheet and highlighted the new fiscal capacity disparity aid column, which benefits certain communities.
HB563 06508: Representative Luno Information Only02:23:03.479 - 12:20:19 PM; Representative Luno responded to comments made by Representative Fellows, clarifying that the amendment includes adjustments to the grant floor, ceiling, and maximum grant. He agreed that while the current amendment is a good step forward, it should be recalibrated every two years to account for changes in property values and other factors. He mentioned past iterations of similar projects and the importance of continuously updating the formula to ensure fairness and accuracy.
HB563 06508: Representative Damon Information Only02:26:26.200 - 12:23:42 PM; Representative Damon sought clarification on the differences between total additional targeted aid and adjusted total targeted aid in the spreadsheet, noting a $13 million difference. The discussion confirmed that the difference was due to the offset applied to Manchester's funding as part of the amendment.
HB563 06508: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:28:03.000 - 12:25:19 PM; The unnamed speaker facilitated the voting process on amendment 06508 to House Bill 563. The amendment passed unanimously with 18 votes in favor and none against. Following the vote, a motion was made to pass HB563 as amended with amendment 06508, which was seconded and discussed briefly. The motion passed unanimously, indicating support for moving forward with the amended bill as a step towards better school funding, though it was acknowledged as not a complete solution.
HB773 0714h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only02:33:11.319 - 12:30:27 PM; Representative Spillsbury moved OTP (Ought to Pass) on HB773 and introduced amendment 0714h. They explained that the amendment blends elements from both HB773 and another bill (HB742). The amendment retains the three and a half times average cost threshold from current law, deletes a sentence about proration in case of a shortfall, and introduces a new sentence that incorporates a concept from HB773 but adjusts it to set a floor of 80% funding in case of a shortfall, instead of the original 85%. This amendment aims to ensure a minimum funding level while allowing for full funding if the appropriation allows.
HB773 0714h: Representative Luno Information Only02:34:01.240 - 12:31:17 PM; Representative Luno seconded the motion to pass HB773 and the amendment 0714h. They did not provide additional commentary beyond the seconding of the motion.
HB773 0714h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only02:34:47.479 - 12:32:03 PM; Representative Spillsbury further explained amendment 0714h, detailing how it adjusts language from HB742 and incorporates it into HB773. They clarified that the amendment sets a new floor for funding at 80% in the event of a shortfall, moving away from complete elimination of proration and allowing for potential proration if the appropriation does not meet the full funding needs.
HB773 0714h: Representative Luno Support02:37:12.439 - 12:34:28 PM; Representative Luno expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the importance of the 80% funding floor as an improvement over the current zero floor. They noted a preference for a higher floor but acknowledged the 80% as a significant step forward. They also pointed out a concern about the use of the term 'appropriation' in the bill, seeking clarification on whether it was consistent with the draw from the education trust fund.
HB773 0714h: Representative McGuire Information Only02:38:44.720 - 12:36:00 PM; Representative McGuire clarified that the terms used in the bill, such as 'appropriation' and 'draw', refer to the same funds within the context of RSA 186-188, suggesting that the language in the bill is clear and consistent.
HB773 0714h: Representative Fellows Information Only02:40:45.760 - 12:38:01 PM; Representative Fellows asked about the process of appropriation to the Department of Education via a warrant, particularly how it would work if the appropriation was less than expected claims. The discussion clarified that the appropriation would fund the initial amount, with any shortfall covered by a draw from the education trust fund.
HB773 0714h: Representative Damon Support02:41:38.520 - 12:38:54 PM; Representative Damon supported the bill, noting it as a considerable improvement in predictability for school districts regarding catastrophic special education costs, though acknowledging that districts might still face higher than expected costs.
HB773 0714h: Representative Papich Support02:42:40.200 - 12:39:56 PM; Representative Papich, a former Finance director, supported the bill, stating that it would allow districts to budget based on the 80% floor, with any additional funding being a positive surprise. They emphasized the importance of the floor in preventing negative budgetary surprises.
HB773 0714h: Unnamed Speaker Support02:43:37.960 - 12:40:53 PM; The speaker echoed the sentiments of Representative Spillsbury, emphasizing that the objective is not to lower appropriations but to handle unexpected claims exceeding the appropriation. They also mentioned ongoing efforts to improve data and reporting related to special education aid.
HB773 0714h: Unnamed Speaker Support02:44:48.399 - 12:42:04 PM; The speaker added to the previous comments, expressing an intent to form a subcommittee to review special education aid data and ensure that expenditures align with specific disability categories. They highlighted the urgency of addressing the current 68% proration rate and shared a personal anecdote about the financial impact on a small town called Pymont, emphasizing the need for the bill.
HB773 0714h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:47:19.359 - 12:44:35 PM; The speaker concluded the discussion by announcing the vote on Amendment 0714h to HB773, which passed unanimously. They then moved to vote on HB773 as amended, which also passed with full support.
HB773 0714h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only02:50:47.439 - 12:48:03 PM; Representative Spillsbury moves OTP (Ought to Pass) on HB773 and introduces Amendment 0680H to the bill, indicating that the amendment was being distributed to the committee members. They mention that the bill was discussed in a previous work session and they would not re-explain it.
HB773 0714h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only02:52:44.279 - 12:50:00 PM; Representative Spillsbury further discusses Amendment 0680H to HB773, explaining that it reinstates provisions repealed in 2011 regarding the remittance of SWEPT that exceeds the adequacy grant. They mention that due to timing issues, the amendment delays the first remittance to March 15, 2027, despite the bill taking effect July 1, 2025.
HB773 0714h: Representative Ames Information Only02:54:10.680 - 12:51:26 PM; Representative Ames supports the amendment and emphasizes the importance of delaying the implementation to avoid short-term savings and potential chaos in FY 26, underlining that the delay is to ensure appropriate implementation.
HB773 0714h: Various Representatives Information Only02:55:02.520 - 12:52:18 PM; A roll call vote is conducted on Amendment 0680H to HB773, with the majority voting in favor (17 yes, 1 no). The amendment passes.
HB773 0714h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only02:55:40.880 - 12:52:56 PM; Representative Spillsbury moves OTPA (Ought to Pass as Amended) on HB773 with Amendment 0680H, and it is seconded. No further discussion is noted from the maker or the second of the motion.
HB773 0714h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only02:55:40.880 - 12:52:56 PM; Representative Spillsbury concluded their discussion on HB773, mentioning the concern with the underlying bill and the previous discussion about increasing special education differentiated aid by $28 million. A roll call vote was conducted, resulting in 17 votes in favor and 1 against the bill.
HB773 0714h: Representative Fellows Information Only02:56:34.000 - 12:53:50 PM; Representative Fellows mentioned the need to submit a Minority Report by noon the next day, indicating that the minority motion for HB773 would be Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL).
HB675 0548h: Representative McGuire Information Only02:59:12.120 - 12:56:28 PM; Representative McGuire moved for the bill HB675 to pass with an amendment. The amendment, 0548h, was discussed as it reduces the bill to focus on a specific aspect: capping spending in local school districts. This cap is based on a five-year average appropriation adjusted by ADM (Average Daily Membership) and inflation. The amendment addresses concerns about the accelerating rate of property taxes due to school spending, with some schools spending up to $30,000 per student compared to the state average of $21,000 to $22,000 per student.
HB675 0548h: Representative Luno Oppose03:02:58.520 - 1:00:14 PM; Representative Luno expressed opposition to the amendment, emphasizing that it would lock in existing disparities in school funding across the state. He highlighted the significant differences in per-student spending between districts, attributing these to varying resource access. He also raised concerns about the impact of the amendment on special education funding, suggesting that districts with fewer resources would suffer more. Luno referenced the rejection of a budget cap in the Kearsarge Regional School District as evidence of public sentiment against such measures. He argued that a more equitable school funding system should be addressed before considering budget caps.
HB675 0548h: Representative Pap Information Only03:06:12.600 - 1:03:28 PM; Representative Pap thanked Representative Luno for recapping the previous week's discussion on the amendment, acknowledging its accuracy. He also noted the 66% requirement to override the cap, suggesting that it provides an adequate escape valve for towns facing unexpected increases in special education costs. He argued that the mechanism allows towns to address legitimate concerns while making it more difficult to continuously increase taxes and expenses.
HB675 0548h: Representative Damon Oppose03:07:18.680 - 1:04:34 PM; Representative Damon strongly opposed the bill, arguing that it perpetuates existing funding inequities between districts. He emphasized that districts already have the option to vote on caps and questioned the need for a state-imposed cap that would limit local control. Damon highlighted the difficulty of achieving a 66% majority to override the cap, referencing his experience in Kearsarge and Hudson. He argued that the high threshold does not benefit students and is too restrictive.
HB675 0548h: Representative Fellows Oppose03:08:34.080 - 1:05:50 PM; Representative Fellows opposed the bill, arguing that using the percentage change in the Average Daily Membership Rate (ADMR) as a measure for the cap is inappropriate. He noted that a 5% drop in ADMR does not allow for proportional budget cuts, as you cannot cut a fraction of a teacher. He suggested that budget control should be a local issue rather than being dictated by such measures.
HB675 0548h: Representative Luno Oppose03:09:56.200 - 1:07:12 PM; Representative Luno questioned the need for the bill, citing the Education Freedom Account program as an example of a previous attempt to reduce the burden on local property taxpayers, which he argued did not succeed. He viewed the current proposal as a draconian measure that further restricts local taxpayers' ability to decide on school spending and support for their children.
HB675 0548h: Representative Ames Oppose03:11:04.880 - 1:08:20 PM; Representative Ames reiterated concerns about the bill locking in funding inequities. He stressed the need to address these inequities proactively rather than through an arbitrary cap system that is difficult to navigate. He argued that the energy and efforts should be focused on improving the overall funding system for public schools.
HB675 0548h: Representative Mahagan Support03:11:52.000 - 1:09:08 PM; Representative Mahagan supported the bill, viewing it as a necessary, albeit extreme, measure to address the uncontrolled increase in special education costs in his town. He described the situation as a fiscal crisis and saw the amendment as a temporary solution to signal that the current trend cannot continue. He emphasized the urgency of state-level action to prevent further increases in local taxes.
HB675 0548h: Representative Damon Oppose03:14:10.920 - 1:11:26 PM; Representative Damon agreed that the measure is extreme and argued that it is a mistake to implement such a policy given the foreseeable severe consequences. He pointed out that districts are mandated to provide special education services, and under a budget cap, regular education students would suffer, particularly in districts with lower per-student spending. He stressed the importance of equitable education for all students.
HB675 0548h: Representative McGuire Support03:15:26.800 - 1:12:42 PM; Representative McGuire made a motion to pass the bill with the amendment, indicating support for the measure. He described the situation as a disaster, suggesting a strong stance in favor of the amendment to address the fiscal challenges faced by his town.
HB675 0548h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Spillsbury called for action on HB675 and facilitated the roll call vote on the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA).
HB675 0548h: Representative Maguire Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Maguire voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative F Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative F voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Dry Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Dry voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Kcom Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Kcom voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Popovich Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Popovich voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Brown Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Brown voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Mahagan Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Mahagan voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Peoples Support03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Peoples voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Luno Oppose03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Luno voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Am Oppose03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Am voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Burton Oppose03:16:36.199 - 1:13:52 PM; Representative Burton voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Fellows Oppose03:17:22.640 - 1:14:38 PM; Representative Fellows voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Damon Oppose03:17:22.640 - 1:14:38 PM; Representative Damon voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675 and indicated interest in submitting a Minority Report for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL).
HB675 0548h: Representative Bricky Oppose03:17:22.640 - 1:14:38 PM; Representative Bricky voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Cran Oppose03:17:22.640 - 1:14:38 PM; Representative Cran voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Representative Weinstein Oppose03:17:22.640 - 1:14:38 PM; Representative Weinstein voted against the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675.
HB675 0548h: Chairman Lad Support03:17:22.640 - 1:14:38 PM; Chairman Lad voted in favor of the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on HB675 and announced the result of the vote, which was 10 in favor and 8 against.
HB15 0651h: Representative Lad Support03:18:17.760 - 1:15:33 PM; Representative Lad introduced the motion to Ought to Pass (OTP) on HB15 and later moved to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on amendment 0651h. He explained that the amendment would increase the household income threshold for the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program from 350% to 400% of the median family income for FY26, and after June 30, 2026, there would be no income threshold, making the program universally available. He addressed questions about the fiscal impact and potential number of students participating, suggesting that the cost estimates were inflated and highlighted the savings and benefits of the program to students.
HB15 0651h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only03:20:01.520 - 1:17:17 PM; Representative Spillsbury facilitated the discussion on amendment 0651h to HB15 and managed the procedural aspects of the session, including calling for a break to distribute copies of the amendment.
HB15 0651h: Representative Luno Information Only03:43:20.960 - 1:40:36 PM; Representative Luno inquired about the fiscal note and an estimate of the number of students that would utilize the Education Freedom Account (EFA) under the proposed amendment 0651h to HB15. He challenged the cost estimates provided and suggested that the program's expansion could significantly increase state expenditures without corresponding savings at the local level.
HB15 0651h: Representative Papich Miller Support03:19:11.640 - 1:16:27 PM; Representative Papich Miller seconded the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on amendment 0651h to HB15.
HB15 0651h: Representative Maguire Support03:19:11.640 - 1:16:27 PM; Representative Maguire seconded the motion to Ought to Pass with Amendment (OTPA) on amendment 0651h to HB15.
HB15 0651h: Representative Fellows Information Only03:55:26.159 - 1:52:42 PM; Representative Fellows provided clarification on the financial impact of the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program, noting that the comparison of the average expenditure per pupil to the cost of a voucher was misleading. He emphasized that the voucher payment is an expenditure by the state, and if a student leaves a public school, the state adequacy grant to the district might be reduced, but there is no direct savings.
HB15 0651h: Representative Papich Muller Information Only03:56:13.000 - 1:53:29 PM; Representative Papich Muller clarifies the definition of a voucher and explains that Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs) are not vouchers. They noted that EFAs involve payments to parents, who then use these funds for qualified educational expenses, highlighting a significant legal distinction from direct state payments to educational institutions.
HB15 0651h: Representative JY Information Only03:57:56.040 - 1:55:12 PM; Representative JY expresses concern that the homeschooling community might be underestimated in terms of their interest in EFAs. They argue that not all homeschoolers would automatically opt for EFAs, emphasizing the independent thinking within the community.
HB15 0651h: Representative Cen Information Only03:59:01.399 - 1:56:17 PM; Representative Cen seeks clarification on the statistics regarding the phase-out grants and the percentage of students who have left the program, confirming it is less than 5% of students within the voucher program, not the entire state's student population.
HB15 0651h: Representative Damon Oppose04:00:30.840 - 1:57:46 PM; Representative Damon opposes the expansion of the EFA program and criticizes the lack of tracking of student outcomes in New Hampshire. They suggest that the bill should be amended to require annual compliance reviews and adequate measurement of outcomes, expressing concern over the use of taxpayer money for the program.
HB15 0651h: Representative Brown Support04:02:59.760 - 2:00:15 PM; Representative Brown supports the EFA program, arguing that it is not a welfare program and refutes claims that it is unaudited. They cite the Progressive Policy Institute's report on the success of school choice programs for minority and low-income families and mention the use of national tests, statewide assessments, and portfolios to track EFA success.
HB15 0651h: Representative Lad Support04:04:02.640 - 2:01:18 PM; Representative Lad supports the bill and disputes the projected cost of $100 million for the EFA program, suggesting it would be much lower. They emphasize the importance of providing educational opportunities for all students, including those not well-served by public schools, and highlight the need for a nuanced approach to funding and benefits.
HB15 0651h: Representative Luno Information Only04:07:44.040 - 2:05:00 PM; Representative Luno discusses the estimated costs of the EFA program, clarifying the calculation that led to the $102 million figure and its potential impact on public schools and taxpayers. They stress the importance of considering the fiscal capacity disparity aid and its implications for local taxpayers.
HB15 0651h: Representative [Unnamed] Support04:11:10.760 - 2:08:26 PM; An unnamed representative shares a personal anecdote about the lack of educational choices when music was cut from their district's budget. They support the EFA program, believing it would have provided their family with better educational opportunities for their musically talented children, despite their financial constraints.
HB15 0651h: Representative Papichi Miller Information Only04:12:48.319 - 2:10:04 PM; Representative Papichi Miller highlighted two points during the session. Firstly, he noted that education spending had increased by $193 million in the last term despite a decline in overall enrollment, indicating a substantial commitment to public education funding. Secondly, he addressed a prior question about tax reduction possibilities, referencing a previous $100 million reduction in the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT), which he argued had no noticeable impact on property taxes because school budgets adjusted to accommodate the reduction and more.
HB15 0651h: Unnamed Representative Information Only04:13:51.080 - 2:11:07 PM; An unnamed representative responded to the discussion on SWEPT, clarifying that the $100 million cut was applied uniformly to reduce the equalized rate for all properties in New Hampshire, except utilities and railroads. They pointed out that the cut disproportionately benefited wealthier communities with significant property tax bases, such as those with lakes or oceanfronts, while having minimal impact on communities with high property taxes like Newport.
HB15 0651h: Representative Ames Oppose04:16:30.840 - 2:13:46 PM; Representative Ames expressed skepticism and opposition towards lifting the cap on the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program, questioning the fiscal responsibility of potentially unlimited cost escalation. They suggested starting at a lower level if the program were to continue, reflecting a cautious approach to expanding the program without a clear understanding of its consequences.
HB15 0651h: Unnamed Representative Support04:18:04.239 - 2:15:20 PM; An unnamed representative offered a counterargument to means-testing EFAs, explaining that the program was initially means-tested as a compromise for enactment but was never intended to remain so. They argued that the state should not means-test students for EFAs, just as public school admission is not means-tested, emphasizing that the funding should follow the child regardless of family income.
HB15 0651h: Senator Burton Oppose04:19:23.040 - 2:16:39 PM; Senator Burton raised concerns about not means-testing for EFAs, drawing from his experience in financial aid at the university level where aid is allocated based on need. He questioned the fairness of not means-testing families for EFA eligibility, especially given the opposition from his constituents.
HB15 0651h: Representative Mahan Support04:20:37.520 - 2:17:53 PM; Representative Mahan responded to the means-testing debate by pointing out the differences in how public schools handle special education costs without means-testing, arguing that EFAs offer an alternative for families whose children's needs are not met by public schools. He supported the idea of using taxpayer money to give families educational choices.
HB15 0651h: Representative Damon Information Only04:22:13.479 - 2:19:29 PM; Representative Damon shared statistics from online testimony on the bill, indicating 3,444 people opposed and 791 supporting the bill, providing a quantitative perspective on public sentiment.
HB15 0651h: Representative Peoples Support04:23:26.399 - 2:20:42 PM; Representative Peoples advocated for equal treatment of all students in New Hampshire, suggesting a flat funding model of $7,500 per student that could be used for education in any setting. They emphasized the importance of providing educational choice and treating all students fairly, regardless of their educational pathway.
HB15 0651h: Representative Bon Information Only04:24:37.880 - 2:21:53 PM; Representative Bon clarified the statistics around students using EFAs, noting that over 70% of EFA students were already in private schools, challenging the notion that EFAs were primarily aiding students transitioning from public schools. They also discussed the economic concept of step functions, explaining how removing students from public schools could increase costs per remaining student due to fixed costs.
HB15 0651h: Representative Bicky Oppose04:26:01.840 - 2:23:17 PM; Representative Bicky expressed frustration over the discussion on discrimination in education funding, contrasting it with a previous debate on feeding all children where discrimination was not mentioned. They voiced strong opposition to the current proposal.
HB15 0651h: Representative Weinstein Information Only04:27:30.840 - 2:24:46 PM; Representative Weinstein announced the results of the vote on the amendment, which was 10 in favor and 8 against. He then looked to Representative Lad for a final motion.
HB15 0651h: Representative Lad Information Only04:27:30.840 - 2:24:46 PM; Representative Lad moved to recommend OTPA (Ought to Pass with Amendment) using Amendment 0651h for HB15. The motion was seconded by Representative Earth.
HB15 0651h: Representative Earth Information Only04:27:30.840 - 2:24:46 PM; Representative Earth seconded the motion made by Representative Lad for OTPA using Amendment 0651h for HB15.
HB15 0651h: Chairman Information Only04:28:48.359 - 2:26:04 PM; The Chairman confirmed there was no further discussion on the motion and proceeded with the roll call vote, which resulted in a 10 to 8 vote in favor of the motion. He then asked Representative Lad to write the majority report and inquired who would write the minority report, to which Representative Luna volunteered.
HB15 0651h: Representative Luna Information Only04:29:35.520 - 2:26:51 PM; Representative Luna agreed to write the minority report for the vote on HB15.
HB15 0651h: Representative Spillsbury Information Only04:29:35.520 - 2:26:51 PM; Representative Spillsbury announced the end of the executive session on HB15 and informed the committee of the next meeting scheduled for March 12th at 10:00 AM to address remaining bills (HB137, HB237, HB354, HB443, HB461, HB549, HB656, and HB729) that need to be out of committee by March 20th. He mentioned plans to develop subcommittees and coordinate with other committees.
HB15 0651h: Representative McGuire Information Only04:31:00.279 - 2:28:16 PM; Representative McGuire inquired about the scheduling of the Finance Division 1 meeting on March 12th, asking if it would be a full day or just the morning session. He discussed the possibility of moving it to March 11th, but it was decided to keep it on the 12th due to scheduling conflicts and availability of other committee members.
HB15 0651h: Representative Damon Information Only04:33:25.561 - 2:30:41 PM; Representative Damon supported keeping the meeting on March 12th, suggesting coordination with the Finance committee to manage dual committee obligations effectively.

Ladd, Rick(Chairman)(R)[B+]2024	Brown, Pam(Clerk)(R)	Spilsbury, Walter(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2024
McGuire, Dan(R)[A+]2024	Ames, Dick(D)[CT]2024	Burton, Wayne(D)[CT]2018
Luneau, David(D)[CT]2024	Colcombe, Riché(R)[A-]2024	Chretien, Suzanne(D)
Popovici-Muller, Daniel(R)[A+]2024	Damon, Hope(D)[CT]2024	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2024
Fellows, Sallie(D)[CT]2024	Erf, Keith(R)[A]2024	Bricchi, Tracy(D)
Weinstein, Toni(D)	Peeples, Raymond(R)	Mehegan, Peter(R)