Connecticut National Guard says budget flat for FY26–27 as federal orders and unit costs pressure operations

Major General Frannie, the Adjunct General of the Connecticut Military Department, told the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Feb. 13 that the agency’s proposed budget for fiscal 2026–27 is “essentially flat,” and that the department plans to cover core functions by increasing internal efficiencies.

The agency’s funding outlook matters because, Frannie said, recent executive orders at the federal level are prompting daily messages to federally funded technicians and raising personnel and readiness questions. “We have about, 600 title, federal technicians,” Frannie said, describing a mix of dual-status uniformed technicians and civilian technicians who are directly affected by federal guidance. He said the department has ordered some technicians back from telework and is pressing for exemptions for uniformed dual-status technicians and title 5 employees at the national level.

The nut graf: Lawmakers pressed the adjutant general about how the federal directives affect Connecticut readiness and about several line items in the state budget — including a small referral recruiting program, the governor’s horse and foot guards, and repairs at aging armories — all of which agency leaders said will require additional attention if federal or programmatic shortfalls continue.

Frannie and staff described three principal near-term pressures. First, personnel status changes tied to federal directives can reduce available staff and complicate deployments: the adjutant general said the department is roughly “49% manned for the requirement” on the federal side and that the force is already “basically at 50% of what we need to be at” on many days. He cautioned members that rapid enrollment decisions by affected employees could risk other earned benefits and said the department is coordinating with the National Guard Bureau, OSD and OMB to seek clarity and exemptions.

Second, recruiting has shown measurable success but limited funding. The agency credited a referral program passed in mid‑2023 for producing 11 new enlistments to date and said it has spent heavily against a $169,000 allocation. “We are burning, very hot through the hundred and $69,000 that was allocated to us,” Frannie told the committee, and he said internal efficiencies would be used to cover any shortfall rather than terminating the program.

Third, unit and facility costs and maintenance present recurring pressures. Frannie said two foot guards are low‑cost and housed in armories while two horse guards cost roughly “about, again, direct cost about $300,000 for each,” and that net costs after lease income remain significant. The agency estimated combined direct and indirect costs for the four units at roughly $1 million, and noted the horse guard stall lease program yields about $50,000 a year. Committee members repeatedly raised the prospect of consolidating or otherwise restructuring the units to reduce costs, and Frannie said a number of options — including consolidation or statutory changes — remain on the table.

Lawmakers and the adjutant general also discussed armory maintenance and reserve center conditions. Frannie described problems at multiple reserve sites, including broken fixtures, intermittent heating and cooling failures and slow contracting, and said some reserve facilities are owned and maintained by the federal reserve command rather than the state National Guard. He urged faster, local contracting through the National Guard’s Windsor Locks team where possible and noted the agency has submitted bonding requests to fund medical readiness facilities, including a readiness processing (SRP) building.

The adjutant general also addressed contractor availability for medical readiness services. He said he had seen dental and other medical services functioning at mobilization sites and that the department had not identified a systemic contract failure that affected the state Guard’s ability to prepare soldiers and airmen for deployment, but he asked lawmakers to alert the agency if they hear of contractor gaps elsewhere.

Representative Walker, Representative Delaney and others urged careful treatment of the governor’s guard programs and expressed concern about a possible reorganization or privatization that could remove the units from current state oversight. Frannie said agency leadership plans further discussions with legislative leaders and that any transfer of property, horses or equipment would require negotiation and likely additional state resources.

Ending: Committee members asked the agency to provide more detailed budget line breakdowns — particularly for the horse and foot guards and for facility bonding requests — and the adjutant general said the department would supply the requested data. The committee recessed to resume other hearings later in the day.