Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Building Aid topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor says gutted building‑aid bill fails to address retroactive needs for small towns
Summary
Representative Michael Cahill urged rejection of the current HB 366, saying it was gutted and no longer implements his plan to set a $60 million minimum and allocate funds to retroactive needs for towns that missed earlier funding, citing Newmarket and Claremont as examples.
Representative Michael Cahill told the committee that HB 366, as presented, had been stripped of its substance. He said the original idea would have created a $60 million minimum annual spend on building aid and directed half of that toward new projects and half toward retroactive payments to communities that previously received inadequate assistance. “All it does is sort of rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic,” Cahill said, urging rejection of the bill in its current form.
Cahill described local impacts: he said some towns had been on the rank list for buildings for years and that funding changes, cuts and moratoria had left communities unable to maintain or replace aging school facilities. He urged the committee to consider targeted retroactive assistance and suggested a study commission to explore ways to fulfill obligations to families and modernize older buildings.
A senator asked whether language in the current draft removed priority for schools with critical needs. Committee staff and the sponsor agreed that the lines in question did appear to strike language prioritizing applications with critical safety needs ahead of others, prompting concern that the amended text would diminish priority for critical projects.
The sponsor concluded by asking the committee to reject the bill as drafted and to consider alternative approaches that would restore funding for communities such as Newmarket and address retroactive claims. The hearing record shows no committee vote on HB 366 at this session.
