[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6361262,"mediaKeyId","2170866-e50a07be5fc9e7676511913c0d28ea35","parentId",2170866,"title","Committee hears competing proposals for catastrophic aid, Education Trust Fund and ‘swept’ property-tax reform","audioSeconds",6761,"startMs",7092000,"endMs",13853000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170866-e50a07be5fc9e7676511913c0d28ea35&start=7092&end=13853","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170866-e50a07be5fc9e7676511913c0d28ea35/thumbnail_7092000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6361262/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-competing-proposals-for-catastrophic-aid-Education-Trust-Fund-and-swept-property-tax-reform","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361262-6ee8aa6abf2d73d19f4006c0578b8388/orig.mp4?Expires=1771043588&Signature=D5rq0WLJ~r52q7B3DG9~8DfYtrVDO6xfegbGik2fbH-5FPjYfZpuvJHGKWecU5VFV8C5WK2vdegeC6ilfiYYP3MqQEwPEMhEXgPLw2Tf06ZwJmpXImc53-7CdwWk378vtHN93xdOdV3ifqqSZFxPg1S~vW6ptgNcs6HxOrD-lAVyAHmpsqW85aOEu5ZUM5mIZl223taSZf37EDGXIaNLtNlf6LmhToZt18tmIf~qDM8gAyX~lshS3Ze0IMD-jdp3bh3bMsY3YlXjDfxF5DHKYy3aX9IDHCsDL4ZAehTIisE9gUQYNxICb4GKktzxCpSwApjApHT7EI0evj0wkpsEvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","Committee members took up several related measures that would change how New Hampshire pays for very high-cost special-education students and how the statewide education property tax (commonly called “SWEP”) is collected and used.

Catastrophic aid (the high-cost reimbursement that used to be called Cat Aid) drew an initial hearing when Rep. Rick Ladd presented HB 717 to adjust thresholds and reimbursement formulas. Ladd and other speakers warned that current catastrophic-aid appropriations lag real claims: the committee heard that catastrophic reimbursements were being prorated (witnesses cited proration near two-thirds) and that a roughly $17 million shortfall had been identified in recent years. Ladd said changing the threshold and addressing proration were part of needed fixes, and that the bill provided a vehicle for continuing committee discussion and interstate comparisons.

The committee then pivoted to bills addressing the statewide education property tax and where any “excess” SWEP (the portion of local bills labeled “state education tax”) should reside. Rep. Dave Luno (HB 742) proposed removing catastrophic/special-education payments from an annual appropriation and instead drawing them, when needed, from the Education Trust Fund — a “must-pay” account that the state guarantees and that has procedures for covering shortfalls. Luno argued that drawing catastrophic payments from the trust fund would prevent last-minute prorations and protect districts from midyear shocks.

Several lawmakers and municipal officials pushed back on proposals that would require towns to remit so-called excess SWEP receipts back to Concord. Mark DeCoteau and a coalition of 21 municipal governments (Education Coalition Communities 2.0) opposed HB 675 and similar plans because returning local SWEP receipts to the state would force towns to re-raise the funds locally for their schools — effectively increasing local tax effort while removing local control. Coalition members said the 2011 law that allowed towns to retain excess SWEP for local educational purposes reflected negotiated state policy and that sweeping the funds back to Concord would produce winners and losers across the state.

Other witnesses, including Representative Lil Mahan (Lebanon School Board), urged caution about state-level spending caps and local-control limits embedded in related bills. Mahan said an across-the-board state cap on district spending risks layoffs or program cuts in places where local needs differ, and she urged the committee to preserve municipal and school-board discretion.

Representative Joe Sweeney’s larger proposal (HB 675) — a multi-part vehicle that raised the adequacy base, tied increases to CPI and proposed a local budget cap with a 2/3 override — drew extended debate on whether the state should expand the Education Trust Fund role and how to balance local control with broader tax relief goals. Sweeney and supporters argued the bill would give predictable funding while protecting taxpayers; opponents said it would limit local control and might harm small, rural districts.

Ending: The committee did not act on any of the SWEP or catastrophic-aid bills during the hearing. Members asked department and fiscal staff for detailed lists of towns that would be affected by remitting excess SWEP and for updated catastrophic-aid projections; they scheduled the items for further work-session review with DRA, DOE and LBA staff.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Funding (01/30/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers considered several bills aimed at easing catastrophic special-education costs and at reforming the statewide education property tax (SWEP), with municipal leaders warning against requiring towns to turn SWEP excess back to Concord.","taxTitle","Education, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17745,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361272,"House committee hears debate on differentiating special-education funding tiers",3814,382000,4196000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170866-e50a07be5fc9e7676511913c0d28ea35&start=382&end=4196","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170866-e50a07be5fc9e7676511913c0d28ea35/thumbnail_382000.jpg","/articles/6361272/New-Hampshire/House-committee-hears-debate-on-differentiating-special-education-funding-tiers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361272-9c8cc8bea3dc5857d3894bfb60d91f76/orig.mp4?Expires=1771043588&Signature=Y53XkwJCvL8mmLFCyjnJ0fuwl305P1Td6XOmImu6xKn9kA0SvlH8ld0n4xhwTNqhf75pG0LCHj2yzQRZP12WlwcwAvttQFzWz7aH9Yw~lk7Y9lXm6DEB-eE04Zd69ql6kZWqroRTkMqueP7lUfAO6hae7BCkS-PWAmFNT5Zbj-AwFbgbWLrqi5S9h16XHyXuOyMMnAPI5M57MnOjcty7cK5FlZzVflOVyZZ05XuuLbhOnA3WAwTh0w8bKBn7Oqn9WE0nVRhcUFGf2xhNNniw1TMFs~Y49C3CO7CGUq9x~RCzB5~1b6EmIT3Sy1qMx-sqEcK-RhF3Yg7JBQy2X0eSnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Rick Ladd opened a public hearing on HB 563, a bill to change how New Hampshire’s adequacy formula funds pupils receiving special-education services. The bill would set a higher base adequacy component and create three differentiated categories tied to the proportion of time a student spends in general education versus more restrictive settings.

Ladd said the bill starts with a base cost per pupil that reflects recent budget projections and then layers differentiated aid for free-and-reduced-price-meal status, English-language learners and the three special-education categories. He described the categories as mirroring IDEA reporting: category A (students in general education 80% or more of the day), category B (less time in general education), and category C (students placed homebound, in hospital settings or in residential or out-of-district placements). Ladd told the committee the base per-pupil figure in the draft mirrors current fiscal-year projections and that any change in the base raises system-wide costs sharply.

Parents, attorneys and advocates gave extended testimony. Bonnie Dunham, a Merrimack parent, said her son benefited from inclusion and argued the bill as drafted would financially reward school districts for placing students in more restrictive settings. “That gives a tremendous financial incentive to place a child in a more restrictive environment,” she testified, and asked the committee to “recommend ITL” (inexpedient to legislate) unless the measure is changed to avoid incentivizing segregation.

Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center of New Hampshire, testified in opposition. She said the proposed placement-based tiers could “unintentionally” push students into more restrictive settings and stigmatize children who are labeled by placement. Rosenberg and other advocates recommended alternative approaches such as raising per-pupil funding for all students receiving special-education services or reworking catastrophic-aid reimbursement so districts receive funds sooner for very high-cost students.

Local-school and special-education administrators and advocates urged clearer, service-based accounting of costs. Kristen Manchuramani of the Special Education Advocacy Office said many inclusive placements can cost as much—or more—than specialized classrooms, because inclusion often requires paraprofessionals and related services. She told the committee that service-level costing would give a better signal than blunt placement categories.

Committee members and sponsors repeatedly stressed the measure was an opening position for a work session and that numbers remain under discussion. Lawmakers noted the bill does not alter catastrophic aid for very high-cost students (the program formerly called “Cat Aid”), a separate component Ladd and others said will be addressed in parallel work.

The hearing closed after members committed to further discussion in committee work sessions. Staff and several witnesses said they would provide cost samples and service-level estimates to help the committee calibrate the proposed weights.

Ending: The committee left the specifics of the categories and dollar weights open for the next work session, directing stakeholders and department staff to supply cost breakdowns that distinguish placement from actual service costs.","Representative Rick Ladd introduced HB 563 to create three differentiated special-education funding categories tied to time in general education and higher weights for more restrictive placements.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361267,"Broad support for HB 603’s call to raise state share of special-education costs but questions remain on design",798,4172000,4970000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170866-e50a07be5fc9e7676511913c0d28ea35&start=4172&end=4970","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170866-e50a07be5fc9e7676511913c0d28ea35/thumbnail_4172000.jpg","/articles/6361267/New-Hampshire/Broad-support-for-HB-603s-call-to-raise-state-share-of-special-education-costs-but-questions-remain-on-design","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361267-10e18d766655408c2dcd7a5d37d4aa61/orig.mp4?Expires=1771043588&Signature=KQfA7~XSjnAFX6FCh30Mz4RoW-JBKq7cVq7rcEuhsIGy73iOsJI1BDegt9R6aBoSO6PVUxAD5GLBbSaYzMxLvFSscppRr-fyt7ZrkrAk4guC1O3Lp1shQbY0bGAmHKz-hcDSXh~Kbd9Q6-XgjzHlHqzCEg5BxhwCjDYTtXYVyiHbyMCqJVnfQjJap-o2kKoWN3Vk2M9~-Uc9aNQBpGa1xgmMh4kAYmu0hPzjApmgKIhDjxo729r6FsdO-YJoII-hgZjSM25oddazNYV--yOhYazNVPdIeRphVD2uF8FP2tP4r6yeOhEv1xQf~N3fkBJ8kC52kYSDWb~BLtblNPv9dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Heath Howard introduced HB 603, which would increase the adequacy grant for pupils receiving special-education services and shift a greater share of special-education costs from local property taxpayers to the state. Howard said he and co-sponsors seek to reduce volatile, unpredictable local budget spikes caused by a small number of high-cost placements and to increase the state share of special-education funding.

Howard described data showing dramatic special-education cost increases in some districts and cited statewide totals (witnesses referenced a roughly $755 million figure for special-education-related spending after excluding some non-instructional items). He said many districts struggle when students enter mid-year with high-cost needs that must be met immediately while state catastrophic reimbursement often arrives only later.

Union and district witnesses largely supported the bill. Deborah Howes, president of American Federation of Teachers — New Hampshire, said increasing state funding would help districts hire and retain staff (paraprofessionals, therapists, special educators) and improve continuity for students. Michaela Demeter (Dover School Board) said out-of-district placements have increased in Dover and cited per-student out-of-district costs above $120,000 in the most recent year; she told the committee a proposed in-district intensive program would still cost roughly $100,000 per student annually and is unaffordable for the district without more state aid.

Kristen Manchuramani of the Special Education Advocacy Office cautioned that any statewide per-student increase should avoid creating incentives that shift children improperly into IEPs or into restrictive placements. She recommended basing increased funding on reported services and provider costs and urged stronger data collection to link funding to services provided. Louis Esposito, formerly a special-education teacher and now executive director of Able NH, described staffing shortages and infrastructure limits that hamper services even when local districts prioritize students.

Zach Sheehan of the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project said HB 603’s target — a much larger state contribution to special-education costs — aligns the state share more closely with actual additional per-pupil spending, and flagged the state’s long-term trend of declining share despite rising special-education costs.

Representatives asked detailed questions about mechanics and fiscal impact. Brian Eaton from the Department of Education’s Bureau of School Finance provided a technical clarification about education freedom accounts (EFAs) included in the fiscal note: an FY26 estimate assumed roughly 400 EFA students would receive special-education services and therefore the differentiated aid factor; he said that figure was a proxy based on historical EFA patterns and that department staff would provide more precise reporting.

Ending: The committee heard a mix of human testimony and technical briefing and agreed to include this proposal in upcoming work sessions with DOE and fiscal staff to refine cost estimates and program design before drafting amendments.","Rep. Heath Howard told the Education Funding Committee HB 603 would significantly raise state support for pupils with individualized education programs, arguing the change would stabilize local budgets and reduce volatile property-tax impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears competing proposals for catastrophic aid, Education Trust Fund and ‘swept’ property-tax reform

House committee hears debate on differentiating special-education funding tiers

Broad support for HB 603’s call to raise state share of special-education costs but questions remain on design