The New Hampshire Senate Education Committee in executive session voted to advance House Bill 292, as amended, to allow school districts facing severe financial distress to access a portion of their state adequacy funding earlier in the fiscal year through a revenue-stabilization loan.

Grant Bossi, deputy chief of staff at the New Hampshire Senate, told the committee the amendment (identified in the record as 3094) is designed to broaden the original Claremont-focused proposal so other districts could qualify. "This is not new money. This is not more money," Bossi said, explaining the change would allow districts "access to their adequacy funds earlier in the year to help with cash flow problems." He added that participation would come with extensive reporting requirements and audits: districts taking a loan would be subject to financial and performance audits by the joint legislative fiscal committee unless that committee unanimously voted not to conduct them.

Key mechanics in the amendment include a clarification that a district could receive up to 75% of its own total adequacy funding (not 75% of the entire statewide adequacy pool), a floor on the interest rate set by reference to the effective federal funds rate (quoted in the hearing as 3.88), a cap limiting participation to three consecutive academic years, and a sunset for the whole program in 2030. Bossi summarized the repayment safeguard this way: if a district defaults on reporting or other conditions, "the treasurer would simply take what is owed out of your future adequacy payments." The amendment also allows the commissioner of education, the state treasurer and the fiscal committee to approve participation for any district.

Members asked several questions about the interest-rate floor and whether it effectively creates a higher-cost borrowing mechanism compared with other state revolving funds. Senator Francis said she "remains concerned about the interest rate" and urged negotiation with the treasurer to seek a lower floor; "that puts me in a position where... I'm not going to vote for this this morning" unless the rate is revisited. Other senators, including Senator Innes, argued a rate floor is appropriate to avoid creating what they described as an easy bailout and to discourage fiscal complacency.

The amendment also added a change allowing residents of a participating district to apply for Education Freedom Accounts (EFA) even if the program cap had passed, a provision that prompted objections. Senator O'Shaughnessy moved to remove the EFA expansion ("take out page 4, lines 8 and 9") citing the risk of midyear enrollment disruption if families left a district while it was borrowing against projected adequacy. Supporters said the provision aimed to expand parental options in a district facing severe uncertainty.

Committee members approved technical committee corrections to the amendment language by voice (recorded in the transcript as 5–0 for those edits). The committee then voted on the amendment as presented; the transcript records the amendment vote as 3–2 (two senators recorded as voting no). The committee chair then recorded HB 292 as "as amended" and indicated it would be sent to the full Senate for floor action.

The amendment places extensive accountability requirements on districts that participate (financial reporting to the treasurer, Department of Education, the Legislative Budget Assistant and others) and envisions audits by the joint legislative fiscal committee. Bossi stressed the measure "is not an exposure to taxpayers" because repayment is secured against future adequacy payments.

Next steps: HB 292 as amended will proceed from the committee to the Senate floor; supporters and critics signaled an intention to continue negotiations on interest-rate language and any remaining technical fixes before that floor debate.