[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6619808,"mediaKeyId","2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06","parentId",2827187,"title","House Finance Division 1 outlines hundreds of position cuts, agency consolidations and program trims","audioSeconds",4776,"startMs",142000,"endMs",4918000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06&start=142&end=4918","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06/thumbnail_142000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6619808/New-Hampshire/House-Finance-Division-1-outlines-hundreds-of-position-cuts-agency-consolidations-and-program-trims","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619808-cb029b583ae6c38b8470f17708fa5fa7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163715&Signature=JOZDRBNPYWNlO1T-pkWX49uY00MN4k2~rr0iEGp9XGxBTVLiRazbTcgDcXYnbHhWA9zJhAO2o2cPBhNifrjxQEsVngQSTYarukRs2fvPMxS1YhbwYRDejPuAEg4oR7skdHx697YRbZ3x9kXfvIy8O~ahRPdQADXYGRBRtmKJEuK6DmzlYV9QlIawKn6zXUvHAKemUPu7Hzi9wgSnz96EBkGOR1cundevvB88aG38t23aK4KF6FTOGstWBiohlBlVaVrO6AnfNs73tAAKErsuo36YuVzFuvTjena6CWt7y83bYTRcsmvklCQVae~ZWKT7oxEwbXUs5xfRONXh1o2u9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-03-31T20:39:41.133Z","article","The House Finance Committee’s Division 1 presented its package of changes to the state biennial budget, describing a mix of staff eliminations, administrative consolidations and program reductions intended to close a multi‑hundred million dollar gap in revenue and spending.

Representative McGuire, the division’s presenter, told members the approach was driven by “trade offs” that prioritize some programs over others as revenue shortfalls forced a $700–800 million gap to be reduced. The package removes about 293 positions across state agencies (most in the Department of Corrections), consolidates several small boards and commissions, reduces tourism advertising and shifts some program funding and fee structures across departments.

Why it matters: Division 1 covers central state functions — judiciary, corrections, retirement, justice, natural resources, and administration — so changes affect operations that touch local governments, courts, and service providers. The division’s proposals would produce immediate personnel and program changes if adopted by the full committee and the legislature.

Key program and agency moves described by the division: 1) Corrections: the committee proposed eliminating roughly 191 corrections positions (many unfilled; an estimated ~50 filled positions), trimming roughly 10% of the DOC budget, and shifting winter hiring/position lists as the biennium proceeds. 2) Small boards and appeals bodies: the Housing Appeals Board and the Board of Tax and Land Appeals were recommended for elimination or consolidation; the personnel appeals board, the Right‑to‑Know ombudsman and the public employee labor relations board were combined into a single small‑board structure. 3) Human Rights Commission and some boards: members recommended ending the Human Rights Commission and moving comparable cases to superior court. 4) Liquor Commission: the division recommended removing the enforcement arm from the licensing unit so the commission functions similar to other licensing boards. 5) Tourism advertising: the division cut $14,000,000 from tourism advertising. 6) Fee and revenue changes: several agencies had one‑time or recurring fee increases (Department of Environmental Services, treasurer/tax distributions), and the division recommended level funding meals & rooms distributions to municipalities at FY2025 levels. 7) Judges and court workload: in response to loss of several administrative hearing boards, the division added two superior court judges to handle cases diverted from abolished boards.

Responses and concerns: Committee members raised objections to specific eliminations — most frequently the Housing Appeals Board, the Office of the Child Advocate, the Commission on Aging and cuts affecting regional planning commissions and arts funding — citing local impacts and the services those bodies provide. Several lawmakers also pressed the division on correctional positions and said they wanted additional conversations with the commissioner of corrections before final action.

Process notes and next steps: The division reported many of the changes as “back of the budget” (i.e., not line‑item eliminations but reductions in available appropriations to be implemented administratively) and signaled several items could change during the Senate phase and committee of conference. The full House Finance Committee later voted to adopt the Division 1 package and forward it in the House process.

Ending note: Members emphasized this was a mid‑process product — Division 1’s recommendations were advanced to the full committee but the final budget will depend on later negotiation and any Senate adjustments.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Finance (03/31/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The House Finance Committee’s Division 1 advanced a package of personnel reductions, board consolidations and program cuts intended to narrow a large revenue‑to‑spending gap in the state biennial budget.","taxTitle","Public Works and Highways, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17759,"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},6619805,"House Finance Division 2 shifts Education Trust Fund allocations, increases special education funding and trims UNH support",10399,3721000,14120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06&start=3721&end=14120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06/thumbnail_3721000.jpg","/articles/6619805/New-Hampshire/House-Finance-Division-2-shifts-Education-Trust-Fund-allocations-increases-special-education-funding-and-trims-UNH-support","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619805-1b7a5929a191292e7a4829c953012683/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163715&Signature=o1p2E6YA0S8guOmI2-qPZPF03FbzOZIol7DIK8D1qdlj~DUaA3m8LZcw3a8WqkgVAdsmkT3uP3BZX3wRKT3LBwneQAUihqRbn7xN6bqC6uLvK6gnWDrV0giRwp6R5ynT9UXe2nNb7SovPSNJzk4cn~3UrFsG9gDHSMQpwXoQ3VB81l5dc-oaOZ236HNCYHmAapRpnFu3caHDy8Zymm27zXHk0r3~ogX9k1HmojYypxjEmRBVrMbCp45IU40IiloRm1LwXXJgQsjAGEFVqU4qZLu0lsJpVmWGAxfYBrEpat~ZDtDYbU3kgM3P~~MwLfEa60NGi0unYW-FPicca7oCmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Finance Division 2 presented a package of education‑sector changes and related revenue moves intended to balance the biennial budget while protecting core adequacy funding for local public schools.

What the division proposed: the package (1) moved certain line items that had previously been funded from the Education Trust Fund (ETF) into the general fund while keeping adequacy grant amounts essentially unchanged for FY2026; (2) altered the revenue split that feeds ETF (shifting a portion of some tax lines between general fund and ETF so ETF still supports the remaining ETF items); (3) increased the special education per‑pupil weight to $3,140 for FY2027; (4) adjusted charter school and dual‑enrollment funding mechanics; (5) redirected about $15,000,000 in annually recurring “unique” Fidelity 529 program funds to partially supplant UNH general fund support (the division reduced UNH general‑fund support and applied the Fidelity funds to the UNH line); and (6) set a $137,000,000 flat distribution from meals and rooms tax to municipalities for the biennium rather than continuing a percentage formulation.

Why it matters: education funding is the largest single portion of the state operating budget. Division 2’s moves change both where the money originates and how it is disbursed. The largest practical shifts are (a) the funding source reallocation (ETF ↔ general fund) and (b) the $25,000,000 annual reduction to University System of New Hampshire general fund support, offset in part by unique Fidelity funds. Together the changes will affect local school budgets, college system revenues, and state revenue flexibility.

Specifics members debated:
- Education Trust Fund reallocation: Division 2 moved multiple small accounts back to the general fund while setting a modified distribution from BPT/BET/transfer taxes (70% to general fund / 30% to ETF in the division package) so ETF can continue to fund the items that remain. Minority members warned the change reduces legal and practical protection of ETF dollars over the long term. The division argued the change preserves ETA payments for adequacy while creating operating flexibility in a tight revenue year.
- Special education: The division set the FY2027 special education per‑pupil figure at $3,140 (up from $2,100), a change that increases total adequacy spending in FY2027 by roughly $28,000,000 compared with the governor’s original numbers.
- University funding and unique Fidelity funds: The package reduced general‑fund support to the University System of New Hampshire and applied roughly $15,000,000 yearly in Fidelity‑related “unique funds” to UNH, lowering the net direct general‑fund appropriation. Division members said the change spreads available general funds to other urgent priorities but acknowledged university officials could experience operational stress; several lawmakers requested a system budget briefing.
- Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs): Division 2 included changes expanding eligibility (increase in the FY2026 cap from 350% to 400% of federal poverty in FY2026 and removing the income cap in FY2027). The division used a Josiah Bartlett Center estimate of potential enrollment/price impacts; members warned of large fiscal uncertainty (estimates of cost impacts cited in committee discussion ranged widely).

Process and outcome: Division 2 advanced its package to the full committee after debate and roll‑call consideration. Members emphasized the package was an interlocking set of revenue and expenditure moves intended to preserve the constitutionally required adequacy grants while freeing general funds to balance other pressing needs.

What’s next: Several members asked for follow‑up briefings from the University System and from the Education Department on modeling EFA expansion and the long‑term effects of ETF reallocations. The package was transmitted to the broader House Finance Committee for consideration.

","House Finance Division 2 proposed moving some Education Trust Fund items into the general fund, raising FY2027 special‑education funding and using Fidelity 529 proceeds to reduce direct UNH general‑fund support as part of a broader effort to rebalance the biennium.",{"_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},6619796,"Votes at a glance: key roll calls from the House Finance hearing (Division 1 & 2)",7209,6894000,14103000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06&start=6894&end=14103","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06/thumbnail_6894000.jpg","/articles/6619796/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-key-roll-calls-from-the-House-Finance-hearing-Division-1-2","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619796-2f196f4588eb1ac3dd394d7f605662b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163715&Signature=NWcjSTnG846tbo~XddBQXRIM3wMAQc1kVUaub9HN6jUA-jxdC9pzuIUqze9G16GhlY0CPMWmZPLOY0~682EY9Pv7wn5WAsJgv~ulxYMb0MVkWnzdTOSUA9P-xarIXJS8HymUljNv3v1oaEBaMWxLIenUDjzG1jObJGjaBvv~9ySdDfe48Pzkl2P33K7-9rJmZxTozeubw~kGRV8vILC2DOAZrCAW0IN2MK2arxlijl1edqM6Zr60LUC8GJyQfS7ipF6rqhWkU400R296kj4bY6X1Z7bsBF8ydPF2AbxF4Lz4jQtXA4~~~hVtM59f2h01zckPBVhI1754jktYIfF18g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","This summary lists the principal roll‑call outcomes recorded during the House Finance meeting covering Division 1 and Division 2 packages and amendments. The statements below reflect tallies recorded on the committee transcript.

Key roll calls and results (as recorded in the transcript):

1) Amendment 1446H (House Bill 2): Motion to add amendment 14 46 H to HB 2 — adopted, 21 yes / 4 no.

2) Amendment 1439H (House Bill 2): Motion to add amendment 14 39 H (restoring a 7‑year rule referenced in the discussion) — adopted unanimously, recorded as 25 yes / 0 no.

3) Amendment 1404H (House Bill 1): Motion to add amendment 14 04 H to HB 1 (Department of State appropriation technical change per discussion) — adopted, recorded as 15 yes / 10 no.

4) Motion to remove amendment 0989H from the HB2 package (motion: remove amendment from package) — motion failed, recorded as 14 yes / 11 no (i.e., motion to remove did not pass).

5) Amendment 1414H (House Bill 1): Motion to adopt change shifting Department of Justice cuts to back‑of‑budget authority — adopted, final tally recorded in transcript as 22 yes / 3 no (transcript contained some initial tally confusion; final recorded outcome is as stated).

6) Division 1 package (adopt Division 1 recommendations to HB 1 and HB 2): adopted by full committee (roll call recorded as 14 yes / 11 no).

7) Amendment 1426H (House Bill 2): Motion to add amendment 14 26 H (EFA lapse language change) — adopted unanimously, recorded as 25 yes / 0 no earlier in the afternoon.

8) Division 2 package (adopt Division 2 recommendations to HB 1 and HB 2): adopted by full committee (roll call recorded as 14 yes / 11 no).

Held or deferred items:
- Amendment 14288 H (DEI / procurement language): the committee set this amendment aside for later consideration and then postponed further; discussion indicated the Speaker requested additional time to consider germane and process questions. The transcript shows members agreed to take up this measure at a later time (next day). No final roll call in the transcript.

Notes on tallies and attribution: the transcript records roll calls and the clerk’s tallies for each amendment in sequence; where the transcript recorded an ambiguous intermediate tally the chair and clerk confirmed the final numbers on the record (those final numbers are reported here). Individual votes by member name were recorded in the transcript for some roll calls; this summary reports the statewide tallies that the clerk announced.

","The committee recorded a series of roll calls on division packages and amendments. This item lists motions, tallies and immediate outcomes as recorded on the transcript.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6619801,"Committee debates video lottery terminals, keno and revenue split as new gaming revenues tied to education dollars",3070,7850000,10920000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06&start=7850&end=10920","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2827187-d65eafaea18a92924ec5f22595ebed06/thumbnail_7850000.jpg","/articles/6619801/New-Hampshire/Committee-debates-video-lottery-terminals-keno-and-revenue-split-as-new-gaming-revenues-tied-to-education-dollars","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619801-3bf5659f1ab62116913130b9774fc353/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163715&Signature=TyVRVG5DE37VPec6Rt58YIkaV7HVQYLYBLVK1Qo1EDHzeVRLFKcb4XE9zRZj7XUBTduyvpJYisdjBijMRQ~nGic-Yts0EzLx-QVMxB-b2bvd-Uq6UwATQjTLPir0WMNNlRNbIaGmVQOXWhz4KUGV400hP2LJXth7h~C-7oTSvEUIuFFVieJbPelS3zcx0vztSX-~HIawe-ogZioOu2oF78vFBa-hES~mhgft01y0eDedi1dx-hykv8K4JJQUsyuRSOxvgHtfg6Hkk8TqmHCa9lMF5kKYD-X4A5FYZzGNSeZfcL6yMgsLvoylswB3cfHcOjCzycuho8idQ~7UVcHgyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Division 2 discussed changes to state gaming policy as part of the revenue package accompanying education funding changes. The committee covered three related items: shifting historic horse‑racing (HHR) machines to video lottery terminals (VLTs), setting the revenue split between operators and the state, and removing municipal opt‑in for keno so the state could advertise and expand keno statewide.

What division members described: Representative Sweeney and others presented estimates for machine counts and expected gross gaming revenue per‑machine, projecting that VLT machines earn significantly more per day than HHR devices. The package taxes VLT revenue at a higher effective rate and allocates 65% of net VLT tax receipts to education and 35% to partnering charities, while a separate proposal would allow Keno without a municipal opt‑in (intended to grow the game’s statewide revenue and therefore benefit the lottery fund).

Debate and concerns: Lawmakers questioned the proposed operator/state revenue splits. The division discussed models that estimated the combined state and charity proceeds from machine games across the biennium; supporters argued a higher operator share would speed conversion and yield more gross revenue quickly, while opponents argued the state should capture a larger share for educational purposes and pointed to neighboring states’ tax rates. Members also raised concerns about local costs for policing and emergency services if venues operated longer hours, and they asked how much problem‑gambling treatment funding would be included (the package directs a portion of state lottery proceeds to problem‑gambling services).

Local control and municipal impacts: Several committee members objected to removing municipal opt‑in authority for Keno, saying the localities previously agreed to opt‑in as a condition for accepting the game and that removing the opt‑in would take away municipal discretion. Division leaders said the change aimed to increase statewide lottery receipts that feed education funding; opponents urged preserving local choice.

Next steps: The gaming items remained part of the Division 2 package and were forwarded to the full committee. Several members asked for additional fiscal modeling and for clear agreements on local cost offsets and problem‑gambling mitigation before final adoption.

","Division 2 included proposals to change how gaming revenues are collected and shared: conversion of historic horse‑racing machines to video lottery terminals (VLTs), a higher tax on VLT revenue earmarked for education and charities, and a proposal to make keno statewide; members debated tax splits, local costs and problem‑gambling funding.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Finance Division 1 outlines hundreds of position cuts, agency consolidations and program trims

House Finance Division 2 shifts Education Trust Fund allocations, increases special education funding and trims UNH support

Votes at a glance: key roll calls from the House Finance hearing (Division 1 & 2)

Committee debates video lottery terminals, keno and revenue split as new gaming revenues tied to education dollars