Committee Summary for House Education Funding (01/29/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1818 2024-1453h 00:04:34.000 - 9:03:40 AM	Public Hearing	enabling grants for school construction to also be used to consolidate structures and facilities.	Ladd, Rick(R)[B+]2025
HB1288 01:04:48.400 - 10:03:54 AM	Public Hearing	relative to enabling school administrative units to adopt budget caps.	Vose, Michael(R)[A-]2025
HB1610 01:42:58.080 - 10:42:04 AM	Public Hearing	allowing school districts to annually retain year-end unassigned general funds.	Sellers, John(R)[A-]2025
HB1623 03:14:10.000 - 12:13:16 PM	Public Hearing	requiring charter schools to have uniform and transparent billing costs and practices for special education services.	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[B+]2025
HB1578 03:49:22.880 - 12:48:28 PM	Public Hearing	adds definitions and reporting requirements relative to education freedom accounts.	Balboni, Peggy(D)[CT]2025
HB1579 04:48:38.000 - 1:47:44 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a committee to study methods for increasing revenues to enable additional spending on education.	Fellows, Sallie(D)[CT]2025

HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Lad Support00:04:34.000 - 9:03:40 AM; Representative Lad, the prime sponsor, presents HB1818, which establishes a dedicated fund to support school facility consolidation in response to declining enrollment, aging infrastructure, and inefficiencies in New Hampshire schools. He explains the bill's purpose to provide grants up to $1.5 million per district for planning, design, implementation, and related costs of consolidation projects, emphasizing that it is separate from existing school building aid. He highlights issues like unsafe conditions, ADA non-compliance, overcrowding, and demographic shifts reducing K-12 enrollment from over 210,000 to around 155,000 students. Using examples from his district in SAU23 (Woodsville), he describes challenges with underutilized buildings and the need for state assistance due to local funding constraints. The bill includes priorities for grants such as low facility utilization, enrollment declines, cost savings, high operating costs, and valuation disparities. An amendment deletes references to school building aid integration, renumbers sections, enhances the 10-year capital plan requirements, and appropriates $10 million for FY28. He stresses the fund's role in improving efficiency, curriculum, and instruction without requiring building sales or repayments, noting the inter-agency review committee for oversight similar to school building aid processes.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Papichi Miller Information Only00:23:32.320 - 9:22:38 AM; Representative Papichi Miller seeks clarification on the amendment's impact, specifically whether it removes the appropriation on page three, lines 31 and forward. The chair and sponsor confirm it only affects lines 11-27 on page three, renumbering sections without altering the appropriation.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative (unidentified) Oppose00:24:47.600 - 9:23:53 AM; The representative expresses concern over the lack of provisions requiring districts to sell decommissioned buildings at market rates, arguing it could lead to taxpayer losses if buildings are given away cheaply. They suggest the grant should be reimbursable once savings are achieved to recycle funds for other districts, emphasizing the need for accountability in handling public assets.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative McGuire Information Only00:28:03.440 - 9:27:09 AM; Representative McGuire questions the phrasing on page two, lines 21-22, regarding prioritization of districts with equalized valuation per pupil 'above greater 35% of the state median,' suspecting it might be a drafting error and suggesting it should prioritize lower-valuation districts. The sponsor agrees it may be a mistake.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative (unidentified, follow-up) Information Only00:29:01.840 - 9:28:07 AM; The representative inquires if districts can plan ahead by building reserve funds for facilities and consolidation. The sponsor responds that many districts are using reserves for maintenance due to aging infrastructure and reduced state funding proration, with tight budgets amid rising property taxes and economic pressures preventing adequate savings.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative (unidentified) Information Only00:31:05.440 - 9:30:11 AM; The representative questions justifying state funding for wealthier districts like Manchester or Nashua when poorer areas like Berlin contribute taxes but may not need consolidation. The sponsor explains prioritization by an inter-agency committee based on need, limited by the $10 million fund and $1.5 million cap per grant.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Phillips Information Only00:33:05.360 - 9:32:11 AM; Representative Phillips asks if the bill allows two nearby districts to consolidate elementary schools, potentially forming a co-op. The sponsor discusses challenges in areas like Wentworth and Warren, suggesting shared personnel or restructuring grades but noting difficulties with transportation, special ed costs, and local preferences.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative (follow-up) Information Only00:36:25.680 - 9:35:31 AM; The follow-up emphasizes benefits of consolidation for smaller class sizes, adequacy aid calculations, and lowering per-pupil operational costs and property taxes. The sponsor agrees, noting statutory minimums for school sizes and difficulties hiring staff like PE teachers in small districts.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Damon Support00:38:59.040 - 9:38:05 AM; Representative Damon corrects the timeline on Claremont's consolidations, noting prior reductions from five to three elementary schools before recent fiscal issues, and highlights community resistance to closing neighborhood schools as a barrier. They ask about the rock-and-hard-place dilemma of maintaining old buildings while saving for consolidation; the sponsor confirms districts must spend on essentials like heating and roofs, depleting reserves, and shares examples of small, functional schools in areas like Bath, Piermont, and Landaff where community support sustains them despite low enrollment.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Pinstein Information Only00:44:36.640 - 9:43:42 AM; Representative Pinstein, drawing from Newmarket's facility review, asks if an affirmative district vote is needed before receiving planning and design grants, given emotional community involvement and potential plan changes. The sponsor suggests it depends on warrant articles and cautions against obligating local funds or staff time without approval.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Tim Carney, Department of Education Information Only00:47:56.319 - 9:47:02 AM; Tim Carney, administrator of the Bureau of School Facilities, addresses questions on reserve funds, stating the department does not currently compile comprehensive statewide reports on district reserves due to inconsistent reporting categories. He notes variability in reserve types (e.g., capital, contingency) and the need to consult the school finance team for comparable data.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Phelis Information Only00:50:05.440 - 9:49:11 AM; Representative Phelis seeks clarification on funding for expansions like adding to a school for joint district consolidation under line 27 (tuition/cooperative agreements). Dr. Green and others reference the eligible applicant definition allowing groups of districts, suggesting it could qualify but limited to $1.5 million total, with clarity via rulemaking.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Cul Information Only00:51:57.200 - 9:51:03 AM; Representative Cul requests clarification that reserve fund data includes 5% contingency reserves alongside capital and expendable trust funds for comprehensive understanding, given not all districts have them. Dr. Green reiterates the need to define categories with the finance team for comparability.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Phillips (follow-up) Information Only00:51:57.200 - 9:51:03 AM; Representative Phillips asks if a consolidation project exceeding $1.5 million (e.g., additions) would fall under regular building aid or get priority. Tim Carney states no priority is specified, citing Rochester's recent project, and confirms the cap applies to groups of districts.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Representative Damon (follow-up) Information Only00:54:22.480 - 9:53:28 AM; Representative Damon follows up on whether planning funds require community support/vote beforehand, using Claremont as an example of undefined projects deterring approval. Tim Carney notes rulemaking could mirror school building aid's vote requirement for intent letters but allows legislative input; Dr. Green suggests statute could assure pre-vote access if desired.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Chair (unidentified) Information Only00:56:30.319 - 9:55:36 AM; The chair notes page two, lines 23-25 allows up to $150,000 for feasibility/design studies, contemplating stepped project development. They question the need for the inter-agency review committee involving DAS, BEA, governor's office, and fire marshal, given the commissioner's authority. Tim Carney affirms it adds value through expertise and oversight, similar to school building aid where it can trigger re-reviews for non-compliance.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Unidentified Speaker Support01:00:37.920 - 9:59:43 AM; The speaker explains that HB1818 serves as a companion bill to HB564, allowing towns and school administrative units (SAUs) to adopt a budget cap for the SAU budget. If HB564 does not pass, it would only apply to a few districts, but with HB564 likely to pass, this bill will become widely useful as separate SAU budgets become common.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Unidentified Speaker Support01:01:33.520 - 10:00:39 AM; To adopt the budget cap, a supermajority vote by the town is required, and it can be overridden by another supermajority vote. The speaker emphasizes that supermajority votes protect local control by preventing domination by small factions within the town or school district.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Unidentified Speaker Support01:02:21.280 - 10:01:27 AM; The speaker views the legislation as essential for avoiding factionalization, as a supermajority represents the predominant feeling of the town or school district. They mention distributing a proposed amendment that fixes minor errors in the original bill, noting that the Office of Legislative Services (OS) performed a replace-all, so changes are not highlighted, but they are minor and important for making the bill workable. Another speaker will detail the changes later.
HB1818 2024-1453h: Unidentified Speaker Support01:03:11.680 - 10:02:17 AM; The budget cap allowed by the bill is based on the same criteria currently used for school district budget caps. The speaker justifies the need for SAU budget caps by noting that costs for bundled school administrative units and districts have risen substantially over the last 20 years while enrollment has not kept pace.
HB1288: Representative Vos Support01:04:48.400 - 10:03:54 AM; Representative Vos supports HB1288, emphasizing the need for transparency in SAU budgets. He notes that current budgets mix education and administrative costs, making it hard to discern allocations. He advocates for HB564 to require separate SAU budgets and HB1288 to cap them, similar to school district caps, to better track costs for educating children versus administration. He mentions his committee duties and offers to answer questions.
HB1288: Eric Power, Brookline Support01:09:47.279 - 10:08:53 AM; Eric Power from Brookline supports HB1288, drawing from his experience on the Hollis Brookline Cooperative School Board. He explains the bill as enabling legislation for school districts to vote on an SAU budget cap based on overhead cost per student, adjusted annually by inflation and student numbers (ADMR). It complements HB564 but stands alone. He details single vs. multi-district SAUs, the alternative budget procedure used by some SAUs, and how voting works similarly to existing caps. He highlights recent House interest in capping SAU budgets at 6% and stresses the three-fifths majority requirement for adoption, override, or rescission, promoting fiscal responsibility.
HB1288: Barrett Christina, NH School Boards Association Oppose01:21:21.360 - 10:20:27 AM; Barrett Christina opposes HB1288, citing issues with the bill's language and policy. He argues the overhead cost per student calculation won't reflect actual SAU budgets due to varying per-pupil costs across districts (e.g., Waterville Valley vs. Pemigewasset Baker Regional). He questions undefined terms like 'secretary of the SAU board,' potential added burdens on staff without fiscal notes, and the ability of one district's petition to force warrant articles in others. He notes timing conflicts for public hearings across different meeting types (SB2 vs. traditional) and objects to non-amendable warrant questions. Broader concerns include rising administrative costs from 120+ legislative mandates over three years and increasing special education needs (from 29,000 to 32,000 students since 2020), which require flexible funding.
HB1288: Caitlyn Bernier, Merrimack Oppose01:36:11.520 - 10:35:17 AM; Caitlyn Bernier from Merrimack, a school budget committee member, opposes HB1288. She describes SAUs as essential for managing operations, budgets, and policies, including fulfilling unfunded state mandates via directors in curriculum, special education, and business. She argues capping SAU budgets undervalues their impact on students; poor SAU performance affects all students, including special education and general populations. She notes her town's budget process involves detailed questioning of SAU line items for transparency, and separating SAU from operations minimizes their value. Rising education costs are not due to SAU administration, and basing caps on student numbers could harm funding if enrollment drops.
HB1610: Representative John Sellers, Bristol/Bridgewater Support01:42:58.080 - 10:42:04 AM; Representative Sellers, prime sponsor from Grafton District 10 (Bristol and Bridgewater), supports HB1610 to enhance voter consent in managing contingency funds. Currently, funds are set once until rescinded; the bill allows annual review to decide on contributing a percentage (up to 2.5% of net assessment) to the fund, preventing unchecked accumulation (e.g., from 5% to potentially $600,000 over years without use). It promotes local control, addressing unanticipated expenses like maintenance without bypassing warrant articles, while giving voters yearly choice on funding levels.
HB1610: Aubrey Friedman, Bridgewater Support02:01:53.760 - 11:00:59 AM; Aubrey Friedman from Bridgewater supports HB1610, having encouraged its drafting due to experiences in SAU 108 (new Pequawket district). He favors rainy day funds for emergencies but dislikes the current 'indefinitely until rescission' wording, advocating annual voter review for flexibility based on economic conditions. He criticizes the 5% cap as too high, citing SAU 4's large reserves ($1-2 million) leading to imprudent spending (e.g., $55,000 on cafeteria tables for a small school likely to close). He argues big funds reduce fiscal prudence, bypass public input via obscure hearings, and that warrant articles or special meetings better ensure democracy; taxpayers would approve true emergencies.
HB1610: Eric Power, Brookline Support02:07:27.760 - 11:06:33 AM; Eric Power from Brookline supports HB1610, noting it allows retaining up to 5% (or voter-authorized percentage) of year-end unassigned funds from net assessment (tax effort), but without permanent rollover authority. Originally 2.5% since 1998, raised to 5% in 2020; he views it as excessive (e.g., $600,000 for a $30M district) and prefers annual votes for relevance to current conditions, aiding property tax relief. Alternatives like annual contingency warrant articles, capital reserves (RSA 35), or trust funds (RSA 31:19A) exist for purposeful savings (e.g., special education). Annual review ensures voter input without blanket authority.
HB1610: Barrett Christina, NH School Boards Association Oppose02:12:31.920 - 11:11:37 AM; Barrett Christina opposes HB1610, explaining its history from 2012 for emergencies requiring commissioner approval, now allowing up to 5% reserves for unanticipated issues like school care proration or rising costs. Annual voting disrupts building reserves for fiscal calamities (e.g., tripled transportation contracts mid-year, health insurance spikes, or special ed needs for one student exhausting funds). Capital reserves suit planned items (facilities, tuition) but not broad emergencies. Voters can already choose lower percentages (0-5%); reverting to annual votes risks chaos, higher taxes via special meetings, or budget cuts when needs arise post-budget.
HB1610: Caitlyn Bernier, Merrimack Support02:19:25.679 - 11:18:31 AM; Caitlyn Bernier from Merrimack speaks in support of HB1610, drawing from her budget experience in her school district. She explains that unanticipated funds are used to lower the budget amount requested from taxpayers, making it transparent and visible online. She argues that the 2.5% cap in the bill is insufficient for large districts with diverse needs, such as funding for new special education students requiring out-of-district placements and transportation. In her town, these funds reduce the budget request, benefiting taxpayers. She also agrees with the previous speaker that annual ballot measures would not help during the current year, emphasizing that the bill's contingency provision addresses immediate needs.
HB1623: Representative Lichfield, District 32 (Brentwood, Danville, Fremont) Information Only03:14:10.000 - 12:13:16 PM; Representative Lichfield, the prime sponsor, introduces HB1623, apologizing for being late due to a family emergency. As a former school board member for 15 years, she explains the bill's origin from a conversation with a superintendent who discovered a local charter school charging different fees for the same special education services to different public schools, based on district wealth. She aims to ensure uniform rates within each charter school for fairness. During questioning, she clarifies the bill intends uniform rates per charter school, not statewide, and provides examples like varying costs for group versus one-on-one speech therapy.
HB1623: Director Fredette, Department of Education Information Only03:23:38.640 - 12:22:44 PM; Director Fredette of Special Education explains charter schools can provide services in three ways: districts provide them at the charter, bring students back to public schools, or pay the charter for services. She notes the bill was initially read as requiring uniform rates across all charter schools, necessitating more staff, but clarifies it likely means uniform within each charter. She describes MOUs negotiated individually with districts, leading to varying rates, and notes complaints about disparate billing have decreased since MOUs were mandated. She discusses billing practices, including splitting costs, full charges per district, or adding indirect costs, and confirms no rules prevent joint negotiations among districts. She addresses potential confusion in the bill's language and IEP processes.
HB1623: Beth McClure, Strong Foundations Charter School, Pembroke; Chair, NH Alliance for Public Charter Schools Oppose03:36:41.920 - 12:35:47 PM; Beth McClure, founder and former principal of Strong Foundations Charter School in Pembroke, and chair of the NH Alliance for Public Charter Schools, testifies in opposition to HB1623. Initially interpreting the bill as requiring uniform rates across all charters, she revised her testimony after the sponsor's clarification. She agrees charter schools should charge uniform rates to all sending districts for fairness and shares that her school resists negotiated lower rates to avoid inequity. However, she argues the bill's wording is ambiguous and could be misinterpreted as statewide uniformity, causing challenges. She questions references to school districts charging rates, noting they fund via property taxes. She suggests the issue can be resolved through MOUs or contracts without legislation, and describes her school's billing: hourly rates prorated for services, including group and individual rates, without charging for overhead like building costs.
HB1578: Representative Peggy Belony, Towns of Greenland, Northampton, Rye Support03:49:22.880 - 12:48:28 PM; Representative Peggy Belony, prime sponsor, introduces HB1578 to enhance accountability and transparency in the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program. She notes the program's rapid expansion from low-income eligibility in 2021 to universal, with costs rising from $8 million for 1,635 students in 2022 to nearly $52 million for 10,510 students this year, exceeding budget by $12.3 million. 85% of recipients never attended public school. She criticizes the EFA Oversight Committee for not meeting from November 2024 to December 16, 2025, and the Children's Scholarship Fund (CSF) for removing expenditure reports and withholding data for a performance audit, limiting it to DOE oversight. The bill defines terms and mandates quarterly CSF reports on eligibility, vendors, expenditures, and more, to ensure tax dollars are scrutinized, especially without academic assessments.
HB1578: Matt Sutherton, Director of Policy and Compliance, Children's Scholarship Fund Oppose04:04:06.239 - 1:03:12 PM; Matt Sutherton testified to correct the record on vendor and category reports, explaining they were created for transparency in partnership with Senator Apprenticeship and initially hosted by the Department of Education. Reports were removed due to privacy and safety concerns for providers, including those in address confidentiality programs, and have been updated to abbreviate names for sole proprietors while suppressing data for providers with fewer than 10 students. He confirmed annual audits include performance aspects verifying student eligibility and transactions, and all funds are reconciled with the Department of Education. He raised concerns about HB1578, including duplication of reporting efforts already handled by the Department, student privacy issues from ambiguous language allowing broad data requests, potential mission creep by involving the legislative budget assistant, and technical ambiguities around terms like 'vendor' and reimbursements. He also noted the bill's requirement to track compulsory attendance compliance seems outside the program's scope.
HB1578: Representative Timothy Han, Strafford County District 10, Durham Support04:13:41.040 - 1:12:47 PM; Representative Han expressed skepticism about the EFA program, describing it as poorly conceived with inadequate controls and managed by an out-of-state nonprofit with political ties. He criticized the program's growth without sufficient guidelines, contrasting it with stricter state oversight in programs like SNAP. He viewed HB1578 as a simple, common-sense bill for aggregated reporting to improve transparency without individual student data. He addressed vendor privacy concerns, arguing inconsistency with public transparency in other state-funded programs. He supported the bill's potential even if the Department of Education managed the program directly.
HB1578: Representative John Sears, Grafton District 10, Towns of Bristol and Bridgewater Oppose04:26:11.359 - 1:25:17 PM; Representative Sears, a user of the EFA program for his child, defended the program's integrity, emphasizing strict receipt approval processes and that unused funds return to the state. He argued against HB1578's unlimited data requests as government overreach, noting existing checks like audits and reconciliations. He highlighted cost savings compared to public school per-pupil expenses and questioned the bill's fiscal impact without a note, suggesting the additional reporting burden is not worth the 'juice' given the program's low fraud risk.
HB1578: Nate Green, Department of Education Information Only04:38:53.359 - 1:37:59 PM; Nate Green provided clarification on data aggregation rules, stating the Department of Education cannot report aggregated data for groups of fewer than 11 students to protect privacy. He noted the Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee already has statutory authority to request information, and the Children's Scholarship Fund has been responsive, though some bill provisions may duplicate existing requirements.
HB1578: Mary Wilkey, Retired Public School Teacher Support04:40:07.440 - 1:39:13 PM; Mary Wilkey expressed concerns about transparency in the EFA program, citing Department rules requiring public posting of education service providers' details, which she felt the Children's Scholarship Fund delayed without justification. She sympathized with privacy issues but argued decisions on aggregation (e.g., under 11 students) should be made by the Department, not the contractor. She advocated for more detailed reporting, such as provider locations and brief descriptions, to ensure funds support core educational domains and not ineligible items like religious instruction. She questioned the audit's performance aspects based on past conversations.
HB1578: Unidentified Speaker (likely bill sponsor), on HB1579 Support04:48:38.000 - 1:47:44 PM; The speaker introduced HB1579 to establish a study committee on revenue options for education funding, citing ongoing lawsuits over inadequate school funding and reliance on property taxes. They explained the historical context of the Claremont decision, the SWEPT tax, and New Hampshire's high per capita property tax burden. The bill aims to analyze feasibility of new or modified revenue sources without making recommendations, involving balanced membership with revenue expertise, and collaborating with key organizations. The report would present differing perspectives in plain language to aid future discussions on the school funding crisis.
HB1579: Unidentified Speaker (likely bill sponsor), on HB1579 Support04:48:38.000 - 1:47:44 PM; The speaker introduced HB1579 to establish a study committee on revenue options for education funding, citing ongoing lawsuits over inadequate school funding and reliance on property taxes. They explained the historical context of the Claremont decision, the SWEPT tax, and New Hampshire's high per capita property tax burden. The bill aims to analyze feasibility of new or modified revenue sources without making recommendations, involving balanced membership with revenue expertise, and collaborating with key organizations. The report would present differing perspectives in plain language to aid future discussions on the school funding crisis.
HB1579: Unidentified Speaker (likely bill sponsor) Support04:55:50.240 - 1:54:56 PM; The speaker explains the bill's requirements for evaluating revenue options, emphasizing factors like reliability, predictability, administrative costs, implementation speed, potential revenue, and negative side effects. They discuss studying impacts on the state economy, business sectors, and individuals by demographics. The speaker clarifies wording on residents versus visitors and stresses the bill's purpose to provide neutral information without recommendations, aiding legislators in understanding revenue for future decisions on education funding and property tax relief. They note the timeline starting no later than August 7th is feasible with existing data.
HB1579: Representative Kolkan Information Only05:01:24.320 - 2:00:30 PM; The representative questions the bill's focus on revenue without addressing school expenditures, suggesting an amendment to study rising costs despite declining population. They advocate for examining ways to reduce expenses through better contracts and economies of scale, and understanding why per-pupil costs increase. The sponsor responds that expenditures are a separate study, but the representative insists they should be considered together with revenues.
HB1579: Representative (unidentified) Information Only05:05:17.520 - 2:04:23 PM; The representative seeks clarification on the bill's purpose and scope, noting the caption mentions enabling additional spending. They question if the study aims at increasing aggregate spending or substituting new revenue sources. The sponsor explains the intent is to analyze both new and modified existing options to inform decisions on funding education and reducing property taxes, drawing parallels to post-Claremont efforts.
HB1579: Representative (unidentified) Information Only05:08:47.440 - 2:07:53 PM; The representative asks about considering federal revenue sources like IDEA funding for special education, where federal contributions are low (5-6% vs. promised 40%), leading to higher state costs. They suggest evaluating whether rejecting such funds could save money. The sponsor agrees federal underfunding is an issue but clarifies the bill focuses on state revenue sources; it could be noted in the report that some costs are beyond state control.
HB1579: Representative Papovich Information Only05:11:52.080 - 2:10:58 PM; The representative praises the bill's structure but questions delaying the study until August, suggesting starting immediately with available resources. The sponsor explains logistical challenges, the need for bill passage first, and that much data already exists, making the timeline reasonable. In follow-up, the representative asks if past studies like post-Claremont led to lower property taxes in any town; the sponsor notes the statewide property tax reallocation changed little for taxpayers.
HB1579: Representative Burton Information Only05:16:29.920 - 2:15:35 PM; The representative clarifies the Claremont decision required defining and funding adequate education but not specifying tax amounts, leading to subsequent legislation. They recall Governor's reluctance to increase state contribution. They ask if Ways and Means Committee members could help find revenue; the sponsor affirms the study committee should include experienced members like those from Ways and Means.
HB1579: Representative Kok Information Only05:17:47.520 - 2:16:53 PM; The representative recalls 2021's $100 million adequacy aid increase, questioning if it relieved property taxes in the sponsor's town (it did not). They ask about handling surplus building aid funds post-loan payment—whether to return to taxpayers or expect state to cover. The sponsor notes the 2021 increase was temporary and building aid issues are unrelated to the bill's revenue focus.

Ladd, Rick(Chairman)(R)[B+]2025	Brown, Pam(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Spilsbury, Walter(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2025
McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025	Ames, Dick(D)[CT]2025	Burton, Wayne(D)[F]2025
Luneau, David(D)[CT]2025	Colcombe, Riché(R)[B+]2025	Chretien, Suzanne(D)[F]2025
Popovici-Muller, Daniel(R)[A-]2025	Damon, Hope(D)[CT]2025	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2025
Fellows, Sallie(D)[CT]2025	Erf, Keith(R)[A]2025	Bricchi, Tracy(D)[D-]2025
Weinstein, Toni(D)[F]2025	Peeples, Raymond(R)[B+]2025	Mehegan, Peter(R)[B+]2025