Transcript Highlights:

• She also says they offer the Special Milk Program, and that these programs are all federally funded through
• <00:06:25.400> funds 100% um completely all federal funds 100% um completely all federal funds
• So are these programs strictly federal funds, these ones you have here?
• that so are these programs strictly federal<00:26:48.080> funds<00:26:48.399> these<00
• The federal grant program is just the name of the act that provides the funds to all states for that

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition presented an overview of the school meal and child nutrition programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program. Staff explained which programs are federally funded through USDA, which have state matching funds, and how reimbursement rates are set for different programs and fiscal years. They also walked the committee through a packet showing reimbursement tables, state and federal funding totals, and eligibility data. Members focused much of their questioning on how state and federal reimbursements work for lunch and breakfast, why lunch is shown as a state match while breakfast has meal-based breakdowns, and how the department allocates funds in the budget. The department explained that lunch uses a set state match tied to federal requirements, while breakfast reimbursement is based on meals served. They also reviewed FY 22-24 funding trends, noting higher federal spending during COVID-era waivers and lower amounts as those waivers ended. A committee member asked for the data in Excel and the department agreed to provide it. The discussion also covered summer meal programs and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-run benefit program that provides funds to families; the two programs coordinate through data sharing but are not the same. Members also discussed CEP, with staff explaining that New Hampshire currently has three schools participating, that the qualifying threshold was reduced from 40% to 25% identified students, and that districts must cover the non-federal share with non-federal funds. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is New Hampshire currently saying in state law that EFA funds are not subject to federal taxes?
• are not subject to law that EFA funds are not subject to federal<00:05:58.639> taxes federal
• program, and while it's perfectly clear the money used for funding the voucher program is taxpayer money
• How do we know if our taxpayer dollars are being used to fund programs in other states?
• How do we know if our taxpayer dollars are being used to fund programs in other states?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal funds under the that one is 100% federal funds under the orid orid orid program<00:03:41.400>
• That program requires a state contribution to receive the federal funds and run the program itself.
• receive the federal funds and run the receive the federal funds and run the program<00:22:08.240
• Federally funded, or it's a federal program that has representation in I think every state.
• We have not before given any general funds to these programs because it's been a federally funded effort

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on the Department of Business and Economic Affairs budget, with testimony from Chase Hegman and Kathy Frederickson. Early discussion focused on staffing and vacancies, including a senior planner position tied to FEMA requirements, a program assistant funded by federal ORID dollars, a program specialist being considered for reclassification, two Housing Champions positions to be funded in the next biennium, and temporary welcome center positions. Members also reviewed the commissioner’s office, indirect cost recoveries tied to federal program administration, and the structure and staffing of rest areas and welcome centers, including the Turnpike-funded locations and seasonal staffing patterns. Members then moved through economic development and federal grant-related accounts. Hegman explained that a large share of the agency’s funding is federal, with some programs requiring state match, including the Apex Accelerator, which supports government contracting assistance for businesses. He described Apex as a small team that helps businesses with DOD and other contracting opportunities through webinars, matchmaking, and one-on-one support. The Office of Workforce Opportunity was described as largely federally funded through Commerce-related workforce programs and subrecipients, with some general fund support for agency-wide needs. The Northern Borders Regional Commission dues and capacity grant were also discussed, with officials explaining the state’s required contribution and the federal funds used to administer the program. A major point of discussion was the proposed reduction to the Small Business Development Center, which officials said provides one-on-one technical assistance to new and small businesses and has a strong return on investment. Members questioned the cut, the federal funding sources, and whether there was a waiting list for services; officials said they would provide more detail on matching requirements and funding. The committee also reviewed travel and tourism accounts, including the joint promotional grant program and tourism advertising funds, both of which are proposed to increase. Officials said the tourism marketing formula is based on a percentage of meals and rooms tax revenue and argued that the spending generates significant visitor spending and tax revenue, citing an outside ROI study and examples of advertising in test markets. No votes were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal funding, or is your plan going to include federal funding at this point?
• This program is funded by the cap-and-trade program, the greenhouse gas revolving fund, which has been
• programs, weigh those programs that you are funding with GGF against those you're funding with the general
• that the general fund is trying to support those federal funds can't supplant but if those federal funds
• energy and we fully support funding the program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• some information here that breaks out which programs that federal funding is for.
• and major federal funds.
• For federal funds, for example, that LIHEAP program, Community Development Block Grant, Community Services
• to Budget Section semiannually, excluding federally funded programs.
• So federal funding for more than 40 workforce programs is scattered across federal agencies, which funnels

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Budget Section’s Commerce and Legal Services Division met to review the Department of Commerce base budget for the 2027-29 biennium and to receive an update on Commerce programs. Legislative Council staff first walked the committee through the “blue sheet” base budget summary, explaining the major line items, the large share of federal grant authority in Commerce’s budget, and the continuing appropriations that support several Commerce funds. Members asked how grant funding is coordinated across agencies, and staff said collaboration varies by program but is strong in areas like UAS and LIHEAP. Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilken then presented on current activities, focusing heavily on grant administration, transparency, and economic development programs. Members questioned how grant applicants are selected, whether Commerce tracks applications and return on investment, and how long grant awards take to reach recipients. The commissioner said Commerce uses scoring criteria, outside reviewers, a minimum 30-day application window, and typically completes awards within two to three months. A lengthy exchange followed over whether Commerce should open some grants only to intended recipients versus running competitive application processes; Commerce said it follows best-practice grantmaking and that its attorney in the Attorney General’s office approved that approach. Commerce also highlighted the North Dakota Development Fund, citing long-term investment and job creation results, examples such as Red Trail Energy, Packet Digital, Valiance, Corvent Medical, child care loans, and the Automate ND program. Members asked about acceptable failures, lessons learned, regional economic development coordination, and the expansion of the fund into non-primary sectors. Workforce Director Katie Ralston Howell then outlined a statewide workforce ecosystem review, a new governor’s workforce sub-cabinet, and three task forces focused on simplifying entry, warm handoffs, and data integration. She discussed the in-demand occupations list, Workforce Pell, apprenticeships, and efforts to better connect students with employers and higher education. Commerce also briefly reviewed housing programs and a new housing sub-cabinet. No votes were taken; the committee simply received testimony, asked questions, and adjourned after setting up the next meeting to hear the Attorney General budget in June.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:19.839> funds, breakdown between the federal funds, breakdown between the federal funds
• of the future of the federal funding. of the future of the federal funding.
• funds. Those are the biggest programs. funds. Those are the biggest programs.
• Um, the federal with the federal funds.
• <01:20:41.520> line federal funding for lead service line federal funding for lead service

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This proposal moves funding for early literacy grant programs.
• <00:53:48.640> funding in previously approved federal funding in previously approved federal
• Sustaining funding access to federal data sources that verify eligibility for Minnesota health care programs
• , funding for the prepared meals program, funding for the prepared meals program, regional<01:06:
• that<02:02:20.560> touch programs and funding streams that touch programs and funding streams

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Third, exploring alternative funding sources for costs of programs currently funded by ratepayers.
• funding sources can support specialized programs.
• government, and then dispersing those federal funds.
• I want to echo Edson's comments on additional funding for these programs.
• the CEC to fund those match funding programs for water project resiliency.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have decided to, for these upcoming iterations, fund it as a two-year program rather than a 12-month
• to fund groups that have nothing to do with the stated purpose of the program.
• When we talk about community care and investment, funding programs like SeaWalk is exactly what we mean
• That means it is taking in less in employer contributions to fund the program than it is paying out in
• The federal government that funds our claim processing for UI claims, we're unfortunately underfunded

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , these are IIJA funds, you know, for Federal Highway Administration and different programs.
• , these are IIJA funds, you know, for Federal Highway Administration and different programs.
• , these are IIJA funds, you know, for Federal Highway Administration and different programs.
• He gave you an update on the federal funds unit and did a deep dive into many of the programs that are
• He gave you an update on the federal funds unit and did a deep dive into many of the programs that are

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That program is self-regulating and self-funding in terms of funding.
• funds and the programs.
• Well, the implementation of the program utilized federal funds that were set aside specifically for the
• And then also, I want to talk about federal. funds.
• We have received additional funds from the federal government to address. not only our base program,

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill, including the federal-aid and non-federal-aid highway programs and two popular grant programs:
• Communities that are awarded through this program are not only immensely grateful for the funds, but
• programs, that specifically provide funding for safety improvements.
• We've got the Complete Streets Funding Program, which is not included in this bill today, but does fund
• This is a ...to support new housing development and additional funds for the LAMP program.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues. Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• All funds—that's not necessarily only the cost to run the program.
• That cost allocation system allows us to maximize federal funds.
• funds, that's the maximize our federal funds, that's the number<00:13:00.800> that<00:13:01.120
• So, so I don't um I I I federal funds.
• That's both federal and state funded programs that they process daily.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The work session was limited to House Bill 1750, a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services’ SNAP administration. Before testimony, Representative Terski distributed a written statement from Representative Priest for the record. Department officials Karen Heert and Nathan White then walked the committee through a chart showing SNAP participation, federal benefit dollars, and state administrative costs, emphasizing that the benefits themselves do not flow through the state budget. They explained that the reported administrative cost includes overhead and cost-allocation methods used to maximize federal reimbursement, and that the current participant count is about 75,000 with the trend steady in recent years. Members questioned whether the reported costs were stable, how much of the administrative expense was directly tied to SNAP, and whether reducing overhead would lower the need for the appropriation. The department said the cost per participant and per dollar distributed would be lower if SNAP were isolated, but that the broader allocation system also supports federal claiming across multiple programs. Officials said SNAP eligibility is redetermined every six months, that the department processes nearly 50 eligibility programs with about 250 field staff, roughly 70 unfunded positions, and a vacancy rate around 25%. They also said most errors in the program are unintentional and can come from either staff or participant mistakes, and that the department reviews errors to identify systemic fixes. The committee discussed the fiscal impact of the bill and related budget issues. DHHS said the current adjusted authorization for 2026 is about $31 million, but actual spending is expected to be closer to $25–26 million because of vacancies and unfilled positions. Members asked whether the $4.4 million shortfall identified in the fiscal note would come from the rainy day fund; staff said it would not be taken directly from that fund, but would reduce the amount available to flow into it at the end of the biennium. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 603 FN, which was described as an alternative approach that would require DHHS to transfer funds within its existing budget rather than provide new money; officials said it would simply codify an option the department already has. No vote or final action on House Bill 1750 was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the state program and how much funding was in that program, because we are looking at the methodology
• has been limited in that program as compared to the CCDF side or the Child Care Development Fund, which
• versus the federal programs, because we get to make our own rules.
• I have a question about federally funded slots.
• So you're talking about what was or what is called the federal pre-K program.

Summary: The committee met to review the minutes and then held a workshop-style discussion with Arkansas Department of Education early childhood officials about the state’s early learning programs, funding, and access. Officials explained that the state-funded ABC program has been largely flat for years, rising from $11 million to about $14 million in 2018, while the federally funded SRA/CCDF side is much larger. They described differences between the programs, including ABC’s 10-month school-year structure, current enrollment of about 23,000 children in ABC and about 14,871 in SRA, and a SRA wait list that has grown to roughly 2,971 children. Members raised concerns about rural access, school-based versus community-based providers, reimbursement rates, and the need to align early childhood funding with K-12 and kindergarten readiness goals. A major topic was the recent $14.741 million PDG B-5 competitive grant. Officials said it is a one-year systems-building grant, not a direct services grant, and will support local leads, CLASS observations, workforce efforts, and data systems while helping offset some costs that otherwise would have been paid through CCDF. Members also discussed the end of a federal pre-K funding stream in June, with children either moving into ABC slots or requalifying for SRA, and the state’s new enrollment-based payment approach, which officials said saved about $576,000. The committee also heard that the current cost-of-care study is about three years old and that a new market-rate survey is being planned. Several members questioned dual enrollment in home visiting/HIPPY and ABC, with officials saying about 1,200 children are enrolled in both and that limiting double enrollment could save about $2.4 million and affect roughly 470 children. Members also asked about provider closures after rate changes; officials said eight providers cited funding as a reason for closing, while 26 new providers have been added under the new rates. The discussion ended with broad agreement that the committee should continue regular updates, keep providers and families informed, and explore policy changes, waivers, and possible state investments to improve stability, access, and quality in early childhood education.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's the federal program, there's state programs, and there were new programs that were delivered
• Department of Labor, USDOL, is actively threatening to dismantle federal-state UI programs. U.S.
• , insufficient federal funding sets the agency up to fail, and I want to explain that a little bit.
• Federal UI administration funding is distributed based on a state's workload.
• So in times of low unemployment, like in 2019, Virginia's federal funding plummets.

Keywords: Commission on Unemployment Compensation, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Re-evaluation services were originally funded as a four-year program, and authorizing the program on
• Behavioral health services fund for the program.
• captures projected expenditures of state, local, and federal funds.
• funding mechanism that allows California to count and claim federal funds on state dollars that it otherwise
• Rental assistance will be funded with a combination of general funds and federal funds.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and the state program and how much funding was in that program, because we are looking at the methodology
• And so with SRA, there are eligibility requirements, much like ABC, but CCDF is our federal-funded program
• versus the federal programs, because we get to make our own rules.
• I have a question about federally funded slots.
• So you're talking about what was, or what is called, the federal pre-K program.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee met in a workshop-style discussion with Arkansas Department of Education early childhood officials to review the state’s early learning programs, especially ABC and SRA/CCDF, and to consider long-term sustainability, access, and quality. Officials said ABC funding was flat at $11 million from 2009-2010 until a $3 million increase in 2018, while CCDF/SRA funding is about $137 million. They reported ABC serves about 23,000 children, SRA about 14,871, and the SRA wait list has grown to 2,971 children, with breakdowns by age provided during the meeting. They also said the current ABC per-child cost is about $5,105, compared with roughly $8,000 in K-12, and that a new market-rate/cost-of-care study is due because the last one was about three years ago. Members raised concerns about rural and urban access, provider deserts, school-based versus community-based slots, and whether the state should expand or rebalance funding to better support infant-toddler care and mixed delivery. Officials said they are working on identifying gaps, moving slots where possible, and using local leads and quality measures such as CLASS observations to improve kindergarten readiness. They also discussed the transition of federal pre-K funding ending at the end of June, with children either moving into ABC or requalifying for SRA, but without grandfathering beyond bypassing the wait list if already enrolled. A major topic was the impact of new co-pays and funding reductions on families and providers. Officials said the state had to make changes to preserve the programs, and that paying based on enrollment rather than allocated slots saved about $576,000. They also said eight providers cited funding as the reason for closing, while 26 new providers were added under the new rates. Members questioned dual enrollment in home visiting/HIPPY and ABC, and officials said about 1,200 children are dually enrolled, with a possible savings of about $2.4 million if that practice were limited, though members cautioned about unintended consequences for children with developmental needs. The meeting ended with agreement to continue regular updates and further work on simplifying and stabilizing the early childhood system.

Transcript Highlights:

• So all of that has been going on, and we are looking to program those funds.
• So all of that has been going on, and we are looking to program those funds.
• We do need to have all non-CIG program funds committed by that time.
• , called the Puget Sound Gateway Program, is another federally funded program, a mega program within
• With federal funding, the disadvantaged business enterprise program at the federal level is going through

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think these are majority federally funded or a large portion of federally funded.
• All the federal appropriation and all the federal for those fully funded federal positions is going to
• that's going with that all the federal appropriation and all the federal for those fully funded federal
• positions, all the federal funding that go with child nutrition programs and other nutritional programs
• And that involves the loss of funding and money when we spend $400 million on another program.

Summary: The committee first considered the Lieutenant Governor’s Office budget and personnel request. Office representatives said they wanted to move the office to the state pay plan to better align salaries with other constitutional offices and remain competitive, noting that OPM had approved the positions and grades. Senators questioned the size of the requested increases and the office’s workload, and after discussion the motion to adopt the proposal failed on an 8-8 tie. The committee then voted to expunge that vote and returned to the regular agenda. The committee approved a series of Governor’s letters involving position transfers and appropriation adjustments across several agencies. These included changes for AETN, the Department of Health and Nursing Board/Dietetics Board, multiple DHS divisions, DFA shared services and budget management, and the Department of Public Safety shared services division. Most of these items involved moving positions and associated salary appropriations between divisions, with no major opposition and motions passing. A lengthy discussion followed on the transfer of child nutrition and related nutrition programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Agriculture. Education and DFA officials explained that the programs fit better under Agriculture because the funding and commodities are tied to USDA programs, and they clarified that both state and federal funding and all related positions would move. Senators raised concerns about the math in the letters, the split between state and federal funding, and whether all program resources were being transferred. After the explanation, the committee approved the Education side of the transfer and then approved the Agriculture companion letter. The committee also discussed the Educational Freedom Account program budget. Officials said the $309 million request matched current participation and included a $70 million reserve in case applications increase. Several senators expressed concern about the program’s growth and its effect on public education funding and adequacy, while others noted that the program’s rules and funding levels could be adjusted through the State Board and future legislative action. The committee then approved a Public Safety classification change and a member amendment changing a title at East Arkansas Community College from assistant to the president to assistant to the chancellor, with no change in positions or appropriation.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I just wanted to draw attention that the current funding for the DPP programs, 3.3 billion.
• Then the current funding across those for those programs are above the 110% Medicare rate for the 24
• >> So there are other funding streams for Medicaid program has to provide to provide care to members
• majority of this funding in the economic self-sufficiency program.
• Funded. To 75 to 75% as required. Federal change to work forest.