Joint Budget Committee
Video
Transcript
2 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
all right members if you will grab your seats we'll get this thing started and call
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:40
this meeting to order we've got a few items on the agenda today and I will turn
Speaker 5
1:47
this over to Wendy for discussion Thank You mr. chair item B or three service contracts for legislative review these are out-of-state contracts these contracts needed attention before the June council meeting. All are from DHS.
You'll see in item B there's a letter from Jessica Patterson, Director of Office of State Procurement. And then the second page would be is the contracts. The first is Division of Children and Family Services with Evident Change. This is an original contract for over 690,000. This is for the Child Welfare Structured Decision-Making Assessment. It is sole source justification. The first two contracts are sole sourced by justification you'll see at the end of your packet there is a letter and a form that will state the reasons for that being sole source b2 is division of county
ops with sifter solutions this is a new contract for 1.2 million it is to contract creating a supplemental nutrition assistance program waiver compliance solution and the third contract is the Division of Developmental Disabilities with Samaritan Integrative Services for $156,000. This is for psychiatric services at the Southeast Arkansas Human Development Center. That completes the summary of the contract, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Does any member have any
questions for either three of these contracts?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:06
I see Representative Rose. Representative Rose, you recognized. for which contract
yes sir thank you I've got a question on the evident change contract for DCFS okay we'll bring DCFS up to the table if you would
just state your names for the records and with after you do that we'll give representative
Speaker 11
3:46
Rose you're recognized good morning Tiffany Wright director for the division of
Chair
Unverified
3:52
children and family services Sarah Cunningham office of procurement
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:54
with DHS hey good morning Lori McDonald chief of staff DHS good
morning thank you so much for joining us lovely weather outside I'm sure that was nice
coming in today before I dig into questions do you have any
representation from the vendor in this contract that's here today yes
sir we do mr. chair would it be alright
to have them come to the table as well okay do you
have any questions they can attempt to answer before we sure change up yes thank you so my primary the first question I think I'd like to lead with about six months ago we had a pretty good back and forth with regard to this vendor and one of the prevailing themes that I had a struggle with was that we
were becoming so reliant on them and that we were not developing any kind of an off-ramp with this vendor with the training the tools the reliance overall and the vendor said themselves we want to put we want to put our our clients in the best position to fire us is what they said then and furthermore one of the justifications we're just talking about a three hundred thousand dollar contract whereas this looks more like a near a two point one million
dollar contract but one of the justifications for why we should accept the three hundred thousand dollar contract was because well this was put out for competitive bid originally and this is just an amendment on it so we're coming back no off-ramp this contract it sounds like is now ending after seven years and we're adding on at least three more years no competitive bid and no off-ramp so I was I was curious if the vendor themselves has any built-in
plans for an off-ramp and what that looks like and we
Speaker 23
5:51
could just kind of start there. Thank you. That's a great question.
Speaker 26
5:55
So to provide some clarity, this contract that you all have before you today is the maintenance and operation contract for the structured decision making practice hub and the tools that DCFS is using to do the work that is then evaluated in what I call the sister contract that you all approved in a scope of work on in December so
this contract is the continued maintenance and operations of the practice hub that DCFS uses to complete all of the safety assessments and our case planning and so what you're seeing here now is how do we keep this going because we will with their tools because we are using their tools in our system to make decisions and the maintenance and operation for that would be maintaining the system but then the operations would be if along the way we have enhancements
things that need to be fixed or changed and how we are doing our business so that's what you're seeing now that are this original contract was all of the work that we were bringing to Arkansas
Speaker 27
7:05
in 2017 um to start changing the system and how we do the work that we do to build consistency and now we have the two separate um contracts
Speaker 26
7:16
one again the maintenance and operations for the tools that are um the evidence-based tools that they brought to our state and then the other is the
cqi and the reviews and all of that work follow
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
7:30
up mr chair you recognize thank you so if i understand you correctly we have multiple contracts it started with one we have more than one is this is this contract this renewal contract is this going to be more money than what it had been previously no so this is the exact same amount we were paying for seven
Speaker 27
7:50
years previous to now so we're only um this contract we're only requesting for three years and it's less money
Speaker 32
7:56
per year um we're requesting three years but it's not uh it's a total projected cost of
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
8:03
three years at two million dollars sorry i'll rephrase i'm sorry it's okay annually is
this more money is this more money or less money annually this contract then the it says the contract is expiring at the end of this month what we're paying
them annually in the contract that's expiring is this more annually or less annually i
Speaker 35
8:24
think it's less but i please i don't want to
Speaker 23
8:27
that wrong with the vendor now um but maybe i'm not sure
Speaker 27
8:41
do you have that she sarah's gonna look i think it's i want to i want to say it's less because we're moving to strictly maintenance and operation and both and the prior contract was all of the work um the tools training all of those different pieces that came when you had when
Speaker 26
8:56
we were bringing structured decision-making to the state as a whole we had it we didn't have anything before
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
9:01
so what I'm trying to discern and I don't think you're being evasive I think it's just maybe
it's unknown at the moment are we going to be paying them more
Speaker 27
9:13
overall annually or less no we're paying them approximately seven hundred thousand dollars a year now a
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
9:19
year the vendor from Arkansas annually not just this contract oh are we paying
them more or less in future like moving forward well combining all
Speaker 39
9:32
the contracts together that we're paying them I don't have an answer
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
9:37
for that so what I'm trying to figure out you said
that this this contract is is doing some things it used to all be under one contract now it's under two contracts what I'm trying to figure out is is this an expansion Are we growing? Are we paying them more annually than we were? I see saying no,
but then just a second ago you guys weren't sure if we're paying them more annually. So that's where I'm a little
Speaker 27
10:00
confused. So on this contract, we are not paying them more because we are moving into maintenance and operation.
The other contract that will be coming up for renewal is the same, minus what we had to add in December to add the additional
Speaker 26
10:14
CQI work. We haven't added any funding to either of these contracts. Okay, are they gonna have
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
10:20
more than 11 employees in Arkansas moving forward? Oh That would have to
Speaker 43
10:26
be a question for the vendor Well, they like to
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
10:31
I'll recognize them if you want to bring them up if there's anybody from evident change
If you would, ma'am, just state your name, and then Representative Rose, you're free
Speaker 48
10:57
to ask that question again. Good morning. I'm Heather Meitner
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
11:03
from Evident Change. I'm a program director there. Thank you. What was your last name? Meitner. Ms. Meitner, thank you for being here this morning. With this contract, is there anything that's changing for your organization? Are there any new things
Speaker 47
11:16
taking place, like additional employees or services or anything of that nature? No, not at this time.
Speaker 52
11:21
We really took to heart what was stated in the December hearing around continuing to support DCFS in the off-ramping, right, of some of the services provided.
It's not uncommon for states to contract with organizations like ours to build their expertise as they build out their child welfare system. So we are continuing to decrease the amount of time and services we provide here. I appreciate that. One more follow-up, and I'll hop out of
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
11:50
the queue and let other people ask.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So with you stating that, is there an actual off-ramp plan that you have proposed?
Speaker 52
12:02
We have started some conversations about that, yes, and I'm sure we can follow up and provide more detail for you as we go forward. This particular contract today around the maintenance and operations is one piece of that. So the tools are currently being utilized by the staff every single day, and the system is built. All we need to do now is do fixes, enhancements, provide help, does support. You know, that's really just the running smoothly day-to-day is our plan here, and that is much less expensive than the build was.
Speaker 25
12:37
Sure, I appreciate that. Go ahead. I'll hop out for an hour.
Thank you, Representative Rose. Representative Richardson, you are recognized. Mine's actually on a different contract. I don't have anything for this contract. I apologize for that. Representative Lundstrom, are you for this contract or
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
12:56
different? Yes, sir, for this one. All right. You are recognized. How many contracts total? You said multiple contracts, so this is more than one. How many contracts total? Two. Two.
Do we have a total for the amount of spend with evident change? All contracts combined. I don't today.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
13:22
for you, Representative Landstrom. So the other contract, this one
Speaker 23
13:29
is for maintenance. What's the other contract for? The other contract is
Speaker 26
13:35
for case reviews that are required for our child and family service review process with ACF, CQI, as well as the data management.
So evident change, we're required to produce different reports to the legislator, and so they put together all of those for us, monthly charts, data management, that sort of thing. Okay. You said there
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
13:59
was an off-ramp discussion here. We've been with
this contract for seven years. This is for another three years, so we've been there ten years. Where's the off-ramp? Is it ten years down the road? Is it five years down the road?
Speaker 27
14:16
What does that look like? I think that's – so for this contract, this is the platform where the
Speaker 26
14:28
tools are housed where our staff are using the tools and we have to have the platform to be able to use them so for this particular contract I can't necessarily answer that right now because we need the tools to do the work that we're doing every day we use that we use
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:48
that platform daily so there really isn't going to be an off-ramp if we if they have proprietary um contract on
their software that'll be a continued it won't be something we own it'll be a continued maintenance
Speaker 27
15:02
yes i think the commerce more conversation on the off-ramp is on the other contract okay because the other contract is where we have the reviews going on and the cqi um and that work happening okay all right
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
15:14
thank you i'll hop out of the queue for now thank you chair okay
does any other member have any question for evident change
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
15:21
before probably representative rose you probably hope
Speaker 72
15:27
senator hester and it's possible you answered this but like all these contracts like matter that
Speaker 73
15:32
this one starts in the next month or so right uh what happens
Speaker 23
15:38
if we don't approve this today yeah so on um may 31st
Speaker 27
15:42
evident change could would turn the system off and we wouldn't be able to have consistent safety risk assessments case planning, reunification tools available
Speaker 26
15:52
that our staff use every day to make decisions
about kids and what's happening with those kids
Speaker 27
15:57
and families that we're serving, and have the consistency as well as the support of some evidence-based work behind that.
Thank you. Representative Wooten, is this for this contract?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
16:15
Yes. You recognized is this Did I understand early on that there's no competitive bid on this contract?
Chair
Unverified
16:25
And why is that's correct, so this was submitted as a sole source with justification under procurement law Because of the proprietary nature of the underlying system and this vendor is actually the only one in the United States states that offers this type of structured decision management tool for us to be able to access and continue the implementation that they've done in the state. We would have to convert and move to a completely different assessment type and implement, kind of move
to a completely different implementation. And this was the most cost effective and in the best interests of the state to pursue this avenue as a sole source. Well
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:09
follow up if I may what what makes this service so single-sourced? I mean are you are you telling us that they're the only ones in the United States that provides this service? That's a really
Speaker 52
17:27
important question Representative and thank you for raising it.
The suite of decision support tools that we provide have one key question that they answer at each point in the assessment process throughout the life of a family's involvement with DCFS. So in order to improve accuracy and consistency, utility for staff, to be able to make very important decisions in an informed way, we wanted to make sure that there was a research and evidence base. So Evident Change is a nonprofit. We're nonpartisan, and we value research, policy, and practice support.
And all of our work is driven by the needs of child welfare agencies like DCFS. So when those needs are brought to us, we respond in kind. And the tools that we provide are the agency standard or the standard in the field for child protection and are recognized by state and national clearinghouses that rate these tools as evidence-based practice because there's demonstrated change in outcomes that come as a result of utilizing the tools.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
18:33
So what makes the service so unique then that you're just the only source? I think because
Speaker 52
18:41
we've been at it for many, many years. We started this in the 1990s, and we've continued to grow and perfect the tools, continued to evaluate them, and really get the input of utilization users in the states to continue to better them over time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Wooten.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
19:04
Representative Johnson. Thank you. Just so I'm clear, and I think this is important
around the self-sourcing, this particular contract today is around the operation and management, specifically of the product that Evidence Change has. We're contracted with them. That contract's coming up, too, at some point for review. So I would think that there's no one else that would be able to manage their particular platform. So I think I can understand how this would be sole-sourced.
I might take issue with the next contract being sole-sourced. I don't think it was before because I do think there are people in the country doing some structured decision-making things similar. There are definitely people, I think, that are competing with evident change around the country. But for this particular one, I would say, if I'm understanding that right, no one else would be able to operate and manage their system. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct.
All right, thank you. Is there any other members that have any questions for evident change
before we go to non-members? All right, Representative Rose, give a little
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
20:22
latitude. You are recognized. for additional questions thank you mr. chair I'd like to go back to just restating the concern that we discussed at length six months ago that the vendor is deeply entrenched inside of DCFS to the point where we're so reliant on them
that if we don't renew this contract at the last hour that it sounds like everything comes crashing down we can't do it we do without them which has been my concern for quite some time now you mentioned the second contract and that it'll be coming up for renewal when does that contract expire are you asking when it expires of the seven years
Chair
Unverified
21:03
after procurement or just when it will be up for renewal you could give me both dates it began it so it expires it's on a
the fiscal year so each year will be june 30th is when it will need to be renewed and it began july 1st of 2023 so it will be need to be reprocured and that previously this was posted as an rfp for that cqi contract that you're talking about it would need to be reprocured before that seven years so i understand
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
21:34
correctly that contract does not expire until 2030 is that right under yes under the if
Chair
Unverified
21:41
we went the maximum seven years under procurement law yes sir it can be renewed up to annually up to seven years I think at this time I'm
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
22:00
going to yield back mr. chair just with the the continued concern that we are moving forward with a vendor being so necessary to what we do in DCFS should this contract renewal have come in here and JBC decided that they didn't think it was a good thing to pass it that you now are saying that your hands would be tied and we wouldn't have the vendor the vendor wouldn't be able to continue
their services and we'd be you know step up stuck up a creek without a paddle And that seems like a very dangerous place to be because contracts do get halted, paused, or voted down around here semi-regularly. And I would just say moving forward, I would advise that you guys try to head it off earlier than that so that we can have these conversations instead of last minute. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, sir. Thank you, Representative Rose.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:02
Thank you, Representative Rose. Senator Hickey, is this for these? More of a comment. I don't understand, and I don't have an issue
with the contract, I guess. Based on what everybody said, why don't we just run these simultaneously? I mean, if you've got your program in there and you need the maintenance also, why don't you just run the contract simultaneously? That way, if we ever want to get out of one and we have to re-bid it, then they would all be done the same way.
Is there a reason we're not running
Chair
Unverified
23:36
those together? I'm sorry, is your question around the contract term and start date? Because I think that's kind of the primary reason as to why they're not
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:44
running together currently. Well, yes. Yeah. Whenever we've got this program, you've got this program, and it's my understanding, that is contingent upon the maintenance and operations. So you've got this program here that you have a contract that's coming to it at a later date. But now we have to have this maintenance and operations now.
So they've always got us at their mercy, for lack of a better word. No disrespect to you. It just doesn't make sense to me. Whether it's this contract or any other contract like this, I don't see how you let somebody hold us hostage, hold us hostage, for lack of a better word, because, okay, they've still got this contract. It's still in place. But we need the maintenance and operations, so we've got to approve this now.
it's like a never-ending it's a never-ending cycle so I guess my I said it was more of a comment I guess with this and in the future I just think that we should be more cognizant of that unless you tell
Speaker 23
24:55
me there's a reason that we're not I think there was a prior I'm speaking before I was director and for
Speaker 26
25:02
probably too dangerous but I think there was a contract that ended and then we needed um for
the CFSR reviews and the data management then that's how that other contract stood up so a different contract was ending we changed vendors and so that was history of how they kind of got off onto different cycles if that makes sense well but I see
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
25:24
your point as well sir but but this is what I'm going to say to that and I know y'all
deal with a lot and again I appreciate what y'all do but if that happens then we don't do a three-year contract or something we do a one-year a one-year eight-month contract to try to get these things coincided back together i just think
that we need to be more prudent uh when looking at all of them
so anyway thank you mr chair thank you is there any other members
got any questions for dcfs on this issue all right seeing none we are you are dismissed
Speaker 100
26:03
and representative richardson who is this for d8 thank you it is department of human services this is contract
number two shiffer solutions sifter solutions all right you recognize for your question thank you very much
Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:16
i appreciate it i'll wait on miss mary to get there as well so uh
hold on before you begin if she'll state her name for the record then you were recognized good morning
Speaker 102
26:35
i'm mary franklin director of the division of county operations for department of human services thank you
Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:41
all so much and i appreciate the prior conversation as well I just have a couple of questions that I wanted to have this morning.
One, this is all associated with the SNAP changes, the waiver that we were granted, and the associated changes with certain types of, I guess, products is best to describe it, soda pop, things of that nature, right? So, and as I understand it based on our conversation, this is a dynamic list. that continues to be modified based on new products or whatever else is coming out. And so this contract is for this particular vendor to provide us with a connection to that dynamic list
so that not just our retailers but also the individuals who are on SNAP can have direct access to that. And sorry for the long preface, but I wanted to make sure all the members were kind of caught up to where I'm at with this. So what was the
Speaker 105
27:46
original purpose, first question, what was the original
Speaker 103
27:53
purpose of seeking the waiver to exclude certain unhealthy foods from being able to be purchased with SNAP is just to increase the nutritional value of the benefits for that program.
It actually helps to make SNAP have more nutritional requirements similar to other USDA-funded nutrition programs that do have nutritional requirements. For example, the WIC program, school lunch program, other programs have more nutritional requirements than SNAP does in general. And this waiver is a step in the direction of increasing the nutritional value of that program.
Scott Richardson
Unverified
28:34
Thank you for that, and that was my assumption, but I wanted to make sure that was clear. Along
that line, I'm sure there was a cost-benefit that was done during this original conversation. Was that what, I guess the question, I'm not expecting you to have exact numbers, but was there a cost-benefit,
Speaker 105
28:54
and do you have just rough figures around what that was? So the cost,
Speaker 103
29:03
you know, we didn't know very clearly at the onset of beginning the work to implement this waiver what the cost would be.
We knew there would be an evaluation required, and we assumed that there would be cost associated with the evaluation component. And we knew there would be cost on the retailer side, you know, to make system changes and things like that, to move them towards compliance. with these new rules but we didn't we did not know for certain what the cost would be on the state side on the DHS side but as we met we we established a regular meeting with Arkansas
SNAP retailers and discuss this discuss you know what it would take to get it implemented what the pain points were and through those discussions you know they made it very clear that they were concerned about compliance because because it's it's an evolving market food products come onto the market daily and just to be sure that they were able to remain compliant and that there was consistency for across the board at different retailers and not only for retailer benefit but
for client benefit so that these new rules and the excluded products could be consistently excluded across the board and they had asked us to see what we could do to support that with a dynamic list you know with the ability for their systems to download lists as new products came on board and we we went on a search to see what we could find and we found sifter and it it does what they asked us to bring to the table for this to support the waiver and the
implementation this is a two-year waiver and so we have been able to find that and aside from finding a product or a service that would do this we also had to find out how are we going to pay for this right because we didn't have a clear plan on what the cost was and how we would fund it And we have been able to fund it with SNAP Nutrition Education dollars, 100% federal dollars, for a program that's ending.
SNAP Nutrition Education is ended by the H.R. 1 bill that was passed in July. We have access to this money because we didn't spend all of our allocation in the last federal year. So this is the end of SNAP Nutrition Education. And by combining the education components into the app, because this service doesn't just provide a dynamic list for retailers and a list that we can link to our website for interested parties to see what this list is,
it also provides an app that our clients can use as they shop. It will scan you PC barcodes, and it will give them a yes, no, and it will also inject nutrition education information into that interaction with the client. So FNS is going to allow us to use some of those sun-setting funds for this purpose, and otherwise, if we didn't use them, they would just return to the federal government. So we found the product, we found a funding stream,
And we believe that this will provide support for not only beneficiaries but retailers to make this a successful pilot. And I will also share that we have been able to get the evaluation for this waiver at no cost. The University of Pennsylvania is going to complete our evaluation at no cost using grant funds that they have been able to obtain. So we are not having to spend money on the evaluation,
but we will be spending this money that otherwise Arkansas would lose to
Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:12
do this service and this app. Well, I'm sure that $38,
$39 trillion debt the U.S. government has wouldn't mind that $1.2 million going back, but I get the point for
sure. So I guess all of that I was coming around to where is the real benefit to Arkansas and trying to figure that out. And what I heard from all of that really is there is a benefit to the retailers, and there's obviously a benefit to the Arkansans who are on SNAP,
but the big piece of this is the value associated with the education, better nutrition, less health care costs, hopefully, down the
Speaker 111
33:45
road. Are we going to be measuring that in any
Speaker 110
33:50
capacity? I think we will definitely be doing the evaluation. And then another
Speaker 103
33:55
benefit that I see to the way we are doing it is that we are unique. At this point, none of the other states that have this waiver have incorporated an app and nutrition education into the process.
And our evaluation also has a control state, so that a control state that is not going to be implementing a waiver, there is a study and a survey going on in that state as well as Arkansas before and after implementation of the waiver. So I think that that adds value to what FNS, the data and material and outcomes that FNS will evaluate as they determine whether or not to continue these waivers or not continue them or to allow them to be expanded.
So I think we're giving them a unique perspective in the way that we're implementing our waiver here.
Scott Richardson
Unverified
34:49
Thank you for that. So from all of that, now we can get to really the root of the question. This is a sole source contract based on timing, timelines, the product, all of that kind of concerns. I've got that. I think you've heard from this body, there's a lot of folks that are very concerned about us getting locked into these contracts. We don't own the underlying source code
for it. We oftentimes have difficulty with where the data is and additional costs associated with that. I get the technical aspect of this. We're just connecting to an existing list the federal government is providing and flowing that through. Are we going to own this application when it's done? Is it going to be in a circumstance where two years from now we get to that point where we have to continue to renew? And at that point, we're not going to have these federal dollars to depend on or are we going to be looking for an alternative i know we don't even know if the
waiver is going to continue but let's assume it does what what's our what's our thought process
Speaker 103
35:57
at that point so that is all of that thought process is the reason why this is only a two-year contract and to coincide with the end of the waiver and i believe that because several states have sought these waivers and continue to seek and work on implementation that we will see this landscape change and other products and services be available and I think that we will have to make
the decision as we get a little further into this waiver how we would how you know what service if we continue a service and the waiver continues to put in place and the potential for a more competitive procurement could present itself okay so I don't think we know all the answers today but I do think that it can change and this is a two-year contract specifically to coincide with the end of the waiver that's approved so that we can be making those decisions through our experience as
Scott Richardson
Unverified
36:52
we continue as we implement okay thank you for that and my expectation then would be that somewhere in a year and
a half from now we would be talking about this conversation instead of of course at the end of that two years so great yes thank you
so much for that thank you representative richardson representative garner is this for county operations you are
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
37:14
recognized uh just a reminder to keep it short uh senate has to go into session at 9 a.m so please stay on point you are recognized thank you mr chair and i'll get
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
37:24
with you offline for some of the details but after having a non-profit for hunger relief for 15 years One of the things that we found is that parents really want to feed their children nutritionally. They want the best they can do. It's just expensive, very expensive. Will this app have information about how to purchase and how to buy and how to cook budget-friendly healthy foods? Because that's the biggest issue that we found. They want to do what they can, but they just can't afford substitutes for processed foods sometimes.
if you don't know we can get
Speaker 103
38:04
offline and talk about that well I can I do very quickly can just tell you we we are also using some of this federal nutrition education money to create a series of videos that we have worked with a nutritionist to film and specifically for using food that's available to make nutritious meals and that are healthy that are not going to be on the excluded list so our communications team is working with that nutritionist and there will be a series of
videos that we hope to be able to link to this app in addition to the other nutrition education materials that'll be available through the app and they'll also be available on our website so that is that is an area that we were we are focusing some of this um sunsetting funding on is to be able to get those great thank you thank you mr chair thank
you representative garner Does any of the members have any other questions for any of these contracts the board is not lit up See no other questions without objections. These items will stand reviewed
Unknown speaker
39:07
No other business. We are adjourned. Thank you I
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Services Contracts for Legislative Review – Out-of-State Contracts
C. Other Business
D. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE, May 6, 2026 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| B. Contracts Submitted for Review May 6 2026 | Exhibit | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Joshua Bryant Chair
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 11
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 26
Speaker 27
Speaker 32
Speaker 35
Speaker 39
Speaker 43
Speaker 48
Speaker 47
Speaker 52
Speaker 25
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 72
Speaker 73
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 100
Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 105
Speaker 106
Speaker 103
Speaker 111
Speaker 110
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified