Committee recommends SB295 with replace‑all amendment that sets temporary caps and priority groups for Education Freedom Accounts

Finance Division 2 recommended SB295 "OTP A" as amended after the committee adopted a replace‑all amendment the chair introduced to clarify the Education Freedom Account (EFA) statute and add a two‑phase enrollment scheme.

The amendment author, speaking as chair of the work session, said the change is primarily editorial and structural: "I actually wrote this amendment… my real goal here was just to simplify it and clarify it without changing the purpose of it." The amendment replaces existing language in multiple sections of the EFA RSAs to make definitions and enrollment mechanics easier to follow and to add a temporary cap mechanism.

Key elements of the adopted amendment (2271h) include:

• Priority guidelines: students currently enrolled in the program, siblings of current enrollees, children with disabilities, and students from families at or below the 350% income threshold in current law retain priority and are not subject to the enrollment cap.

• Rolling enrollment: applications are processed in the order received rather than by seasonal batches; priority‑category students may enroll at any time.

• Initial enrollment cap: the cap for the 2025–26 school year is set at 10,000 total EFA enrollments; current enrollment was discussed in committee as roughly 5,500–5,600 students.

• Automatic cap increases: if total enrollment in a prior year exceeds 90% of the year’s enrollment cap (for example, over 9,000 in year one), the cap is increased once by 25% at the start of the next enrollment period (12,500 in the example). Over time the cap may increase further if thresholds are met.

• Phase‑out trigger: sections that create the cap and related definitions are repealed and rolling enrollment fully applies when the Department of Education certifies that applications have not exceeded the cap for two consecutive school years.

Committee debate focused on budget risk, equity and accountability. Several members warned the change could increase participation and cost state aid; committee discussion used a per‑student fiscal assumption of about $4,500 to estimate potential exposure in high enrollment scenarios. Representative Murray framed the longer policy debate: "this is a diversion from the more serious issue, and that is still opposing the vouchers," citing concerns about accountability and performance measurement for students in nonpublic placements.

Supporters and the amendment author argued the cap mechanism controls initial, rapid growth while preserving access for priority groups and allowing the statute to simplify once growth stabilizes. Representative Papadans argued the state has a constitutional obligation to fund education for all children and framed the eligibility change as consistent with that view.

The committee adopted amendment 2271h and then recommended SB295 OTP A as amended; the transcript records roll‑call discussion and recorded yeas and nays during the amendment vote and final recommendation, but a complete, unambiguous numeric roll‑call tally for the final recommendation is not provided in the transcript excerpt. The committee indicated the amendment passed and the bill will advance as amended.

Next steps: SB295, as amended by 2271h, will be reported out of the work session to later committee action. The Department of Education must publish enrollment caps and will be responsible for the certification that triggers repeal of cap provisions when the two‑year condition is met. Detailed fiscal estimates and further debate are expected as the bill proceeds.