JBC authorizes staff drafting to cover half-year of Healthy School Meals for All using Prop FFstate-education-fund revenue

The Joint Budget Committee on Monday discussed a proposal to fund Healthy School Meals for All (HSMA) for the first half of the 2025-26 school year and to use a vote in November to determine whether the program continues for the second half.

Miss Bickel, JBC staff, told the committee the chosen option would fund the full program through December and, if voters rejected the measure in November, scale the program back to only low-income schools and schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision. "If you do that option, ... $8,100,000 is sort of what you would be left with," she said, describing the gap that the bridge appropriation would cover.

Committee members discussed where the bridge dollars should come from. Several members noted Proposition FF—the statewide meal funding measure—generates about $108 million in new revenues and additionally increases State Education Fund (SEF) receipts by roughly $8 million annually. A number of members argued it would be logical to use that $8 million in SEF receipts to fund the December bridge rather than using general fund dollars. "So it would seem to me to make sense to go ahead and use those for this program," one member said during the discussion.

Representative Byrd and others requested guardrails before moving forward. Byrd asked whether bill language could require a subsequent payback to the SEF if the retention measure passes later, and Miss Bickel said staff could try to draft such a provision while noting potential interactions with House Bill 1274 and uncertainties about how multiple measures would interact. Pierce Lively of the Office of Legislative Legal Services told members the mechanism could be included in either this bill or HB1274, but noted it could be cleaner to address true-up language in HB1274.

The committee also discussed ending an over-expenditure authority that would let school districts temporarily overspend if revenue turns out to be unpredictable. Some members preferred allowing a limited over-expenditure to protect districts and said they were comfortable with a 13-31 (a fiscal comeback item) if needed; others favored eliminating the over-expenditure authority. The chair later confirmed elimination of the over-expenditure authority and instructed staff to proceed with drafting consistent with the committee's discussion.

On drafting authority, the vice chair moved and the committee authorized staff to work with the Office of Legislative Legal Services to revise the existing draft to reflect the committee's direction on using SEF receipts, caps, and triggers discussed during the meeting. The committee also authorized staff to eliminate the current general fund appropriation tied to HSMA and to anticipate adding $8.1 million from the State Education Fund for 2025-26 if the drafting and timing permit.

What this means going forward

The committee did not enact final statutory language in session; instead it authorized JBC staff and OLLS to draft bill language incorporating the committee's directions. Key open items that staff were asked to address during drafting included whether any payback language should be included to restore SEF dollars if the retention measure passes, whether to cap or otherwise limit over-expenditure authority, and contingency language to preserve aid to the most needy schools if federal rules change for community eligibility.

Key figures and figures-at-issue

- Bridge gap to pay for HSMA through December: about $8,100,000. - Proposition FF estimated new revenue mentioned in committee: approximately $108,000,000 (general revenue change) plus roughly $8,000,000 in increased State Education Fund receipts.

Committee directions and next steps

Staff were instructed to draft bill language that: (1) would attempt to use the $8,000,000 in SEF receipts tied to Proposition FF to cover the December bridge; (2) include possible guardrails to enable repayment to SEF if the retention measure passes; and (3) include fallback distribution language to preserve support for CEP and low-income schools if federal CEP rules change. The committee authorized the drafting and technical adjustments; no final appropriations were enacted at the meeting.

Ending note

Committee members repeatedly emphasized they did not want to create financial risk for school districts and asked staff to include true-up and contingency language so that districts that already paid for meals would not be left with unpaid expenses if revenues fluctuate.