[{"_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",6535696,"mediaKeyId","3384873-9797421b5385dcdfb55c81060241d989","parentId",3384873,"title","Senate Finance approves amendment raising maximum benefit cap to $750,000","audioSeconds",130,"startMs",1202000,"endMs",1332000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3384873-9797421b5385dcdfb55c81060241d989&start=1202&end=1332","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3384873-9797421b5385dcdfb55c81060241d989/thumbnail_1202000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6535696/New-Hampshire/Senate-Finance-approves-amendment-raising-maximum-benefit-cap-to-750000","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6535696-e2216051cb13173b7d1e0df69d0cfbb6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153387&Signature=Rcg1RgH2bbILYBL35wosdTHlZWGRQbuEnD4ZVUffGL6~JTROZ92hj~Np3j30D10FmkkMDGw6ClCRJ1cVycnsekRmRVeGmXr45VxymyYOpKaDvJPpMAHenunHlCqILsItq-Xh2XTFltmsH1Y2GrpKdzEtS4gWdpONODlG5x2L48cICDr4CtfY5jI58ywdkW8kPkNTpz-dPBAhsl2Uh33JRGYwz2dVSuwRYD9gqFjevPVfAo7iE3KAUjTN6bjWot7wrwCmGHofSjZWqQ7g3cJsYZyxqLQH046~-5rA9OcWglZtkiap~2caNNQXRUmIq1edm64qkm1VTcGAOBnN4nCG2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-05-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment to raise a statutory maximum benefit cap to $750,000.

A sponsor moved to amend the dollar cap upward, arguing for an increase to account for inflation and rising costs. The sponsor said the maximum benefit previously was $500,000 and noted that “the maximum benefit we've ever paid out is roughly around $350,000,” arguing that a higher cap was a reasonable compromise given current conditions. Another senator told the committee she would support the $750,000 number as a compromise.

Committee members voted by voice; the chair announced, \"the ayes have it.\" The motion to adopt the amendment passed. The committee record indicates Senator Lang made the motion and Senator Waters seconded; further implementation details and effective dates were not specified in committee discussion.

The change approved in committee is an amendment to the budget package; exact statutory text and the amendment identification will appear in the official HB 2 amendment documents.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Finance (05/19/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members voted to amend a benefit cap upward to $750,000, with supporters calling it a reasonable compromise and proponents noting historical payout levels below the new cap.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"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},6535701,"Senate Finance removes second-injury fund language from budget, sponsor says she will pursue standalone bill",224,1003000,1227000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3384873-9797421b5385dcdfb55c81060241d989&start=1003&end=1227","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3384873-9797421b5385dcdfb55c81060241d989/thumbnail_1003000.jpg","/articles/6535701/New-Hampshire/Senate-Finance-removes-second-injury-fund-language-from-budget-sponsor-says-she-will-pursue-standalone-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6535701-9d6603638a18875178c6ff6b821238dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153387&Signature=Kz6wzWmtfOH~7JooiOZMuYH~I3MVBSaRjO~M25JoTOp~rJi79dQFjRF1rCcxV0~hn~rOZG4jLgIjG3nl5wBRISXq8rmpnv-1Qca62QltmEgJcQuht0AXeLYr1pdKB9635DiaygakqoiIeUyysHiBdlqK9eGrLut~9IKQH~1EqH~N8aujWbVbSIP3PAFjXhPFyQ7K4HyIh4r0IqnNQ1rOxjSrHqn0yesWxa0ctS0HfzXVRuzQEWm4-RA3fxyz9K9VJH5ljqkuhuQIEdQYJPyEvFP-4ymFI13XGDSJe9qKQXW2yPieQzRh1Y1P7RI6qJAXNlYojeYaiVWh0OrOuXtvWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Finance Committee voted to approve two amendments that delete sections relating to the state’s second-injury fund from the pending budget package and removed the original amendment (item 1) so the sponsor can pursue a standalone bill.

Senator Lang moved to approve items 2 and 3 together — amendments described in the committee as deletions of the two sections that dealt with the second-injury fund — and asked that item 1 be removed from the budget list. The sponsor told the committee she had revised her approach after discussions with Commissioner Merrifield and said, \"we'll remove number 1 and we'll pass number 2 and 3, which deletes the 2 sections that, dealt with the second injury fund,\" and that she would bring a bill forward to allow a full hearing process with stakeholders.

The committee voted in favor of approving items 2 and 3 and then, with no objection, removed item 1 from the list. The amendments approved by the committee were identified in committee as \"amendment 2025-201704\" and \"2193.2.2302\" (committee labels used during the session). The chair announced the ayes had it after calling the voice vote.

Committee members and staff discussed logistics for reintroducing the material as a bill and noted that removing the language from the budget preserves a fuller legislative hearing process for the policy change. No final statutory change was enacted in the budget at the committee meeting; the sponsor committed to filing a standalone bill for committee consideration instead of adopting the language inside the budget measure.","Committee voted to approve two items deleting sections related to the second-injury fund from the budget and removed the original amendment from the package; sponsor said she will introduce a separate bill for full hearing.",{"_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},6535705,"Senate Finance puts proposed housing development funding on hold after extended debate",641,1385000,2026000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3384873-9797421b5385dcdfb55c81060241d989&start=1385&end=2026","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3384873-9797421b5385dcdfb55c81060241d989/thumbnail_1385000.jpg","/articles/6535705/New-Hampshire/Senate-Finance-puts-proposed-housing-development-funding-on-hold-after-extended-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6535705-8e9c5d4906c22fb734b8e84c10c2ffd5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153387&Signature=FJAqlSDaaykfe9IAynfT0fSZPg55mIQZRrnnRhV~RrFp7s5aMMXadb8gk6m55UITuBKP2g2MXsElsCYY2ltFqIwFcYdavVK3eiTWRzORVLXaGPIx420239UyaEkB-vOh9IUclamVlAGjQU5ta9gfzXpkHsKLvlyDV0TgnbL4QKXo~SmvSYYaftObxFb2R06BSyh6gEMeB2y46Du6JeFqDybV2uxP0BFUoGH7PMW-6DW0TTSQinX8fJ9HpAV~qe~AheIWf4TojFHXZsM4XochAuoTddiZDUY0iWn3hiUzON40xIPmUJrmvD9gLwAUzvO3TnvnGtOLZM-O~jDmbP-3rQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Finance Committee debated whether to add additional funding for a housing development program and decided to place the item on hold after extended discussion over budget trade-offs and program design.

Committee members spent more than 20 minutes debating an item tied to the state development finance authority and a proposal to increase housing funding that was described by supporters as an efficient lever to create housing near hospitals and other workforce centers. Senator Rosna said her community has an apartment building developed with these funds that is “80% affordable housing,” and urged the committee to “move forward with this.”

Senator Waters pressed for a larger allotment, saying the program has demonstrated success and arguing the committee should at least “take a bid at least? A million.” Opponents focused on the budgetary impact: Senator Lang noted that “for every $5,000,000 a year we allot to this it’s a $3,750,000 hit to the general fund,” and said he would support the proposal only if an offset of roughly $7.5 million for the biennium could be identified.

Other members proposed compromises, including selecting a smaller increase or delaying implementation to the second year of the biennium. Senator Rothman suggested a middle-ground increase or a delayed start; Senator Berthel said the legislature has already advanced other housing bills and cautioned that the budget was still not final.

After discussion the committee chair agreed to place the item on hold so members could gather additional information, including the location of unspent ARPA funds previously discussed during the hearing. The committee recessed for 15 minutes to review hold items and returned to vote on other agenda items.

The decision is procedural — the committee did not adopt a funding change or final budget amendment. The item remains on the committee’s hold list for later consideration.","Senate Finance members debated whether to add more funding to a housing development program and ultimately placed the item on hold after members raised budget and priority questions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Finance approves amendment raising maximum benefit cap to $750,000

Senate Finance removes second-injury fund language from budget, sponsor says she will pursue standalone bill

Senate Finance puts proposed housing development funding on hold after extended debate