Transcript Highlights:

• There are several bills, in addition to Senator Cruz's bill, and there's other bills like H.R. 9462 that

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know recently there was a H.R. 899, which wants to terminate the DOE.

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• the current fiscal year with the official estimate, any revisions, so the one you're looking at is H.R

Summary: The committee received an overview from Chris of the Legislative Budget Assistance Office on how it will estimate unrestricted revenues for the General Fund, Education Trust Fund, Highway Fund, and Fish and Game Fund. He explained that the committee’s work is based on current law, not pending bills, and that the estimates will feed into a House resolution and an amendment to House Bill 1, the operating budget. He also described the broader budget process, including how House and Senate estimates are reconciled, how surplus statements account for revenue changes from enacted bills, and how a committee of conference could resolve differences later in the session. No votes were taken. Members then asked about why the Education Trust Fund was running below plan. Chris said the shortfall appeared to be driven largely by business taxes, including differences in the BET/BPT split and improved tax-processing systems that better track where business tax payments belong. Representative Orr also asked about tobacco tax collections and out-of-state sales; Chris said tobacco revenue was likely overestimated in 2023 based on COVID-era patterns, with more people smoking at home, and noted that e-cigarette tax revenue goes to the General Fund while cigarette taxes are split between the General Fund and Education Trust Fund. He said he did not have a specific estimate for cross-border sales. Commissioner Lindsay St. Pierre of the Department of Revenue then began a deeper dive into the department’s role and the taxes it administers. She reviewed the department’s mission, organizational structure, taxpayer services, and the tax policy and legislative analysis staff who prepare fiscal notes and testify on bills. She noted that the department administers about $2.9 billion in revenue across major taxes such as business taxes, meals and rooms, and utility property tax, and that the figures being discussed were preliminary because the annual report had not yet been issued. The discussion was informational only, with no formal action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• state controller to correct the accounting of state fiscal year 24-25 fiscal year spending to reflect H.R

Transcript Highlights:

• We heard earlier, before I sat in this seat, how H.R. 1 is requiring the counties to do all sorts of

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• :38:49.639><c> health</c><01:38:50.000><c> food</c><01:38:50.440><c> safety</c> Last but not least, H.R

Summary: The committee met in a work session on several environmental bills, beginning with HP 152, which would prohibit the sale and use of adhesive-based rodent traps. Members discussed whether the bill should be amended to allow professional pest control use while restricting retail sales to the public. Testimony and member comments focused on animal welfare concerns, the relative humaneness and effectiveness of glue traps versus snap traps, consumer education, enforcement difficulties, and whether the bill should instead be limited to professionals. No vote was taken on HP 152 during the discussion. The committee then turned to HB 171, establishing a moratorium on new landfill permits. Representative Gruber distributed an amendment shortening the proposed moratorium from five years to three years as a compromise. Members supporting the moratorium said it would give the Department of Environmental Services time to update rules and reflect recent landfill-siting reforms, while opponents argued that three years was too long, could tie the hands of a future legislature, and might be difficult to pass in the Senate. Others noted the House, Senate, and governor had each discussed different lengths of moratorium, making the bill a likely bargaining position in later negotiations. Throughout the landfill discussion, members emphasized that the three-year version was intended as a middle ground between a one-year proposal associated with the governor and a six-year Senate bill. Several members said the moratorium reflected years of bipartisan work on solid waste and landfill policy and would help create time for new rules to take effect. The transcript provided does not show a final committee vote or other action on HB 171 during this segment.