Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education School Meals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JBC discusses $8 million interim funding for Healthy School Meals for All, debates using Prop FF-linked state education funds
Summary
The Joint Budget Committee considered an $8.1 million interim funding option to keep Healthy School Meals for All (HSMA) running through December, debated allowing an over‑expenditure authority if the ballot measure fails, and discussed using State Education Fund dollars brought in by Proposition FF to cover the shortfall.
The Joint Budget Committee on Monday reviewed a short-term financing plan to keep the Healthy School Meals for All (HSMA) program operating through December while voters decide whether to retain the program longer.
Committee staff presented an option the committee characterized as an $8.1 million gap that would allow HSMA to operate at current levels for the first half of fiscal 2025–26 and scale back to targeted, low‑income schools if voters reject the measure in November. "Page 12 of the blue packet here...this is basically the same material that I presented," said Miss Bickel, a staff member who briefed the committee.
The nut of the committee discussion centered on where to draw that $8 million and whether to preserve or eliminate statutory over‑expenditure authority (a potential June 30 1331 mechanism) should revenues fall short. Representative Byrd pressed staff on guardrails that could require a payback to the State Education Fund (SEF) if Prop FF revenue later materializes. "I wanted to talk to you about the possibility of including some language in this bill that allows a payback also to the state education fund," Byrd said.
Committee members noted that Proposition FF generates additional SEF revenue estimated at about $8 million annually. Several members argued it would be logical to use that additional SEF revenue — rather than general fund — to cover the December bridge. "It does bring in additional state ed fund revenue each year of about $8,000,000," Bickel said. Committee members expressed differing comfort levels about permanently shifting SEF money, but several agreed to explore drafting language that would prioritize returning any incremental FF revenue to the SEF to offset the interim subsidy.
On the over‑expenditure authority question, some members said they were willing to allow a 1331 come‑back in June to protect school districts from unpaid meal bills; others said eliminating over‑expenditure authority was a goal of the committee. "I know that this is extremely unpredictable, but I've also heard from this committee that they want to end that over expenditure authority," said one committee member.
Committee direction and next steps: the committee authorized staff to work with the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) to draft statutory language that would (a) allow the half‑year funding option, (b) include contingencies in case federal Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) rules change, and (c) explore mechanisms to repay SEF if Prop FF produces incremental revenue. "So I give staff authority to work with OLLS to revise the previous draft that was already authorized, to include the terms that, of our discussion today," the chair said; the motion passed without recorded objection.
Why it matters: the committee’s decision affects whether school districts face unpaid meal costs if the ballot measure fails and whether the state will use general fund or State Education Fund revenue to bridge the gap. Final language will determine whether school districts are protected from unpaid vendor bills and how the state accounts for the subsidy if Prop FF revenue later becomes available.
The committee instructed staff to incorporate the agreed direction into the long bill balancing and to continue discussions with sponsors of related bills (including House Bill 1274) on technical interactions and sequencing. "I think you can attempt to get there, in in your bill as as well," Pierce Lively of the Office of Legislative Legal Services told the committee when asked about intersections with HB1274.
A related administrative note: committee members asked for drafting contingencies so the Department of Education would have allocation guidance if federal CEP thresholds change, but some members objected to automatic triggers tied to unpredictable federal action and asked that any contingency language be narrowly tailored.
Ending: staff will draft the agreed provisions and return with a revised draft; the committee gave staff authority to remove the current general fund appropriation and anticipate adding roughly $8.1 million of State Education Fund in the balancing process if the committee finalizes that approach.
