[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,75,87,99,111],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6617056,"mediaKeyId","2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580","parentId",2844031,"title","Bill would reintroduce income eligibility for school lunches; lawmakers debate trade-offs between meal access and classroom funding","audioSeconds",3369,"startMs",1160000,"endMs",4529000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580&start=1160&end=4529","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580/thumbnail_1160000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6617056/Minnesota/Bill-would-reintroduce-income-eligibility-for-school-lunches-lawmakers-debate-trade-offs-between-meal-access-and-classroom-funding","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617056-e1d1feb890278593020d7913c0b75bb4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770105658&Signature=liB3GAZc24lnQhqVPlxFriYNPXkFBkvggIEVkjmVrKmW7uMqC80-~NgBAdGDmSH6OQ8sfRJ0KQIHLW2cWR~0rL40BfcKX13sFzHBMJQ1-vvK4QW1I9ipCsXFXWFU91FpNZIGA3Vx0~FHr0CefEyU7nOxBiSQ1YIupwdj~EbVV7gJqMm6IEDmzY7j1Jk6PWSrGHrzByHJ3lOfsY34e2UBn6FvBy47QsOaj0mxQcgZOP~bztWuksKhxoiqheRYGMey~LTJjxh-lkYv9xSVkLBYbI~3RJT7saQU8KvAFfjN4So1HCAykfzn47~xVjtji0N-39jmXeDcv111GUFptQHhkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Minnesota Legislature","date","2025-04-02T02:53:53.997Z","article","Representative [Myers] presented House File 2201 before the Education Finance Committee on April 1, proposing to keep free universal breakfast for all students while restoring income eligibility for free school lunch above a proposed threshold (example used in the hearing: $150,000 for a family of four). The bill would redirect projected state savings into a new local optional revenue (LOR) tier intended to support classroom positions and reduce layoffs.

Author and intent: \"What the bill does is it maintains free breakfasts for everybody... it requires anybody over $150,000 income, they've gotta provide those lunches,\" Representative Myers said in his opening. He and supporting witnesses described the measure as a pragmatic compromise to preserve educator jobs and classroom programs amid projected budget shortfalls. (Representative Myers, author)

Fiscal and program details: The bill’s supporters cited a nonpartisan estimate that the proposal would save roughly $85 million per year (about $170 million over the biennium) and redirect those savings to classrooms; proponents said that would fund teacher retention and a new LOR tier. Minnetonka school treasurer Dan Olsen described the mechanics: \"This lives up to the spirit of ... free school meals for kids while also freeing up state resources to benefit those same kids in the classroom.\" (Dan Olsen, Minnetonka school treasurer)

Opposition and student-impact concerns: Advocates, school nutrition workers and educators strongly opposed reintroducing means-testing. Matt Shaver of Allies argued the state has a statutory obligation to feed children who are required by law to be in school and called the universal meals policy an important standard. \"House File 2,201 proposes to repeal universal meals and re-establish a lunchroom of haves and have nots by setting an arbitrary financial line,\" Shaver said. (Matt Shaver, Allies)

Several speakers emphasized stigma associated with means-testing and the administrative burdens of re‑introducing eligibility screening. Leah Gardner of the Hunger Free Schools Coalition (and a school board treasurer) told the committee that returning to income limits would bring back lunch shaming and increase paperwork, while school food workers described watching children avoid the line before universal meals. \"Before Universal Meals... kids were being sent to the principal's office with a cheese sandwich,\" said Laurie Smith, a cook and SEIU trustee. (Leah Gardner; Laurie Smith)

MDE and implementation concerns: Minnesota Department of Education staff stated the agency had strong concerns about moving away from universal meals. MDE reported a large increase in participation since universal meals were adopted in 2023 and warned that reinstating means testing would impose administrative costs, vendor changes and could remove up to roughly 130,000 students from universal lunch access under the proposed threshold. (Ado Shuni, MDE)

Amendments and committee action: The chair offered and then withdrew a proposed A1 amendment that would have applied potential savings to teacher pensions (a proposal discussed in the hearing and estimated to cost roughly $75 million). The committee also discussed an A2 amendment that would shift a small per‑meal supplement (12.5¢) from the nutrition fund to the general fund and create a voluntary mechanism for districts to convert meal‑fund payments into general fund dollars; that amendment was offered for discussion but was withdrawn during the hearing. Representative Myers said he would continue to pursue options to unlock nutrition account surpluses and provide local flexibility.

Disposition: After extensive testimony on both sides, House File 2201 was laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill or further consideration. No final vote was taken.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Finance Committee 4/1/25","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Myers introduced House File 2201 to the House Education Finance Committee, proposing to keep free breakfasts for all students while reintroducing income-based eligibility for free lunches for families above a proposed $150,000 threshold and redirecting estimated savings into school operating resources.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MN, Minnesota","taxId",77817,"location","Minnesota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":76,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":77,"_40":78,"_42":79,"_44":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6617061,"Minnesota bill would give seasonal-property districts state aid to boost chances of passing school operating levies",688,1822000,1134000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580&start=1822&end=1134","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580/thumbnail_1822000.jpg","/articles/6617061/Minnesota/Minnesota-bill-would-give-seasonal-property-districts-state-aid-to-boost-chances-of-passing-school-operating-levies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617061-69b10d9c8d87ec0dbc266fd0807ea95f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770105658&Signature=ALB70nagaag6Rj1GtJFel9DgpUl1R621Lfc8oDPKCNld2gqnIm8a4FBwwD--rdcdUyaK16QcgyYtKZt8rbnAR7aQ73-ZjgVp~7Lx86y4QBq6d0rV3rYMktg8bw8Lm4jWy1HMruxzgSXoIiMXiWZoCUwb4fL7M9F6HQbnI8LDCEw9FJSih32UOxdCLxQvIBihVCkJxyV-JSdTMmvBLQ~8WXKdHfZpMURgcTLh-qBux0GS-je5ZwyMyXtHgyxRs1wBWncT7DiW3QnL0pW9UbgkKcM9mXjDavp12GQqXR0g3w0OwsVc1slp3YGgSBCBGYVT2rNac1JzfYwNgNfN8h1VdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Paul Igoe introduced House File 1161 on April 1 before the House Education Finance Committee, proposing a seasonal and recreational tax-base replacement aid to reduce local tax effort required for voter-approved school operating levies in districts with high shares of seasonal recreational residential property.

The bill would not change how cabins are taxed or give school boards additional levy authority; it would apply an adjustment factor to the referendum levy amount and create state aid that reduces the local levy rate used for referendum calculations. \"This bill does not change how our cabins are taxed,\" Igoe said. \"The bill creates seasonal and recreational tax based replacement aid aimed at reducing the local tax effort required for voters to approve levies.\" (Representative Paul Igoe, author)

Why it matters: Testimony from several Greater Minnesota educators described recurring budget cuts, eliminated staff and program reductions they tied to unequal levy outcomes. Aaron Riley, a sixth-grade teacher in Grand Rapids, said his district had cut the equivalent of a small school over five years and that the bill would help return tax revenue generated by cabin properties to his community. \"Tax revenue from cabin properties in Grand Rapids should stay in Grand Rapids for our students,\" Riley said. (Aaron Riley, teacher)

Superintendents from Lake Superior School District and Grand Rapids described the scale of the issue for their districts. Lake Superior Superintendent Gina Clive said her district spans about 2,500 square miles, has large amounts of public land and a high percentage of seasonal properties excluded from referendum market value. She offered an example that a $600-per-pupil levy could be reduced by about $226,000 under the bill’s proposed 31.4% reduction in referendum tax rate in her district’s projection. \"That reduction would be a game changer,\" Clive said. (Gina Clive, superintendent)

House Fiscal staff summarized the bill’s fiscal note: the state general fund cost is estimated at $8,196,000 in fiscal year 2027 and about $18,476,000 in fiscal years 2028 and 2029. The fiscal note explains the taxable property classification referenced in the bill corresponds to class 4c (seasonal and recreational residential occupancy) in Minnesota Statutes section 273.13, subdivision 4c, paragraph 12. (Solvei Beckel, House Fiscal)

Discussion and disposition: Committee members asked clarifying questions about the fiscal assumptions and how the adjustment factor would be applied to referendum aid. Representative Igoe and testifiers emphasized the bill preserves voters’ authority to approve levies while aiming to reduce the perceived tax burden on year-round residents in high-seasonal-property districts. The chair laid House File 1161 over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill and further discussion.

What the bill would not do: It would not change tax classification for cabins, would not grant additional levy authority to local school boards, and would not itself enact any levy without voter approval. The fiscal note notes minimal one-time IT recoding costs estimated around $14,000 for the Department of Education to implement changes to levy and general education program coding.

Next steps: House File 1161 was laid over by the committee for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill or later discussion.

","Representative Paul Igoe introduced House File 1161 on April 1 before the House Education Finance Committee, proposing seasonal and recreational tax-base replacement aid to lower the local tax effort required for voter-approved school operating levies in districts with large seasonal-property markets.",{"_32":88,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":89,"_40":90,"_42":91,"_44":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6617041,"Lawmakers consider allowing local funding flexibility for school roof replacement under House File 51",277,6056000,6333000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580&start=6056&end=6333","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580/thumbnail_6056000.jpg","/articles/6617041/Minnesota/Lawmakers-consider-allowing-local-funding-flexibility-for-school-roof-replacement-under-House-File-51","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617041-7e066169a9448833e81d5c9c905805bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770105658&Signature=XSa2UOdSB276MsAZWuGsnHpkAcQNUo49jPQL~rfi5oZD9D6Bfbf2LK~Eife7GIGqf5r5Fpst0sVWVim60L08pnFvAryzA5IG49DN0lGcjnwen-HQE-LCmGycGaqfxEoUs82SB8VxT69FmFj~Q5g6tIkkjeXaYjTBkeMruVfqhb62Yw5qCxNYFS2Ny5o7E4jQvS8Jw4Mg2TpIgX-G148rl1ivd7OLvCNeIgZOBac-1CA9YWGKRyqUQkYlw0eAagZJm~fmAlYA0eJRfjJdjG0ZwX-cYub4nmm9u0qo95KJFIVhYGMsymWyt-LKKmL6QX9V-R728uOkeNKA0J3Yn2-n6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Vernegg presented House File 51 to the committee and deferred to facility and business officials who testified in support of expanding LTFM authority to fund full roof replacement projects.

Testimony from districts: Seth Potts, operations and maintenance supervisor for St. Peter’s School District, told the committee that many schools delay roof replacement due to district budget priorities and that partial repairs ultimately increase costs. \"Most schools' LTFM costs are about 70 to 80% roof repair and replacement,\" he said, urging more flexible authority to finance full replacements.

St. Louis Park’s director of business services, Patricia Magnuson, said lack of full funding for replacements forces districts to make short-term repairs that increase long-term cost and can affect insurance coverage and premiums. She told the committee that comprehensive roof replacements (expected to last decades) provide better value and preserve insurability.

Goodhue Superintendent Evan Gough said his district faces a multi‑phase project and is roughly $2 million short in LTFM funding across a ten‑year horizon; he described his district as a \"poster child\" for the problem of deferred roof maintenance leading to higher costs.

Fiscal note and disposition: Committee staff cited appropriation figures during questioning; a fiscal staff figure was acknowledged by the chair during the hearing (committee exchange referencing figures roughly 2.9 and $9,900,000). House File 51 was laid over for possible omnibus consideration.

","House File 51 would expand long-term facilities maintenance (LTFM) options to help school districts fund full roof replacements rather than short-term patching, witnesses told the committee. District facility staff and superintendents said delayed roof projects raise costs and insurance problems.",{"_32":100,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":101,"_40":102,"_42":103,"_44":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6617046,"Committee advances attendance reporting changes after testimony on students \"falling through the cracks\"",408,5366000,5774000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580&start=5366&end=5774","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580/thumbnail_5366000.jpg","/articles/6617046/Minnesota/Committee-advances-attendance-reporting-changes-after-testimony-on-students-falling-through-the-cracks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617046-f45b39d50c50a840a5850da03c5ad195/orig.mp4?Expires=1770105658&Signature=W3-tYNsAx-gfolhMOfT2HKkbd4q-gAWhHRgxkWZoWEtz5W6PxWXH1Zasu2kFCZNnMYRbw44Or6YAaXR7Ev-jyRdYh3YuunasPsSH7F8J4TIYfKw1y0HQJ5V~0ja2Ex0-B8AWFoL1gB-6-vSUhZBF-lOFZBS~-cVaueFBIRuU-Y5sAQexTaBiQi1MATF5EJvKzjoqVci5Tg-qQgdfXDQb7jdhcBW82cvEDLZXtcVoPcI8nblYSIOGcJHZks7ZovcQFeqDj-sgIoNzv131~tXPj9UmeKKsAfvTBB84ZSuCD~8XyYbR1s~MrcO-LjoBzjro6fDW-2sNkeon3Y~ZvNT1ZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee took up House File 10 53 on April 1 to discuss attendance, chronic absenteeism and a statutory process commonly referred to as the \"15‑day drop\"—the administrative unenrollment that occurs when a student misses 15 consecutive school days. The authors’ DE amendment and a subsequent A4 amendment were adopted by the committee.

What the bill and amendments do: The DE language submitted by the author would require school districts, after a 15‑day unexcused absence, to notify the county welfare agency and follow certain reporting steps; the A4 amendment requires that attendance indicators be added to the individual student report cards (the MCA parent/student reporting document) so families and educators have a clearer attendance signal tied to academic reporting. Representative Boeckberg, a co‑author of the attendance study work, said the changes aim to capture students who \"disappear\" from enrollment rosters so counties and schools can coordinate outreach and child‑protection or support services when required.

Testimony: Ashley Hightower with Hennepin County’s Be at School program told the committee that students who become 15‑day drops often are not seen by counties unless schools report them, leaving children unenrolled and out of school for months in some cases. \"These students are literally falling through the cracks because of a funding policy,\" Hightower said. She provided counts used by her program: to date in the current reporting period she cited 7,878 (live total referenced during testimony) and said last year her program received 658 referrals flagged as 15‑day dropped, this year 613 so far. (Ashley Hightower, Hennepin County)

MDE comments and pilot work: Minnesota Department of Education staff said MDE and pilot districts are testing interventions; MDE noted there was prior pilot funding for 13 districts and said outcomes from those pilots would inform best practices. MDE cautioned that if the department were to take on direct outreach the agency would need resources to maintain timely data and staff trained for family outreach. (Ado Shuni, MDE)

Disposition: The committee adopted the DE amendment and the A4 reporting amendment and laid House File 10 53 over for possible omnibus inclusion or further discussion; committee members asked for follow-up on data-sharing mechanics and resources needed for timely outreach.

","House File 1053 (as amended) would add reporting and notification requirements to address the so-called 15‑day drop (students unenrolled after 15 consecutive unexcused absences). The committee adopted the author's DE amendment and an A4 amendment to add an attendance indicator to individual MCA reports.",{"_32":112,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":113,"_40":114,"_42":115,"_44":116,"_46":117,"_48":118,"_50":119,"_52":120,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":121,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":122,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6617051,"Bill would tighten state grant rules for nonprofits after Feeding Our Future controversy",565,4652000,5217000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580&start=4652&end=5217","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844031-b738577d1a2e9f5ad03fd38f87e33580/thumbnail_4652000.jpg","/articles/6617051/Minnesota/Bill-would-tighten-state-grant-rules-for-nonprofits-after-Feeding-Our-Future-controversy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617051-639c6d071f7189c480f9d66cb30ebebb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770105658&Signature=AmRYupuht1CMqEotWaOzGLyeoti1Q3sddTRo0BSdEyrXSjmJEdH8r2hFgycEfz2C5ImRnParyBTOFdye~JVAshdo--GjHs~JXSicKkR8brU7GrZqvRW9cRD7kxcx8WlPLAivR10dlI4c8junWaa-~qdGvUZJtkNM5zpP7O7zxhnEhjgbaXCir6W5osLh9A8LxK-ypoxPy0ZQFbDjhleP7lx2b4MxwNPi~Qu4hr7UjJvtE3Bxr46m1KZbJz1jUbyRvumqK7GNWkTqV0t2zsy6-yb3qbPn2fCgIS0HX-AY2f3unPHS7M0-oAYePSHB95TapM1dPgPgjvW8kQVP1hkuKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Bennett presented House File 2786, a bill that would place additional conditions on state grants and payments to nonprofit organizations that receive funds through the Minnesota Department of Education.

What the bill would require: Bennett described several provisions: MDE would be prohibited from issuing or would be required to terminate grants if a nonprofit fails to maintain tax-exempt status or fails to comply with reporting requirements (including financial filings required by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office). The bill also would bar payments to nonprofits whose administrative costs exceed 25% of revenue and would exclude nonprofits if an employee’s compensation exceeds 110% of the governor’s compensation (the committee cited a cap of $164,505 based on the current governor salary baseline). The bill would also require termination of payments if a recipient is the subject of an investigation or allegation of fraud, waste or abuse. (Representative Bennett)

Sponsor rationale and example: Bennett cited the Feeding Our Future case, saying the IRS revoked Feeding Our Future’s tax-exempt status in 2020 after three years of missing required filings but MDE nonetheless continued payments, which the sponsor used to argue for firmer standards.

Discussion and amendments: The chair offered an A1 amendment as a vehicle for discussion about reallocation of funds; members asked questions about which nonprofits or programs might be affected (several named programs that focus on recruiting teachers of color and other diversity efforts were raised in committee discussion). The chair subsequently withdrew the A1 amendment. Representative Bennett said the bill itself does not cut any specified nonprofit but sets standards for all nonprofit recipients of taxpayer funds.

Disposition: House File 2786 was laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill. Committee members asked for follow-up discussion and emphasized the need to balance oversight with program continuity for initiatives that recruit and retain diverse educators.

","House File 2786 would narrow which nonprofits can receive state education grants by requiring tax-exempt status, limiting administrative overhead to 25% of revenue and capping employee pay at 110% of the governor’s salary; sponsors cited Feeding Our Future as an example where the IRS revoked tax-exempt status yet payments continued.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would reintroduce income eligibility for school lunches; lawmakers debate trade-offs between meal access and classroom funding

Minnesota bill would give seasonal-property districts state aid to boost chances of passing school operating levies

Lawmakers consider allowing local funding flexibility for school roof replacement under House File 51

Committee advances attendance reporting changes after testimony on students "falling through the cracks"

Bill would tighten state grant rules for nonprofits after Feeding Our Future controversy