Committee Summary for House Education Funding (05/20/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB209 2275H 00:07:40.720 - 9:06:31 AM	General Working Session	(New Title) relative to owner's project managers for projects funded by school building aid and relative to reporting requirements for persons or entities financing lawsuits.	Abbas, Daryl(R)[B-]2025
SB209 2275H 00:23:01.600 - 9:21:52 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to owner's project managers for projects funded by school building aid and relative to reporting requirements for persons or entities financing lawsuits.	Abbas, Daryl(R)[B-]2025
SB99 00:26:58.840 - 9:25:49 AM	General Working Session	relative to regional career and technical education agreements.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025

SB209 2275H: Representative Lad Information Only00:07:40.720 - 9:06:31 AM; Representative Lad explained the purpose of the work session and the subsequent executive session for bills SB99 and SB209. He highlighted the amendment he proposed for SB209, which aimed to align the requirement for hiring an owner's project manager with current law by removing the mandate to engage the manager before the application process. The amendment also updated the project cost threshold to a more current amount, reflecting discussions with the Department of Education and local contractors. The amendment was intended to ensure that project managers are hired to represent the best interests of the school district and to manage project costs effectively.
SB209 2275H: Representative Brookie Information Only00:14:25.600 - 9:13:16 AM; Representative Brookie inquired about the original intent of the bill, which was to hire a project manager before the application process. He expressed concerns about the potential long-term employment of the project manager if the project was delayed for several years. Representative Lad clarified that the amendment reverts to current law, which does not require hiring a project manager before the application but allows it.
SB209 2275H: Representative Fellows Information Only00:16:59.920 - 9:15:50 AM; Representative Fellows asked about the cost allocation for project managers and the administrative costs associated with the project. He was informed that project managers are entitled to 1.5% of the project cost as per the administrative rules. He also questioned the necessity of the bill given the existing rules, to which Representative Lad responded that the bill mainly updated the cost threshold to a more current amount.
SB209 2275H: Representative Luno Information Only00:20:36.480 - 9:19:27 AM; Representative Luno expressed support for the amendment to SB209, noting that the original bill's requirement to engage a project manager prior to the application was a non-starter due to potential unnecessary costs. He appreciated the amendment's adjustments to revert to original language and update the cost threshold, hoping the Senate would concur with these changes.
SB209 2275H: Representative Lad Vote00:23:01.600 - 9:21:52 AM; Representative Lad opened the executive session for SB209 and moved to recommend OTP (Ought to Pass) with the amendment 2275H. The motion was seconded by Representative Luno, and the amendment was adopted without further discussion. The committee then voted 18-0 in favor of OTPA (Ought to Pass with Amendment), and the bill was placed on the consent calendar.
SB99: Representative Lad Information Only00:26:58.840 - 9:25:49 AM; Representative Lad introduced the work session on SB99, focusing on amendments to facilitate access to career technical education (CTE). He expressed concerns about the original bill's complexity in determining costs for students taking additional courses beyond CTE and discussed the potential implications of allowing full-time students from other districts to attend CTE programs. He proposed an amendment to mirror the payment model used for homeschooling students, where the sending district pays 0.15 of the receiving school's pupil cost per course credit taken.
SB99: Representative Luno Information Only00:40:11.760 - 9:39:02 AM; Representative Luno raised questions about the application of the 0.15 tuition rate for students from private schools or those in the EFA program, noting that the bill only addresses public schools. He also questioned the feasibility of the 0.15 rate given different scheduling structures across schools and suggested that the word 'shall' on line 11 be changed to 'may' to allow more flexibility in negotiations between sending and receiving districts.
SB99: Representative Spillsbury Information Only00:46:37.839 - 9:45:28 AM; Representative Spillsbury emphasized the original bill's intent to mandate access to CTE programming and expressed concern that changing 'shall' to 'may' could defeat this purpose. He argued that Representative Lad's amendment aims to clarify how access would be facilitated but maintained that the mandatory nature of the bill should be preserved to ensure statewide access to CTE.
SB99: Representative Fellows Information Only00:49:51.520 - 9:48:42 AM; Representative Fellows discussed the challenges of aligning school calendars to facilitate CTE access, noting the difficulties posed by different scheduling structures and transportation issues. He supported the idea of mandatory agreements to ensure that students from sending schools could take necessary academic courses to participate in CTE programs without conflicts.
SB99: Representative Kofalt Information Only00:58:15.880 - 9:57:06 AM; Representative Kofalt sought clarification on the definition of 'course' versus 'course credit' in the context of the bill, to which it was explained that one course typically equals one credit. He also asked about the timing of cost per pupil calculations, confirming that it would be based on the previous year's costs as provided by the Department of Education.
SB99: Representative Luno Information Only00:59:32.799 - 9:58:23 AM; Representative Luno raised concerns about using a blended cost per pupil for tuition calculations, which includes special education costs, despite the bill specifying that special education costs are to be borne by the sending district. He suggested that tuition should be based on non-special education costs to avoid double-counting these expenses.
SB99: Representative from Newmarket Information Only01:04:41.680 - 10:03:32 AM; The representative raised a question about why Newmarket would be responsible for providing opportunities for high school students, specifically questioning the logistics and fairness of sending Newmarket students to Exeter High School.
SB99: Steve Rothenberg, former Vice Principal of Contoocook Valley Regional High School and current private business owner Information Only01:05:28.079 - 10:04:19 AM; Steve Rothenberg, who used to be the vice principal of Contoocook Valley Regional High School and has experience with the CTE program, provided context about his background and involvement with CTE in the state. He clarified that he is now in private business.
SB99: Representative Fellows Information Only01:06:38.799 - 10:05:29 AM; Representative Fellows discussed the CTE centers, particularly those that are self-contained like Manchester School of Technology, and questioned the exclusion of such centers from the proposed plan. He highlighted that these centers offer general education courses alongside CTE courses and sought clarification on the scope of the tuition agreement.
SB99: Representative Burton Support01:08:49.359 - 10:07:40 AM; Representative Burton shared a success story about his grandson who attended Oyster River High School and pursued CTE at Dover. He emphasized the importance of CTE and its role in his grandson's career success, suggesting that Newmarket students might also benefit from similar programs.
SB99: Representative Spilsbury Information Only01:11:02.719 - 10:09:53 AM; Representative Spilsbury expressed support for the spirit and purpose of the bill but pointed out mechanical issues that need resolution. He specifically mentioned the term 'comprehensive high school pupil cost' and its lack of a clear definition, and raised concerns about tuition costs for districts that accept students from outside their district.
SB99: Representative Muire Information Only01:12:13.040 - 10:11:04 AM; Representative Muire agreed with Representative Spilsbury on the direction of the amendment but stressed the need to limit the number of students a receiving school can accept based on its capacity, which he noted was not addressed in the current amendment.
SB99: Representative from Pepper Academy Support01:13:31.719 - 10:12:22 AM; The representative from Pepper Academy emphasized the importance of the bill in providing flexibility for students. They mentioned the challenge of students leaving regular classes for CTE and the need for comparable classes at other schools to ensure students can continue their education seamlessly.
SB99: Representative Migan Support01:14:39.360 - 10:13:30 AM; Representative Migan supported the bill, highlighting the need to address transportation and academic time loss for students attending CTE centers from sending districts. They stressed the importance of CTE programs in preparing students for future careers and the need for more students to participate.
SB99: Representative McGuire Support01:17:53.920 - 10:16:44 AM; Representative McGuire suggested that the bill was close to being finalized and proposed minor changes that could be made within a week. They emphasized the urgency of improving students' lives through the bill and advocated for swift action rather than further delay.
SB99: Representative Papovich Information Only01:21:52.639 - 10:20:43 AM; Representative Papovich requested that committee members clearly state any issues they have with the bill to facilitate amendments within a week. They wanted to ensure all grievances are addressed before the final vote.
SB99: Representative Luno Information Only01:23:08.960 - 10:21:59 AM; Representative Luno raised concerns about the feasibility of addressing all issues within a week, considering the end of the school year and Memorial Day. They suggested that a study committee might be necessary to refine the bill over time and ensure all voices are heard.
SB99: Jerry F, from the School Administrators Association Information Only01:38:37.280 - 10:37:28 AM; Jerry F discussed logistical challenges in implementing the bill for the next school year, including staffing, student course selections, budgets, and transportation plans. He suggested that a longer runway might be necessary to address these complexities effectively.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:16:21.760 - 12:15:12 PM; The speaker discussed the financial aspects of special education funding across different states. They explained that in Connecticut, there's a threshold for high-cost reimbursement called 'special education aid', set at 4.5 times the board's average per pupil educational cost. Depending on the town's wealth, reimbursement rates vary, with lower-rated communities receiving up to 76.25%, middle third at 73%, and upper third at 70%. In Massachusetts, municipalities reimburse costs per pupil exceeding a threshold, set at $45,793 in 2020, raised to $52,419 for FY25, covering instructional costs and out-of-state transportation associated with IEPs. New Jersey distinguishes between in-district and separate public and private school programs for students with disabilities, with specific thresholds and costs. Rhode Island uses categorical funds for costs considered extraordinary, with distributions prorated if approved costs exceed appropriated amounts. The speaker also compared New Hampshire's formula, which uses a 3.5x multiplier for student costs, leading to a split where the local pays $96,000 and the state $104,000 for a $200,000 student cost. They noted that adjusting the multiplier to 3x would change these figures. Arkansas's formula was discussed, with a cap at $100,000 state contribution, and any costs beyond $200,000 falling entirely on the local. The speaker concluded that while New Hampshire's formula structure isn't bad, the numbers used might need adjustment.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:25:20.160 - 12:24:11 PM; The speaker discusses the funding model for special education in Massachusetts, noting that municipalities are reimbursed 75% of costs beyond an approved threshold, which was $52,419 for FY25. They question whether New Hampshire should look at other states' formulas or tweak its own, emphasizing the need for better data to adjust the formula and ensure accountability. They mention Arkansas's practice of auditing one out of every ten IEPs annually and suggest the need for a similar discussion in New Hampshire to gather data for adjusting their funding formula.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:26:29.439 - 12:25:20 PM; The speaker continues the discussion on special education funding, mentioning Massachusetts's school funding formula that includes special education costs in its adequacy formula. They ponder whether differentiated aid should be reallocated and highlight the need for more information to make informed decisions on funding adjustments.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:27:42.200 - 12:26:33 PM; The speaker questions how federal money for special education is distributed, mentioning three pots of money: special education aid, differentiated aid, and IDEA funds. They inquire about the specifics of IDEA funding, including how it's distributed to districts and the administrative costs covered by the department of education.
SB99: Rebecca Information Only03:28:37.120 - 12:27:28 PM; Rebecca explains the distribution of IDEA funds, stating that New Hampshire receives around $56 million, with $47 million going directly to districts. She describes the formula used to distribute these funds, which includes a base payment and allocations based on poverty and enrollment levels.
SB99: Rebecca Information Only03:31:52.640 - 12:30:43 PM; Rebecca further details the use of IDEA funds, noting that the department retains about $9 million for administrative costs, including salaries, operational expenses, and programs like the state systemic improvement plan focused on literacy. She emphasizes that federal funds cover most of their operating costs.
SB99: Rebecca Information Only03:32:49.920 - 12:31:40 PM; Rebecca discusses the stability of federal funding, stating there have been no changes announced, and the amount has slightly increased over the past six years. She explains the concept of maintenance of effort, which requires maintaining the same level of funding year to year, and mentions new legislation related to episodes of treatment.
SB99: Rebecca Information Only03:36:00.359 - 12:34:51 PM; Rebecca clarifies that episodes of treatment costs are primarily handled by DHS and are Medicaid eligible. She notes that the educational portion, which the department pays, may not be eligible for Medicaid. She also explains the challenge of gathering detailed cost data for all special education students to adjust funding formulas.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:37:12.800 - 12:36:03 PM; The speaker suggests that a mandate for reporting and data points is necessary for future decision-making on special education funding. They emphasize the importance of having comprehensive data to make informed choices.
SB99: Rebecca Information Only03:38:05.239 - 12:36:56 PM; Rebecca discusses the burden on districts if required to report all special education expenses. She explains that while districts track their costs, the burden comes from disaggregating and assigning costs to individual students. She also mentions that the new system being developed does not yet address financial tracking.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:41:08.080 - 12:39:59 PM; The speaker suggests an ongoing data entry process similar to payroll to ease the burden on districts at the end of the year. Rebecca confirms that the system is open year-round, but not all districts utilize it consistently.
SB99: Rebecca Information Only03:43:13.760 - 12:42:04 PM; Rebecca explains that while districts can provide total special education costs, breaking it down by student is a significant burden. She notes that the current system requires documentation for reimbursement but not for all students.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:44:01.920 - 12:42:52 PM; The speaker questions whether detailed per-student cost data is necessary for adjusting the funding formula. Rebecca explains that while it's not needed for a total number, the current formula requires it for reimbursement.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:45:12.720 - 12:44:03 PM; The speaker discusses the cost of labor and how it's tracked in special education services. Rebecca explains that costs are tied back to IEPs, with different services having different costs, and everything is documented for reimbursement purposes.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:50:04.560 - 12:48:55 PM; The speaker proposes an alternative funding model based on average costs per student with an IEP. Rebecca confirms that such a model would be a significant departure from current practices and notes the variability in state funding models.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:53:23.920 - 12:52:14 PM; The speaker discusses the feasibility of working backwards from existing data to project costs for adjusting the funding formula. Rebecca notes that the division of educational analytics and statistics found it difficult to upscale data from a small sample.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:54:19.600 - 12:53:10 PM; The speaker suggests using incentives to encourage data collection from districts. They propose different reimbursement rates based on data submission and emphasize the potential benefits of comprehensive data for decision-making.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:57:26.640 - 12:56:17 PM; The speaker proposes using a consultant to implement cost accounting systems and questions the burden of expanding data collection to all students. Rebecca explains that districts only track costs for students over the reimbursement threshold.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:13:03.880 - 1:11:54 PM; The speaker discusses the broader concepts of state participation in special education costs and the challenges of data collection. They suggest looking at budget constraints and potential funding sources.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:20:03.760 - 1:18:54 PM; The speaker suggests piloting data collection in a few representative districts to assess the burden and value of the data. They also mention the potential for regional services to reduce costs and the need for better software systems to track data.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:25:49.199 - 1:24:40 PM; The speaker discusses the stabilization of state share through adjusting factors in a grant system, previously termed 'catastrophic' due to sudden high expenses. They suggest that lowering these factors could reduce volatility and risk. The discussion also touches on the allocation of special education funds and the state's total spending on special education, suggesting a potential revision of the funding formula to better manage the $98 million state contribution out of a total of $860 million spent on special education.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:28:06.399 - 1:26:57 PM; The speaker continues the discussion on funding, clarifying the state's total spending on special education, which includes $339 million for CAD aid and $674 million for differential aid, summing up to $1.1 billion. They also mention the state's contribution of $98 million and suggest revisiting the funding formula for potential improvements in the next budget cycle, referencing House Bill 772 as a possible point of reference.
SB99: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:30:16.560 - 1:29:07 PM; The speaker concludes the session by noting the need for further work on the topic, mentioning that no meetings will be held in June and suggesting some work with analytics might be necessary. They also remind others to remove personal items from the building due to upcoming closures.

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