The House Finance Committee has endorsed an education funding plan that spends less than the Senate version.
The plan would also eliminate so-called donor towns.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein reports.
On a 13-9 vote, the House Finance Committee passed the bill that isn’t terribly different from the Senate education funding plan in terms of policy.
Under the Committee’s version the state would still allocate $3450 for every student in the state and provide additional aid for students on free and reduced lunch, those in special education and English Language Learners.
The Committee also kept a section of the bill that allocates some $48 million to communities based on a combination of property wealth and median family income.
Where the Committee parted ways with the Senate is in how it distributes the aid.
Finance Chair Democratic Representative Marge Smith says there were three main goals in the change.
TAPE: at least in the short term, to protect donor towns...attempt to protect any school district from getting less than they have gotten under the current plan, and limit the rate of increase for those who are getting more.
In order to eliminate donor towns and make sure no school district loses money in the first two years of the new funding plan, the House Finance Committee would cap the aid to those school districts that are set to get additional money.
Members on the Committee call the concept a ‘collar affect’, which, in theory, is designed to help both so-called winners and losers transition into a new system.
It gives districts that are going to lose money, two years to make adjustments.
And it restricts a sharp increase to others, so cities and towns don’t siphon local school aid just to replace it with state money.
For so-called donor towns, those communities would send money to Concord, and Concord would turn around and send the money back.
TAPE: That’s what I call money laundering.
That’s Finance Committee member Republican Representative Neal Kurk.
TAPE: This has been determined by the Supreme Court to violate the proportionality requirement for all tax systems. In effect the donor towns are paying disproportionately less property taxes under this bill b/c they are getting a rebate. That is classic unconstitutional legislative activity.
TAPE: this isn’t some Judy Garland movie where we say, ‘oh let’s put on a show. And suddenly in someone’s back yard there is a Hollywood stage.
Again Representative Smith.
TAPE: we are dealing in the real world and very carefully proceeding. And we have had very solid advice that distinguishes what we are doing here from those cases in the past where certain clauses in the legislation are declared unconstitutional.
Smith and other proponents say attorneys believe- in the short term- the court would permit the arrangement as a means to transition from one funding plan to the next.
Politically, for Democrats the House Finance Committee version accomplishes two important objectives.
In addition to theoretically doing away with donor towns, it also is less expensive than the Senate plan.
Governor John Lynch has said he won’t support a plan with donor towns, and he has urged lawmakers to reign in any new spending bills.
But for Republicans, Representative Kurk is predicting a party-line vote.
Financially, he blasts the measure, because it allocates $128 million dollars without any kind of new funding source.
TAPE: to take a bill, and cost it out and pass it on to the next Legislature, I think is irresponsible. And for that reason, fiscally responsible Republicans will oppose this bill. Maybe the Democrats have some new tax in mind. Tax and Spend Democrats. They are spending first, and spending later, after the election. Let’s see if the Governor takes the pledge this time.
Smith is optimistic that her committee’s version is palatable enough, to get through the House.
That chamber is likely to vote on the measure next week.
Smith says, what she doesn’t know is, how the Senate would respond in a Committee of Conference.
For NHPR News, I’m DG.
