Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, Manchester is now up to 26% of the student body has special needs categorized as special needs
• I mean, Manchester is now up to 26% of the student body has special needs categorized as special needs
• as special education, I think identified as special education, I think we<00:27:32.799> need<
• >> So special need are we talking about adequacy?
• about >> So special need are we talking about adequacy?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to review and amend the minutes from its previous meeting, correcting the date, several spelling and wording errors, and clarifying references to a scholarship fund and a member’s title. The minutes were then approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair then turned to the commission’s work plan under SB 57, emphasizing the need to prioritize the statutory topics and identify which issues require additional research, documentation, and possible spreadsheets. Members discussed a broad range of special education cost drivers and policy questions, including student referral rates, why students are classified as other health impaired, whether referrals increased after COVID school closures, intervention processes before referral, the cost of services required under IEPs and 504 plans, differences between federal law, state law, and DOE rules, reporting of special education costs, out-of-district and residential placements, district sharing of resources, dispute resolution, graduation rates, and adult learning outcomes. Several members raised concerns that school environments, mental health, bullying, and possible overidentification may be contributing to rising special education numbers and costs, while others cautioned that some reported district percentages may be inflated or unclear because of how the data are counted. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 742, which would eliminate prorated special education aid when state appropriations are insufficient and require the governor to draw a warrant to cover shortfalls. Representative Ames explained that the bill had been recommended for interim study because the commission is already examining special education costing, and he highlighted the gap between FY24 special education costs of about $977.1 million and state aid of $33.9 million for catastrophic aid, $67.4 million for differentiated aid, and $50.8 million in federal IDEA funds, leaving local districts to cover about $825.1 million. He argued the commission should ultimately make clear that both the federal government and the state should contribute more. The Department of Education, through Melissa White, answered questions about data and oversight. She said special education counts come from IEPs entered into the state system using SASIDs, that DOE monitors districts through both desk audits and on-site visits, and that billing is checked against the services listed in each student’s IEP. She also said DOE’s special education work is largely federally funded, with roughly $56.7 million received through IDEA this year and about $49.1 million flowing through to LEAs, while the department retains a small amount for administration and statewide support activities. Members also discussed how adequacy calculations use special education counts from the state system and how those figures are reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have heard from a number of school districts all across the state about the need for more special education
• needs.
• I have heard from a number of school districts all across the state about the need for more special education
• that they have to meet the special education needs of their students.
• If we were to meet all of the special education needs for students across the state, what would that

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals across seven education-related items and received testimony from the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Education, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the Office of Public School Construction. On dual enrollment, the administration proposed $100 million one-time Proposition 98 funding plus policy changes to expand access, including eligibility for regional occupational centers, added support for justice-involved youth, priority for higher-need LEAs, teacher professional development, and a reduction in required daily instructional minutes for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the funding as not clearly tied to implementation barriers, while CDE supported the proposal but suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Several public commenters and members supported the investment and urged inclusion of technical assistance and adult dual enrollment. For the reading difficulty screener proposal, the Governor proposed $40 million one-time funding and statutory changes requiring kindergarten screeners after 91 school days and grades 1-2 screeners after 46 school days, with the stated goal of reducing over-identification and allowing time for foundational instruction. The LAO recommended rejecting the funding, saying costs were likely overstated and that LEAs could use discretionary block grant funds instead. CDE supported the funding but the timing restrictions drew significant concern from the chair and public witnesses, who argued the deadlines were too prescriptive and could delay early intervention; advocates and literacy organizations urged preserving local flexibility and screening earlier. CDE and Finance defended the timing as based on data and consistent with other states, while also emphasizing that early instruction and support could still begin on day one. On special education, Finance described a proposal to increase the base rate to $99 per ADA through a $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 augmentation, along with COLA and enrollment adjustments. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be achieved with less funding; CDE strongly supported the increase, citing rising enrollment, cost pressures, and inequities across SELPAs. Public testimony from districts and SELPAs echoed the need for more funding and asked for even higher per-ADA support. The committee also heard a school facilities update showing Proposition 2 bond balances and demand levels, with OPSC noting funds are being used for new construction, modernization, small district set-asides, lead remediation, and natural disaster assistance. For the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, members heard that the student teacher stipend program’s grants management system is complete and that the Commission is seeking to track participation and outcomes; the Governor also proposed additional state operations funding to address misconduct workload, implement SB 848-related data systems, and administer the stipend program. Finally, the Governor proposed $250 million one-time funding to continue teacher and school counselor residency grants through 2029-30, which the LAO said could help fill shortages but may be harder for rural LEAs; CTC supported the program and said regional technical assistance hubs are helping expand access. No formal votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• It supports teacher pathways in high-needs areas like special education and bilingual education.
• students in special education. need for Texas to fully fund special education services for our most vulnerable
• needs education.
• That being said, I want to be very clear: we do need an infusion of resources into special education.
• We thought that maybe they had an educational need for specialized instruction.

Bills: HB2, HB2

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• fund and then there's the special fund and then there's the special education<00:04:15.120> fund
• <00:04:19.280> education enough money in your special education enough money in your special
• formulas are pupil based and special formulas are pupil based and special education<00:10:10.920
• In the event that the budget does need to be trimmed and special education is on the line, some people
• boils down to the fact that uh we need boils down to the fact that uh we need to<00:12:32.199>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The additional funds they need usually come from special education tuition billing.
• I think that the school districts need this help in attending to their special needs children and special
• attending to their special needs attending to their special needs children<01:56:08.639> and<
• The school board that that money that comes in the following year needs to be used for special ed.
• <02:27:25.200> special know communities that would need special know communities that would

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No, 10% is what we would need. 18% is what we would need if we didn't get funding.
• healthcare need.
• education needs.
• So, bottom line is that we either need to have more resources devoted to special education through a
• It provides critical funding to students with special education needs requiring medical services. services

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need...
• I have heard from a number of school districts all across the state about the need for more special education
• needs.
• to meet the special education needs of their students.
• If we were to meet all of the special education needs for students across the state, what would that

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on dual enrollment, reading difficulty screeners, special education, school facilities, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing programs. On dual enrollment, the Department of Finance described a $100 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to expand the Dual Enrollment Opportunities Grant Program, along with changes to make regional occupational centers eligible, add funding for justice-involved youth, prioritize higher-need LEAs, support teacher professional development, and reduce daily instructional minute requirements for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the new funding as not clearly addressing implementation barriers, while CDE supported the proposal and suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Committee members and public commenters generally supported the expansion, with some asking for technical assistance and broader access, including adult dual enrollment. The committee also reviewed a $40 million one-time Proposition 98 proposal for reading difficulty screener implementation and related trailer bill language that would require screening after 91 school days for kindergarten and 46 school days for grades 1-2. Finance said the timing was intended to reduce over-identification and align with evidence from preliminary data; the LAO recommended rejecting the funding and redirecting it to a discretionary block grant. CDE supported the funding and the general approach but acknowledged the need for local support and training. Several committee members and public witnesses raised concerns that the proposed timing restrictions were too rigid and could delay early intervention, while others supported the delay as a way to improve accuracy and avoid misidentification. For special education, Finance proposed ongoing Proposition 98 increases to adjust for COLA and enrollment changes and to raise the statewide special education base rate to $99 per ADA, equalizing rates across SELPAs. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be funded for less than the Governor’s figure. CDE and multiple local education representatives strongly supported the increase, citing rising special education enrollment, cost pressures, and large local funding gaps. The committee also heard a brief overview of the school facilities proposal, which continues $1.5 billion in Proposition 2 bond funding for the School Facility Program; OPSC reported significant remaining bond authority but also substantial pending demand, and explained that natural disaster school rebuilding draws from the broader new construction and modernization pools. Finally, the committee reviewed Commission on Teacher Credentialing proposals, including the already-funded $300 million Student Teacher Stipend Program, new state operations resources for misconduct investigations and grant administration, and a $250 million one-time continuation of the Teacher Residency Grant Program. CTC said its grants management system is ready and that it expects better data tracking; public testimony broadly supported the educator workforce investments and urged continued funding for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and additional support for rural and leadership pipeline programs. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fast forward to now, costs have increased and we need to invest in special education so that schools
• We need to really focus on improving and improving support and funding for special education services
• Don't take it from special education services because our kiddos really need support, um.
• As we've heard today very clearly, Policy change is needed and the increased need for funding in special
• in special education.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is not clear how long they will need to respond to about 80 observations on their oversight of special
• In addition to special ed services, you have a raft of other services and educational needs that, you
• So, ethically and by the law, we need to look at that and say, you know, 100% specialized school that
• Ethically and by the law, we need to look at that and say, you know, 100% specialized school that the
• So when we're talking about the special education costs and you're looking at an individual's needs,

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission on the costing of special education met to review several documents and updates, including draft materials on residential placements, an LBA dispute resolution report, prior minutes, rate-setting rules, and a letter involving Senator Hassan. The minutes from March 16 were approved by motion, second, and one abstention. Members also received an update that the LBA special education performance audit is still pending; the report is expected to be very large, NHED and the Board of Education must review and comment before release, and it likely will not be available until late summer or early fall. The separate EFA audit was also noted as still unreleased, and members said they may return later to issues involving EFA costing and differentiated aid. A major focus was HB 1099, which would create a committee to study the cost and liability of providing educational services to students placed in residential facilities. The chair explained that the House version had passed unanimously and the bill was headed to a committee of conference. Members discussed a proposed amendment to add the phrase “including but not limited to” so the study would cover not only court-ordered or treatment-related placements but also other residential placements, including those tied to school district decisions. Some members said this was a substantial expansion, while others said it would simply give the committee broader latitude. Jason Stock of the Winnisquam Regional School Board described how the issue arose during budget work at Winnisquam, where the district was trying to determine who should pay for educational services for students living at Spaulding Youth Center in Northfield. He said the district had 10 students attending Winnisquam, including three foster students and seven students connected to Spaulding, and that Spaulding-specific invoicing for 2024-2025 totaled $141,417.05 for eight students. Members also discussed rising private placement tuition costs and the difficulty of determining residency and fiscal responsibility for students placed in residential settings. Department counsel explained that under RSA 193:27 and 193:28, children placed in a home for children may attend the local district school, and that special education cost responsibility depends on whether the student is identified as disabled and on the nature of the placement. Spaulding representatives had not yet presented by the end of the excerpt, and the committee was still working through the residency and funding questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This seems unfair because, um, students who need dyslexia intervention also need all the other aspects
• We need to support our students.
• I'm one of many students who didn't get the support they needed because of the illegal 8.5% cap on special
• People need to understand the reason why we fought so hard for special education or for dyslexia to be
• We just need to, we need to really ask for it now because now is the time when they're resetting the

Transcript Highlights:

• If they're a younger child, you know, do they need a special transportation?
• If they're a younger child, you know, do they need a special transportation?
• If they're a younger child, you know, do they need a special transportation?
• If they're a younger child, you know, do they need a special transportation?
• to<01:22:46.159> go<01:22:46.320> to a special ed student needs to go to a special

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission to study the cost of special education met, confirmed a quorum, introduced members and guests, and approved the minutes from the October 29 meeting. Members noted the commission’s mandate under Senate Bill 57 and emphasized the need to focus on recommendations and findings by July 1, 2026. The chair also distributed additional handouts, including materials related to the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program and administrative rules tied to differentiated aid and disability determinations. The main discussion centered on how students qualify for differentiated aid under the EFA program. Matt Sutherton of the Children’s Scholarship Fund explained that the organization, which contracts with the state to administer EFAs, accepts either school-district/IEP documentation or a medical certification of disability (MCD) from a licensed medical professional. Members questioned how this process relates to the state’s special education rules and whether the school-district examiner standards in ED 107/1107.04 apply to EFAs. Sutherton said the MCD form, created with the department, requires the medical professional to sign that they are qualified to make the determination and to identify the disability. Several members expressed concern that the EFA process is less rigorous than the school-district IEP process and may be inflating disability counts. One member argued that the administrative rules cited are primarily for school districts, not EFAs, and said the Department of Education may not know how many of the roughly 890 EFA students receiving differentiated aid came through school-district documentation versus the MCD pathway. Another member said the EFA system appears more generous than the school system and raised concerns about oversight, auditing, and whether the program’s data are accurate. Sutherton said the organization reviews signed documentation, credentials, and diagnosis information, and may request additional records to help adjudicate expenses. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the prior minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're supposed they are required to offer the services that their students need, including special
• They're supposed they are required to offer the services that their students need, including special
• in serving students that need special education services, whereas others will have very few.
• in serving students that need special education services, whereas others will have very few.
• in serving students that need special education services, whereas others will have very few.

Bills: HF3487, HF3421

Keywords: anonymous reporting, school safety, education, crisis intervention, threat reporting, early literacy, reading instruction, teacher preparation, teacher candidates, teacher licensure, educator licensing, Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board, PELSB, field experience, supervised practicum, evidence-based reading, science of reading, literacy methods, teacher training, preservice teachers

Transcript Highlights:

• Examine state policies impacting students with special needs and special populations, including the implementation
• Josiah, whose intensive behavioral needs once required a specialized placement, has now successfully
• They don't have to take all kids, special needs kids, ELL, and children with behavior problems; they
• Their educational needs are uniquely different from the other students in special education.
• It was basically saying you can only serve 8.5% of the students who have special needs.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• direction of where we need to go. direction of where we need to go.
• associated with special education. associated with special education.
• I believe we need we need to have I believe we need we need to have information<00:50:38.079> from
• child needs. child needs.
• need to get on this immediately. need to get on this immediately.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission held an organizational meeting under SB 57 to study the cost of special education, with the meeting streamed publicly at the chair’s request. Members introduced themselves, and the chair explained that the bill creates two separate pieces, one dealing with SAU structure and the other with a commission on special education costing. He outlined his background in education and special education and said the commission’s work would focus on understanding and controlling special education costs. The commission reviewed its membership requirements and noted several vacancies or unfilled appointments, including the special education advocate, two governor-appointed parent advocates, and a Department of Health and Human Services representative. The members then elected Representative Rick Ladd as chair, Representative Dick Ames as vice chair, and Representative Megan Murray as clerk. Representative Ames briefly described his legal and policy background in disability and special education work in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The chair then walked through the commission’s study topics, including referral rates by IDEA category, reasons for increases in categories such as autism and other health impairment, post-COVID referral trends, pre-referral interventions, Medicaid and 504-related costs, out-of-district placements, dispute resolution, billing practices, privacy, reimbursement, legal services, graduation rates, attendance, and adult learning. Members discussed how special education costs are distributed, noting that the state spends about $977 million annually on special education, with only part covered by state aid and the remainder largely borne by local districts. Testimony also noted that out-of-district placement costs have risen sharply since rate-setting changes around 2018, and that some categories may reflect changes in identification practices, medical factors, or broader population shifts. The commission agreed to continue reviewing the data and formulas in future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, Manchester is now up to 26% of the student body has special needs categorized as special needs
• kids that are identified as special education, I think we need to start asking why that's happening.
• I mean, Manchester is now up to 26% of the student body has special needs categorized as special needs
• >> So special need are we talking about adequacy?
• about >> So special need are we talking about adequacy?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to approve the November 21, 2025 minutes, making several clerical corrections before adopting them as amended. The edits included adding the date, correcting a misspelled name, clarifying references to a scholarship fund representative’s title, removing an incorrect “DOE” reference, and fixing a few wording errors. The minutes were approved with one abstention from members who were absent. The bulk of the meeting focused on organizing the commission’s work under SB 57 and identifying which special education cost issues should be prioritized for research and reporting. Members discussed a long list of topics, including student referral rates, why students are classified as other health impaired, increases in referrals since school closures, interventions before referral, costs of non-medically necessary services in IEPs and 504 plans, differences between federal and state requirements, reporting of special education costs, out-of-district and residential placements, dispute resolution, Medicaid and insurance use, graduation rates, and adult learning participation. Several members emphasized the need to combine or narrow topics and to gather better data before the report due July 1, 2026. Representative Ames highlighted HB 742, which would eliminate prorated special education aid payments when state appropriations fall short, and explained that the Education Funding Committee recommended interim study. He argued that local districts are bearing too much of the cost and that the state and federal governments should provide more support. Other members raised concerns about rising special education identification rates, possible overidentification, school climate and mental health factors, bullying, staffing, speech therapy access, and residential placements. One member cautioned that DOE website numbers may be inflated or at least difficult to interpret because of how students are counted. Department of Education staff then explained how special education data and costs are monitored. They said student counts are tied to IEPs and SASIDs in the state system, districts are checked through both desk audits and on-site monitoring, and billed services are compared against IEP requirements. They also described IDEA funding, noting that most DOE special education staffing is federally funded, with a large share of federal money flowing through to local education agencies and the remainder supporting administration, monitoring, and training initiatives. Members discussed whether more staff and more robust oversight would improve accuracy and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Working in education, we are keenly aware of the critical need for special education teachers.
• We are aware of the critical need for special education teachers.
• these critical needs.
• We don't, for example, think that the need for more special ed teachers has changed from one administration
• ed think that the need for more special ed think that the need for more special ed teachers<01:46

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in law for that student's special education needs.
• in law for that student's special education needs.
• in law for that student's special education needs.
• > cases the very difficult special needs cases the very difficult special needs cases and<03:40
• <03:42:53.520> needs explicitly exclude uh special needs explicitly exclude uh special needs

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 295, which would make school building aid funds non-lapsing/non-APS. Representative Cahill said the bill was intended to keep any unused building aid money available for future projects, potentially helping move projects up the priority list or provide a little more funding for school construction. Members asked about how much money has lapsed in past years, whether the education trust fund and building aid are separate, and whether any lapsing dollars could be used to pay down debt. Department of Education official Jim Carney said about $29.1 million would be available if building aid is funded to the $50 million maximum in FY26, confirmed that the fund currently lapses, and said the department would gather historical lapse data. Committee members also discussed whether a dedicated fund structure could achieve the same goal, and the chair noted that the education trust fund statute includes school building aid as one of its uses. No vote was taken; the hearing was closed and the committee said it would later hold a work session after receiving more information. The committee then took up HB 237, introduced by Representative Dan McGuire, which would prohibit the use of special education state funds and differentiated aid for students not receiving special education services. The New Hampshire School Boards Association, through Becky Wilson, opposed the bill as written, saying it was unclear, potentially unnecessary, and difficult to implement because adequacy and differentiated aid are distributed as part of a districtwide lump sum rather than as student-specific dollars. She explained that special education costs are embedded across district budgets, including staffing, training, transportation, and instruction, and that some staff and services benefit both special education and general education students. Wilson also said differentiated aid is not tied to a specific pupil and is used at the district’s discretion, though it is intended to support students with greater needs. Committee members pressed on whether the bill would require districts to track money by individual student, whether it could conflict with federal special education law, and whether it would affect least restrictive environment requirements. Wilson said making the funds student-specific could create privacy and accounting problems and could make it difficult to staff inclusive classrooms, though she did not give a definitive legal opinion on federal compliance. She agreed that students who are not eligible for special education would not be included in the separate catastrophic/special education aid reimbursement program. The discussion continued into the second section of the bill, with members exploring how adequacy aid and differentiated aid are used in practice, but no action was taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you go up in that scale, if you need assistance, need intervention, or need substantial intervention
• assistance, need intervention, or need assistance, need intervention, or need substantial<00:43:
• 55.119> or needs assistance, needs intervention or needs assistance, needs intervention or needs
• They would definitely need just because I know how long it takes them to put in just the special education
• She gives us the data points that we need to be able to do our data, and then when she submits special

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met for its third discussion on special education aid under retained bill 742, with the chair noting that no action would be taken at the meeting. The chair reviewed prior hearings on Medicaid and local special education funding shortfalls, saying the committee was trying to understand why districts are facing proration of special education aid and how to reduce unfunded costs. He raised a series of questions for the Department of Education about the Nessus system, eligibility and ineligibility, invoices and vouchers, audit procedures, reimbursement rates, out-of-state placements, and who enters data at the district level. Rebecca Fdet, director of special education services at the Department of Education, explained that Nessus is the statewide special education information system and that every child in special education must be entered into it. She said most districts use it to develop IEPs and track services, while six districts use it only as a data reporting tool. She described which fields are required, how the system connects IEP development to the financial section, and how districts submit invoices when seeking special education aid, court-ordered placement payments, or episode-of-treatment placements. She said the department reviews invoices against the IEP, pays only for allowable services, and uses a cap that notifies districts when they reach the annual limit. Members asked about who submits the information, how districts decide when to seek aid, and how costs are calculated for individual or group services. Fdet said the district, usually an administrative assistant in the SAU office, submits the documentation electronically, and districts decide when to track students for aid based on their own circumstances. She said reimbursement is based on actual costs tied to the IEP, with group services split among students, and that the department does not generally set rates for local services. The only rate-setting she described was for approved private special education providers, which submit annual cost spreadsheets for tuition rates. She also said out-of-state providers must be approved by their own state, and the department checks licensure and certification through monitoring and investigations if concerns arise. The department also described its monitoring process, called Program Approval and General Supervision Monitoring, or PAGS. Fdet said districts are reviewed on a six-year cycle, with more intensive review for districts needing assistance or intervention and fewer file requests for districts meeting requirements. She said the department can review up to 65 data points on an IEP and that districts must submit special education aid paperwork by July 31, with superintendent verification due by August 15. The meeting ended with continued questions about procurement, audit procedures, and how the department handles out-of-district and out-of-state placements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or is that something that you don't think needs to be a part of the conversation during special session
• ...or is that something that you don't think needs to be a part of the conversation during special session
• We are going to talk a bit about the special session rules and where we need to be and what we're planning
• If that committee is going to decide it next week, then why do they need to meet at all, then come special
• ... ...next week, then why do they need to meet at all, then come special sessions?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first discussed security and member contact procedures, with several members emphasizing the need for formal security training at the start of each session and clearer procedures for knowing where legislators are staying during session for welfare checks and emergency contact. Members also raised concerns about the disclosure of home addresses in other public records and forms, and Legislative Council was asked to prepare a background memo on possible training, best practices, and related legislative or rule changes. The committee then took up a bill draft to reduce the number of paper copies of state publications sent to the State Library from eight to two. Legislative Council explained the cost savings and the move toward digital distribution, but the State Librarian testified that the library still needs paper copies for circulation, archives, and depository libraries, and requested a minimum of three copies. After discussion, the committee amended the draft to require three copies instead of two and passed the motion. The committee also approved a related House and Senate Rules amendment reducing the number of bound journals distributed, and a separate rule change removing the requirement that legislators’ home addresses be printed in the rule book and allowing a lower print run based on request and need. The committee next reviewed data on bill pre-filing and legislative workload. After hearing testimony that agency bills tend to arrive in a late-year rush and that staff workload is especially heavy around organizational session and the holidays, the committee voted to move the agency pre-filing deadline to the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. It also amended the deadline for constitutional amendments and study resolutions, moving them earlier so they would occur before crossover, and adjusted the reporting deadline accordingly. Members discussed whether these changes should be handled in special session or organizational session, and staff explained that the agency deadline change could be made effective for the next regular session through a permanent rules change. Finally, the committee reviewed proposed special session rules. Staff explained that the special session would use joint appropriations and joint policy committees, with expedited bill processing, limited bill introduction routes, and remote participation allowed for members and public testimony with approval. The committee also resolved a House appropriations membership issue by keeping the House side at 23 members and giving the House majority leader authority to appoint a replacement for the vacant seat, while increasing the Senate dollar threshold to match the House. Members then discussed the upcoming rural health special session process, including how the interim rural health group would differ from the actual special session committees, the timing of committee work and the governor’s address, and whether remote participation would be permitted in the special session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to get more special education.
• Um, I do agree that there is much data about special ed that is still needed, but this bill is about
• Um, I do agree that there is much data about special ed that is still needed, but this bill is about
• Um, I do agree that there is much data about special ed that is still needed, but this bill is about
• It is critical to our school districts that we address the special education funding needs.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up several school building aid bills. HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing, drew debate over whether the program is effective and whether funds should be allowed to carry forward. Supporters argued the program is underfunded and that even small leftover amounts should remain available for building aid; opponents said non-lapsing funds limit future budget flexibility and that the program creates winners and losers. The committee voted 4-3 to recommend HB 295 inexpedient to legislate (ITL). The committee then considered HB 366, which would increase school building aid for eligible projects and include retroactive funding for projects completed in the past. The motion to ITL was supported on the grounds that retroactive payments would be unfair to districts still waiting in line and that the legislature should focus on future projects. Supporters of the bill said the increase was modest and that districts that built during a prior moratorium on aid were left with long-term fiscal burdens. The committee again voted 4-3 to recommend ITL. The discussion also broadened into special education funding and a retained bill, HB 742, concerning catastrophic special education aid and the source of funding. Members debated whether the education trust fund should cover the aid and whether the committee should act now or wait for a separate commission studying special education costs. Several members emphasized that special education costs are rising, that more data is needed on student identification and funding formulas, and that the commission’s report may provide better guidance. The chair said the subcommittee’s recommendations would go to the full committee, and the next meeting was expected to be rescheduled from November 4 to later that week because of election-related conflicts.