Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Targeted Aid Cap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manchester Officials Urge Repeal of Targeted Aid Cap as $9–10M Cut Looms
Summary
Testimony on HB18‑31 focused on restoring targeted state aid for Manchester, which witnesses and Department of Education staff said would face an estimated $9–10 million loss if a 5,000‑student cap remains. Manchester leaders and educators described service and staffing impacts.
The Education Funding Committee heard more than a dozen witnesses asking lawmakers to repeal the targeted‑aid cap in HB18‑31, a change witnesses said would otherwise strip roughly $9–10 million from the Manchester School District.
Sponsor Representative Suzanne Kretion told the committee the cap is unjustified and that Manchester’s needs — high shares of special education students and English‑language learners and a large low‑income population — make the district uniquely vulnerable to the current cap provision. "This cap restricts the district's ability to meet the educational needs of all students," she said.
Manchester officials and advocates gave detailed testimony. The superintendent said the district serves about 12,000 students and reported class‑size and service metrics: roughly 25% of students have individualized education programs, 21% are multilingual learners, and more than half of students are economically disadvantaged. Jim O’Connell, vice chair of the Manchester School Committee, said the district has drawn down reserves and used one‑time funds to cover recurring costs; he warned a $10 million reduction would threaten programs and services, particularly special education supports that can carry high per‑student costs.
Department of Education staff offered a fiscal estimate consistent with witness testimony: Mark Manganiello (Bureau of School Finance) said using FY27 data the cost to repeal the cap would be roughly $10 million; he suggested $9 million would be plausible for FY28 under typical enrollment and property‑wealth assumptions.
Supporters argued the cap functionally singles out one district. Witness Sean Parr said the cap “discriminates against our district” and urged lawmakers to restore the funding. Opponents did not appear in the hearing record in force; committee members asked technical questions about the fiscal note, the law’s mechanics and whether the restoration had been temporarily preserved in last year’s budget.
Ending: The hearing closed with committee members signaling they would review fiscal notes and technical corrections; no committee vote occurred at the hearing.
