[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6584048,"mediaKeyId","5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94","parentId",5825519,"title","Subcommittee debates school‑building funding models and a consolidation grant proposal","audioSeconds",294,"startMs",13186000,"endMs",13480000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94&start=13186&end=13480","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94/thumbnail_13186000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6584048/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-debates-schoolbuilding-funding-models-and-a-consolidation-grant-proposal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584048-5a9e135fd499b3f5ccbb89a43d6c2f84/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148177&Signature=BGdMfNxkDYpG0D2rsrN-piYbQIiHPI~6UPb8fTNs~kT~IHWPPKgQtI9JSjp4uJrWkYUSPFOJpwtgCDMw0dzRBpgOL7cEUNxxWXdd7VWWU6IGt36Bc3DieEfQXN3y8WVzN2Caqtze2r5fFmRkTxqBcRbsk~9RYuYflnuAHuq17o0A2vWyp5jPfSHIvbNa6g9E3gKGKxMf-~NqfVGupYljHHGyXrGr6Yg9gcp3RM3iSZcj43~ELjlKWexgSqKdTrjrdlZ-OmM3-LWHigSWFXp0zp5kp1nLOaWbPap5dVhzRXWlCdatBIvdpaRd125l1RgB5wI~OWfbbKMMUOIFRPH5TA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-09-24T16:31:20.577Z","article","The school building aid subcommittee held extended discussion about long‑term approaches to school capital funding, including a spreadsheet model that would allocate annual state building support by student levels and a legislative service request (LSR) to create a dedicated grant for school consolidation projects.

The chair presented a high‑level funding model that starts from statewide enrollment and estimated square footage needs, applies average construction and equipment costs, and converts total state share into an annual grant stream over a lifecycle. The model was offered as a conversation starter rather than a fully developed proposal; members noted it uses assumptions that would need updating (per‑square‑foot costs, allowable square footage caps and debt assumptions) and that it does not, by itself, resolve appropriation levels.

Separately, the chair set out draft LSR language that would add “school consolidation projects” to eligible school building aid and create a specific program: eligible consolidation grants would aim to produce long‑term district cost savings, better use of facilities and expanded instructional opportunities. The LSR would permit an award equal to 50% of the department‑approved project cost but cap a consolidation grant award at $1.5 million in any fiscal year; it would also tighten an existing 10‑year planning requirement by changing districts’ facility plans from “may” to “shall” within the statute.

Committee members debated both concepts. Representative McGuire cautioned against automatic, dedicated funds that remove discretion from the finance committee. Representative Peoples (whose district has seen multiple failed bond attempts) described how local decisions, deferred maintenance and voter rejections can leave districts with costly deferred projects and urged simplifying the program to help smaller renovation or consolidation needs. Representative Damon recounted a current consolidation in Claremont and warned that consolidation can raise transportation costs and require careful planning; he also said savings in some cases can be smaller than expected.

Department staff said a comprehensive, uniform statewide facilities assessment would be necessary to develop a data‑driven plan and to prioritize use of any new funding stream. The department indicated that past self‑reported data shows a high proportion of older buildings: testimony referenced that roughly 50% of school buildings in the state are more than 60 years old and 26% were built before 1950. The department said a contracted assessment of all school facilities would require funding and a clear scope; witnesses offered rough cost benchmarks (tens of cents per square foot times total statewide square footage) to complete an objective inventory and condition survey.

Members did not adopt a single path. Several lawmakers favored pursuing a statewide facility assessment first and then using that data to design funding and consolidation incentives. Others urged immediate, modest changes — such as the non‑lapsing proposal in HB295 — to address small projects while planning larger reforms. The subcommittee scheduled further meetings and asked caucuses to consider tradeoffs and funding levels.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Funding (09/23/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The school building aid subcommittee discussed longer‑term funding models for school capital needs and considered an LSR to make consolidation projects eligible for targeted grants capped at $1.5 million per fiscal year.","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},6584058,"Subcommittee debates requiring USCIS civics test for public college graduation",2599,6021000,8620000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94&start=6021&end=8620","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94/thumbnail_6021000.jpg","/articles/6584058/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-debates-requiring-USCIS-civics-test-for-public-college-graduation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584058-c189b6c76d01d9b10feafff3a91020b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148177&Signature=MOdCZxK83pFp80L1kG1oW550V5wIz-Ixk9GGgISCIsX21CqKzFqq9Ov~6F3h2oYD1v6WOkQ~EB1HGL~zv0x4DoU1o7Pld1dU~1E5kNOmXxGa6WLo1S1nvvrS2pAxohpVo5geVl3ZY7g0ziRI36sqRTy3iDRKLWt3AWu~D4meaLlS1BSCYd2KqtVpc5f-WmDWS4sNaD~W-ECDFnWAyqD48~dqWsbjxJCTYsx-~3-dNFBy1mel-p~fOcpa6rIqS82vQ04yBGFFY6C7kGn~ThJyPpbe6IWVa9xkWO-xNvg7zZ5dZq6-Do7buknJclbrTCuJv04DzsGFzI3S-GQtXEadlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The subcommittee reviewed HB112, a measure that would require students in the University System and Community College System to pass the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) civics naturalization test as a condition of graduation. The test is already used in the state’s high‑school program; supporters said extending it to postsecondary programs would reinforce civic knowledge.

The prime sponsor framed the bill as an effort to assure graduates possess a baseline of civic understanding. “Civic actions matter and also knowledge matters,” the sponsor said, adding that other states and some universities already use similar requirements and praising the high‑school implementation as successful.

Opponents included university trustees and some committee members who raised several concerns: how the requirement would apply to out‑of‑state or international students, whether the test content is the right measure of civic understanding, and the potential for administrative and fiscal cost for the systems. Trustees at a recent University System meeting had unanimously opposed the bill, the chair told the committee.

Representative Damon and others argued some test items (for example, historical or geographic questions) do not reflect practical civic skills, while other supporters said the test is a modest, published, objective assessment and could be delivered online with minimal cost. Representative Damon specifically noted questions such as “what territory did the U.S. buy from France in 1803?” and questioned whether that measure serves civic competency.

Fiscal and operational points were contested. The sponsor disputed a large fiscal note the Office of Legislative Services deferred to postsecondary experts to prepare; the sponsor said institutions already run online assessments and that the cost should be minimal. Other members pushed back, urging reliance on fiscal estimates and cautioning against dismissing them without analysis.

The subcommittee heard that prior iterations of a similar measure had passed the House previously but stalled in the Senate or were vetoed by the governor on timing grounds; the sponsor said he had previously met with the governor’s office. No formal action was taken at the hearing; members will caucus and the subcommittee will reconvene for further consideration.

Proponents emphasized the measure’s intent to promote baseline civic literacy among graduates. Opponents cited trustee opposition, cost and the question whether the USCIS naturalization test is the best instrument for assessing civic competence among college graduates.","The House education subcommittee debated HB112, which would require students at state universities and community colleges to pass the USCIS civics (naturalization) test before receiving degrees.",{"_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},6584063,"Subcommittee debates HB510: statewide due-process minimums for students, student groups and faculty",4744,756000,5500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94&start=756&end=5500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94/thumbnail_756000.jpg","/articles/6584063/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-debates-HB510-statewide-due-process-minimums-for-students-student-groups-and-faculty","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584063-3fece2ef1754fa8539334f918906d3ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148177&Signature=kNdA87R5vJFhItddl1UCKjGlK5f6ino-oBhVTDgpqoDxyUofdD2tH6dRre9QuenmfhtudrIu13MUm4ZHbDbc8Y8a1NNEXz4IC6nbkPIJubZtUrsf0-Xts-OC4D8oBVRRJH~jLi4QO5MACBtvqhzWBZl2h5S1PbOOa1Ou~-~n-bzk29hEgFnX4C~617SEbTnjBpXnbU1xPy19RrTX4ObDQOPAkPQFeQ20JmNdbD3Ew4lK-uxIb7noB53VKZfirZV26Nc60bbBAjzS~kIyXzUSenr7TSsKrXOKMqg4P2WN3Ex-LGPMIDuWIpkW7q2P0ekHo0gRAREwDbozVED9jNb~ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House education funding subcommittee held extensive debate over HB510, a bill that would set statutory minimum procedural and due-process protections for students, student organizations and faculty at state colleges and universities.

Sponsor and supporters said the measure sets basic, consistent protections across public postsecondary institutions. “The intent of this bill is to ensure that certain rights are protected for all our students, which I want to remind you they are legal adults,” a sponsor said during the hearing. Representative Sam Brown, who reviewed campus handbooks, said the bill “fleshes out some of the specifics” and urged adding an independent ombudsman to provide an advocacy resource for students without union representation.

Opponents, including some legislators with campus experience, argued campuses already have detailed procedures. Representative Burton, who identified his experience as an assistant dean at the University of New Hampshire, said he reviewed campus regulations and concluded, “I don't think this bill is needed.” Burton and others warned the bill could conflict with collective bargaining and would replace campus-developed governance procedures.

University System and Community College System representatives told the subcommittee the bill could raise new costs and operational challenges. A University System representative summarized three categories of additional cost: an upfront review and alignment of campus procedures with a new statute; potential duplication of adversarial hearings on top of existing faculty shared‑governance and contractual processes; and added hearings and staffing needs for student‑organization disciplinary action. The university representative said multi‑day arbitration for faculty termination can already run to five‑figure or low‑six‑figure costs and that adding an “adversarial” layer would raise monetary and staff costs. The Community College System’s Shannon Reed told the panel the system relies on outside counsel for legal work and expects legal, labor and training costs if the bill is adopted; the college system estimated a fiscal note of roughly $100,000 per year.

Supporters said that if campus rules already meet these statutory minimums, the bill would be cost‑neutral in practice; sponsors also included language exempting the bill while collective‑bargaining agreements remain in effect and prohibiting new agreements from providing fewer protections than the statute. The chair and several members noted definitional conflicts between the new chapter (proposed chapter 188‑K) and existing RSA 188‑J definitions for “public institution of higher education,” “student,” and “student organization,” and asked the sponsor to align definitions to avoid confusion.

Lawmakers debated specific provisions such as the right to confront witnesses in disciplinary proceedings and whether cross‑examination requirements could cause “grave harm to victims,” a concern raised by Representative Damon. Other members defended the right to confront accusers as a foundational principle. Subcommittee members repeatedly asked whether the bill’s provisions would displace collective bargaining and whether the bill creates a right to a hearing or merely procedural rules for hearings; the sponsor pointed to statutory language requiring procedures “prior to the imposition of any discipline” but said the bill includes safety‑carveouts.

No action was taken. The subcommittee’s members agreed to caucus and continue review; the sponsor said amendments — including aligning statutory definitions and addressing collective‑bargaining interactions — were possible before the group next meets.

Fiscal detail: committee testimony recorded a university system estimate of roughly $500,000 per year to implement changes and a community college system estimate of about $100,000 per year, both tied largely to legal, training and hearing costs. Supporters disputed those figures and said some implementation work could be done without major new hires.","The House education funding subcommittee held extensive debate over HB510, a bill that would create statutory minimum procedural and due‑process protections for students, student organizations and faculty at public colleges and universities in the state.",{"_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},6584067,"Subcommittee weighs bill to clarify replacement of inactive Higher Education Commission members",550,474000,1024000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94&start=474&end=1024","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94/thumbnail_474000.jpg","/articles/6584067/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-weighs-bill-to-clarify-replacement-of-inactive-Higher-Education-Commission-members","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584067-99f9db9246bf7f353abe4a53957dc2dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148177&Signature=URBaBoyaHx1q8dJ-rGOTCut1~G443KV-uEciztWq80N~9sTaTqSoXz-fOI4n2qz6hZNprjM73SZbSxkcIJS-SdfZzJkmdM4nMTtgyHacUmvFcNI~M6MXt7t1ji9QKzjP8CRZzxz968zbUjSwl2o0wjv4rjBs4v4M7pUefEkCqZin4vNx3LZZohPBghe45hcd9d6Nlo9Bo3H71ryLS8aVzXFFUGiZov3bkMsY3Ywf1mkScSCvxgiMPaKHLLRx5qv8SNJMMBlisy6ys3nYf54TeyuUNVVEa0B5Y~6xFK1eNywjzKZNXLCdyKPTLFVpKR7ObqhBfRfuHCiv-KznCRApBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A House education subcommittee on higher education discussed HB443, a bipartisan bill proposing explicit authority to replace members of the state Higher Education Commission who do not attend meetings or no longer represent the organization that appointed them.

Chair opened the hearing by describing the bill’s purpose: “a bill which was looking at changing and giving the authority to replace members on that commission, if they're not attending or if they're no longer representing the organization which they've been appointed from,” and said the measure had bipartisan sponsorship.

The major factual difference raised during discussion was the governor’s position. The chair reported the previous governor supported the change but said the new governor’s office told the committee the bill is “not needed,” because the governor’s staff view prolonged nonattendance or loss of representation as effectively a resignation.

Representative Pomsen asked whether the committee had a legal opinion on which position is correct, saying, “I’m concerned that if we don't give the governor the authority… there could be legal challenges.” The committee did not have an immediate written legal opinion to present; the chair noted the governor’s office would rely on its counsel.

Representative Fellows asked why, if the governor already has authority to replace a nonattending appointee, that authority would be limited to this particular commission rather than applying broadly to other boards and commissions.

No members moved to take action. The chair said he was personally “leaning on saying that the bill is not needed” but allowed caucuses and directed members to confer before the subcommittee’s next meeting; the subcommittee intends to return to HB443 at a later date and make a recommendation during the November cycle.

The discussion was procedural and legal in nature; there were no formal amendments or votes on the bill during the meeting.","Lawmakers debated HB443, which would give explicit authority to replace Higher Education Commission appointees who are not attending or no longer represent their appointing organization. The subcommittee took no action and agreed to caucus and revisit the measure.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6584053,"Subcommittee considers making school building aid funds non‑lapsing to roll small leftover amounts forward",987,11133000,12120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94&start=11133&end=12120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825519-b52ff23f52b140119133b14cc1157f94/thumbnail_11133000.jpg","/articles/6584053/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-considers-making-school-building-aid-funds-nonlapsing-to-roll-small-leftover-amounts-forward","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584053-aafd97db034995a8b453625be4fad7f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148177&Signature=gP7Fmyq8NC1zMh-nvTEybCH5XoZYU1GS-PE-KGh5yBbEZbbyD5oesu~gXiu1GmWoqq1c7OtqH32zDWZgcE0VJf8dBRqmnhoWNQQagJzgY6bXSr7JDB5--P-EBmmGve7fjMwnHRA11aQ2DMTp7-IN78bLlq6O7AD9hNLjzuBYRaFsyp3mNFRlkqKJ42OBQE8ryP4RbuTXQAXH9gK7XWhq4fV-b1~QoCOGUdJH0Kox4JUpJr3XzSurCesSjDEgBDK2t~xUOJPK2RBts~NMLHVXRPxcY~O8KtauURJqQD9hnTTFxwbXacySknibd3o3FDOxnCaz~l0QzRmgKQZP0YyttQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the school building aid subcommittee discussed HB295, a proposal to make unused school building aid appropriations non‑lapsing so funds that are appropriated but not expended in a biennium can roll forward for later use.

The chair described the intent as preserving small leftover balances so they can be added to future building‑aid rounds. Subcommittee members and Department of Education staff discussed administrative practices: the department encumbers funds when a district receives a commitment letter, which removes those dollars from the lapsing pool; only funds that are unencumbered at year‑end revert to the general fund. The current example cited in committee testimony was a balance of approximately $769,000 that went unused and could be made non‑lapsing under the proposed change.

Representative McGuire noted a preference for avoiding automatic or dedicated spending that restricts the finance committee’s discretion, but acknowledged the bill is modest and not likely to cause major fiscal rigidity. Representative Cahill (as referenced in committee discussion) recommended a technical change to the bill language to specify “state operating budget appropriations for school building aid grants shall be non‑lapsing” so the statutory text matches accounting practice.

Department staff explained the mechanics: if a district declines its intent‑to‑fund within the application window, the department can move to the next approved project on the ranked list; non‑lapsed appropriations would instead remain in the building‑aid fund to boost future rounds.

No formal action was taken. Members agreed to caucus and bring positions back to the subcommittee. The chair noted the issue is relatively small in dollar terms compared with overall unmet building needs but could help advance certain smaller projects.","Lawmakers discussed HB295 to make unspent school building aid funds non‑lapsing so modest leftover balances can be applied to future projects. Officials said the current process encumbers funds and the standing leftover this year was about $769,000; the subcommittee did not take action and agreed to caucus.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee debates school‑building funding models and a consolidation grant proposal

Subcommittee debates requiring USCIS civics test for public college graduation

Subcommittee debates HB510: statewide due-process minimums for students, student groups and faculty

Subcommittee weighs bill to clarify replacement of inactive Higher Education Commission members

Subcommittee considers making school building aid funds non‑lapsing to roll small leftover amounts forward