Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Career And Technical Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers package of bills to support career and technical education — tax credit extension, access rules and reporting changes
Summary
Lawmakers discussed a set of CTE bills: SB 98 would extend the tax credit for donations to CTE centers by five years; SB 99 would change regional agreements and allow some open enrollment into receiving CTE schools; SB 195 would broaden the CTE advisory council duties; SB 294 would require lab fees be covered for students in CTE courses.
A cluster of bills intended to shore up and expand career and technical education (CTE) statewide drew a lengthy hearing on April 15, focusing on an extension of a donor tax credit and several measures intended to improve access, oversight and capital planning for CTE centers.
Senator David Waters, who sponsored several of the bills, told the committee SB 98 would extend a tax‑credit program that provides a credit for donations of equipment, supervision or apprenticeship time to regional CTE centers "for another five years." He said the program has helped CTEs procure expensive equipment and build employer partnerships, citing examples such as donations of lifts from automobile dealers, kits from manufacturers and marine‑trade equipment in the Lakes region.
The tax‑credit extension prompted detailed fiscal and policy questions. Representative McGuire and Representative Popovich asked whether donors receive full tax credits and whether businesses can both deduct donations and claim a business‑profits credit, creating a potential double benefit. Senator Waters and other witnesses said the underlying statute imposes an aggregate program cap (reported by the fiscal note as $500,000 in a recent program year), and that when donations exceed the cap credits are apportioned proportionally. "If the aggregate donations are over $500,000, credits claimed which exceed the total allowed shall be granted in the donor's proportional share," Representative Damon read from the statute; Senator Waters said the cap has sometimes been met and then proration occurs.
SB 99 would loosen some limits on where students can take CTE classes and allow a receiving CTE center to serve as a student's school for scheduling and curricular reasons when doing so improves access. Waters described regional agreements that align calendars and transport to reduce barriers to participation and said the change simply offers students an option to attend a closer CTE or become a part‑time or full‑time student at the receiving school so they can complete both CTE and academic requirements.
Committee members pressed on funding mechanics. Under current practice the state appropriates roughly $9 million for tuition and transportation for CTE programs; transportation is paid first, which can leave little for tuition transfers. Representatives sought details on how sending districts would pay tuition under the open‑enrollment language, and Senator Waters said the receiving district's average per‑pupil cost — divided by credits and adjusted for part‑time vs. full‑time status — is used in the pilot language developed with the Department of Education. He also acknowledged the fiscal note called recent donation totals $618,420 for program year 24 and that the Department of Administrative and Financial Affairs (DRA) reports on tax‑expenditure liabilities.
SB 195 would update the composition and duties of the New Hampshire Advisory Council on Career and Technical Education, folding in a renovation/construction study and adding labor‑market and partnership responsibilities; Waters said the goal is better data collection, workforce alignment and coordinated planning with community colleges.
SB 294, focused on lab fees, was presented by Senator Deborah Uchler, who said some CTE students currently pay course lab fees (reported as typically between $25 and $110 depending on program) that would be covered under the proposal. She and others told the committee some local volunteer groups already help cover small lab fees and that districts sometimes charge fees for CTE kits that public high‑school lab courses do not charge.
Supporters emphasized workforce benefits and stronger employer partnerships; critics flagged fiscal transparency, viability of prorated credits when demand exceeds statutory caps, and the limited size of the program's appropriation for tuition and transportation. Several committee members asked the Department of Education for additional data on take‑up, proration history and program oversight before moving forward.
Ending: Lawmakers asked staff to obtain program uptake and fiscal details, reports referenced in statute, and more information from the Department of Education on capacity, tuition formulas and regional agreement mechanisms before further action.
