#

When it comes to the opioid crisis, one would expect every state dollar allocated to the epidemic would be spent. That’s apparently not exactly what happened this fiscal year. A substantial surplus remains in the Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund, also known as the Alcohol Fund, and lawmakers are trying to pin the blame on almost everyone.

The Alcohol Fund was created in 2000 by the Legislature as a mechanism that takes 5 percent of the gross profits from the sale of alcohol to support education, prevention, treatment, and recovery programs for substance abuse, which encompasses alcohol and drug abuse.

The focus right now for the Governor’s Commission on Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery, which gives out the funds, is the opioid crisis, but alcohol abuse is also part of its mission. The commission was allocated approximately $9 million in the 2017 fiscal year and will reportedly end the year on June 30 $2 million to $4 million in the black.

Tym Rourke, chair of the governor’s commission, said he is working with the Department of Health and Human Services to determine the exact amount and will release those figures this week.

That’s where the confusion lies for legislators as they finalize the state’s biennium budget this month. DHHS Commissioner Jeffrey Meyers has said he anticipates a $2 million surplus from contracts that didn’t use their full funds. The nonpartisan Legislative Budget Assistant is putting the number at $4.3 million. The discrepancy and uncertainty as to why the funds weren’t all used during the year was on full display during the Senate marathon budget session on Wednesday.

Sen. Martha Hennessey, D-Hanover, who also sits on the governor’s commission, questioned why there was an amendment introduced that would allocate $2 million from the Alcohol Fund for the construction of a juvenile substance abuse wing at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester without the commission’s approval.

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, said they had to have “some frank talk” about the Alcohol Fund.

“It is pathetic that there is $4.3 million sitting in an account unexpended in the middle of a heroin crisis. That’s what we should be focused on. That’s outrageous,” he said. “So let’s look at the reforms this amendment tries to put in place … that’s called taking action, not sitting on $4.3 million.”

Hennessey countered to say that the fund would only have a $2 million surplus, but said Gov. Chris Sununu and Meyers should also be to blame.

“The governor and commissioner at HHS have not helped to facilitate the spending of this,” she said. “They are waiting to find out what kind of health care we’re going to have, what’s going on with Medicaid, all of which is up in the air. So if our governor and HHS aren’t helping to make this possible, that money can’t be spent.”

The Alcohol Fund fund has only been fully financed one time since its inception, which was in the 2003-2004 biennium — the first year it began. Since then, governors or the Legislature transferred the revenue to the general fund and would only appropriate a small amount to the Alcohol Fund. In the current biennium passed under former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, the fund was financed at 1.7 percent. In Sununu’s budget proposal and in the Senate’s budget, the fund was doubled to 3.4 percent.

Rourke applauded the Senate for increased monies to the fund, but reminded lawmakers that the Alcohol Fund is non-lapsing and any money left over is rolled over to the next fiscal year, so the commission could “repurpose and redeploy those dollars.”

Rourke said he had concerns about another amendment introduced in the Senate budget that would give the DHHS commissioner the ability to take money out of the Alcohol Fund itself and not from the potential surplus.

“The [governor’s] commission has a statutory authority over the fund and DHHS administers it, based on priorities set by the Commission” he told NH Journal. “The main concern is the precedent it would give for a commissioner to take money from the Alcohol Fund, without approval of the spending plan by the Commission.”

He said the 3.4 percent funding for the next biennium is mostly going to be used to sustain ongoing investments and state contracts to combat the opioid crisis. If the commissioner can take funds at anytime, Rourke is concerned that they would have to cancel contracts and put funding for other programs at risk.

So why is there a surplus in the first place? Rourke attributes it to two factors: Medicaid and workforce issues.

When the Legislature voted to renew Medicaid expansion in 2016, treatment and recovery centers were not clear if people who showed up would be covered by private or public insurance. The commission wanted to keep the funds available to those centers in case they needed to cover their insurance costs. Rourke said contractors ultimately didn’t need to draw on those funds.

He also said the workforce crisis in the mental health system resulted in funds not being used by contractors.

“We have treatment contractors who may have been given funding and have had a difficult time hiring appropriate staff,” he said. “Obviously, you’re not drawing on that salary while you’re waiting for that hire. If you talk to providers, there is that pressure on them on hiring and maintaining staff.”

The Senate budget is likely to go to a conference committee with the House, where lawmakers from both chambers will go over the details before voting on the final spending plan. The House previously stripped money for the Alcohol Fund in its version of the budget, so Rourke said he will continue to work with lawmakers on ensuring the funds are kept in place.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

One of the big agenda items that passed the House on Thursday was a bill with an amendment that would appropriate $33 million in the current fiscal year to address a projected shortfall at the state Department of Health and Human Services. That was just the amendment, though. Lawmakers tacked it on to a bill that would give preference to grandparents to be the guardian of a child in certain cases, like when a parent has a substance abuse disorder.

The House overwhelmingly voted to concur with the Senate on House Bill 629. It passed on a 283-32 vote. It now heads to Gov. Chris Sununu for his likely signature.

Most of the fanfare over the passage was because of the emergency DHHS funds. Yet, thousands of Granite State grandparents are victims of the drug crisis after they have been called on to raise their grandchildren.

“I am pleased that the House today overwhelming approved HB 629. With this legislation New Hampshire is leading the way in giving grandparents a voice when it comes to the guardianship process in cases dealing with substance abuse,” said bill sponsor Rep. Mariellen MacKay, R-Nashua. “This important legislation will keep children out of the foster care system and allow them to stay with their families. HB 629 is about love, passion, family, and just doing the right thing, and I couldn’t be more proud to see this bill overwhelmingly pass the legislature.”

HB 629 places the burden of proof on the petitioner to demonstrate that grandparent guardianship is in the best interest of the child in situations that were brought on due to a parent’s substance abuse. It establishes a preference for grandparents to be appointed as guardians and makes benefit eligibility information available on the DHHS website, as well as to grandparents seeking guardianship over their grandchild.

New Hampshire social service agencies estimate that 10,000 grandparents are now full-time guardians of young children, mostly because of the drug epidemic. Nationwide, there were 2.882 million kids being cared for by their grandparents, which was up from 2.871 million in 2011, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

“A lot of these grandparents are on fixed income, and they’re taking on a responsibility, and for a lot of them, it’s a hard financial responsibility,” said Keith Kuenning, director of Advocacy for Child and Family Services.

Applying for guardianship can involve many steps, and navigating state programs for food stamps and Medicare only adds to the confusion in what can be an overwhelming process for many people.

A Pew Charitable Trusts report released in November found that 21 percent of grandparents caring for grandchildren in the United States are living below the poverty line. In addition, about 39 percent are over the age of 60 and 26 percent have a disability.

Gail Snow, an administrator with the state’s Bureaus of Child Protection and Juvenile Justice Services within the Division of Children, Youth and Families, said the division removes kids from their parents in some abuse and neglect cases, which are often linked to substance abuse issues, but not always.

“We only remove children when it would not be safe for them to remain in their home,” she said. “As a division, when we remove a child…we look toward relatives to provide care, and grandparents are often the people who step up.”

The problem with the current law is that it calls for immediate protection for the child, but also requires that courts and child welfare agencies protect the sanctity of the home. That’s why Chris Wade, who is a grandparent raising his grandchild, is supportive of HB 629.

“[I]t allows us to not have to be put through the ringer to protect our grandchildren,” he told the Associated Press. “It means we can go to the judge and, if the parents want that child back after we have gone through guardianship, then it’s up to that parent to be able to prove that they are worthy of having their child back. ”

The bill also has the backing of New Futures, a nonprofit organization that focuses on the opioid crisis and its effects on children. They support it because “it provides support for children in crisis and families suffering from the opioid epidemic, encouraging healthy early childhood development.”

While this is a first step in understanding the relationship of grandparents, parents, and children who are impacted by the opioid epidemic, the New Hampshire Legislature is also looking to establish a study commission to really get the full picture.

Senate Bill 148 would establish a commission to study “grandfamilies ” in the state and would gather families, legislators, and advocacy groups to review what data exists for them, what challenges exist, and what solutions can be carried out at the policy level.

“When this happens, grandparents face specific challenges such as getting children into schools, securing the appropriate legal status as a guardian, and providing the child all they need to thrive,” said bill sponsor Sen. Martha Hennessey, D-Hanover, in February before the Senate approved the measure.

“[It] can also place a financial burden on the grandparents who are often on a fixed income,” she added, “This commission would ensure there are resources in place to help these families and to make sure the children have the care they require to thrive.”

SB 148 also passed the House earlier this month and now waits for Sununu’s signature.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Millions of Americans are at risk of lead exposure from paint in their homes and in their drinking water. In New Hampshire, it’s been found that lead poisoning affects about 1,000 children under 6 years old in the state every year. The Legislature wants to allocate funding to combat the crisis, but it will prove to be difficult to settle on an appropriate cost.

Senate Bill 247 would essentially give landlords money to get rid of lead in apartments across the state. The bill doesn’t change the lead levels, 10 micrograms per deciliter, that require landlords to test for lead in their apartments with children, but it does require universal testing for children between the ages of 1 and 2 to be covered by insurance companies. The early warning level is still at 3 micrograms, the level at which landlords would be notified so they could take action before reaching the 10-microgram level.

If the test reveals that areas of the rented property contain lead, the landlord can be forced to remove the lead contamination, which is known as abatement. The rules are mostly for rented properties, but they also apply to owner-occupied homes. However, homeowners cannot be forced to carry out abatements and are only given recommendations.

The bill also contains a provision that would bar children 6 years old and younger from attending any private or public school, or child care, unless their parents can prove their kids received lead testing. Blood tests of children under 6 years old in rental properties that reveal lead levels of 10 micrograms or higher can prompt an investigation by the state Division of Public Health Services.

With more tests, it’s likely there will be more lead found in homes across the state, forcing landlords to get rid of the lead either as a requirement or a precaution if it approaches the maximum level.

To help with those costs, the bill would set aside $3 million for the next two years to reimburse landlords for 75 percent of abatement cost, and possibly the total cost if the property owner can demonstrate financial need. It would also cover the cost of a filter if there is lead in the water.

The bill passed with bipartisan support in the Senate (15-7) in March and in the House (233-109) on Thursday. It now sits in the House Finance Committee where lawmakers will decide on the ultimate cost of the bill since it uses state revenues.

Sen. Dan Feltes, D-Concord, testified before the committee on Tuesday, saying “we need to get out in front of this” because the state is “robbing children of future earnings…as a result of where they live.”

Yet, he admitted the cost of fixing the state’s lead problem could range between $3 to $100 million. This was a concern other lawmakers had, like Reps. J.R. Hoell, R-Weare, and Jim Fedolfi, R-Hillsborough.

SB247 could cost north of $100 million per Sen. Felts during finance hearing. #nhpolitics

— Rep. JR Hoell (@NH_Braveheart) May 9, 2017

Fedolfi told the House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs earlier this month that it should be the landlord’s responsibility to pay for it and not the taxpayers. He called it a “landlord recovery bill,” allowing owners to “refurbish their apartments on the state’s dime” and a “free ticket for the landlord who is getting rich and doing well and now using our money to help them.”

Yet, this is a national problem that has received increased attention after the Flint, Mich. water crisis. About 100,000 people across the country get their drinking water from utilities that found high lead, but didn’t treat the water to remove it. Also, 4 million Americans got water from small operators who skipped required tests required by federal safe drinking water laws, according to a 2016 investigation by USA Today.

About 77 million people across all 50 states were served by water systems reporting violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2015, according to a report issued last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

While most of media reports are focused on lead in drinking water, which is still a major issue in most states, people often forget that lead paint in older homes still poses a threat to children.

“The public doesn’t hear about it because most kids have no symptoms until years later when the brain damage caused by early lead exposure appears,” wrote Amy Winslow, president and CEO of medical device company Magellan Diagnostics in a Monday op-ed in the Concord Monitor. “It shows up when kids can’t perform on grade-level reading or math tests, and can’t sit still in school, at which point no one is thinking about lead.”

The state has the oldest housing stock in the country. Approximately 68 percent of homes in the state were built before 1968, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

In the bill, landlords of any property built before 1978, the year lead paint was first outlawed, would pay for repairs and would be required to conduct annual checks on the interior and exterior of their properties.

The House Finance Committee did not reach a funding agreement on Tuesday. They are scheduled to work on the bill beginning on Wednesday, but it’s expected to take some time before they come to a consensus on the cost. It would then go back to the House for a full vote.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

In a controversy that led to the resignation of the New Hampshire Hospital CEO, it’s been revealed Wednesday that Dartmouth-Hitchcock has been in violation of a $36 million contract to staff the state’s psychiatric facilities.

Health and Human Services Commissioner Jeffrey Meyers broke the news to Gov. Chris Sununu on Wednesday morning that Dartmouth-Hitchcock has only been regularly providing between eight to 10 psychiatrists, instead of the 11 required by the contract. The position of geriatric psychiatrist has also not been filled since January. The $36 million contract for Dartmouth-Hitchcock to provide services at NH Hospital, the state-run hospital for mental health services, was signed by the Executive Council last fall.

Sununu told the Executive Council during their regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday that he asked NH Hospital CEO Robert MacLeod to “step aside.” He also asked former HHS Commissioner Donald Shumway to run the hospital on an interim basis.

“We’ve been paying for psychiatrists that have not necessarily been there,” Sununu said during a news conference. “It’s troubling, it’s disappointing.”

Meyers sent Dartmouth-Hitchcock a letter Tuesday asking the hospital for a “corrective action plan” to be submitted by May 9. He discovered the violations after Executive Councilor Chris Pappas, D-Manchester, raised questions about the hospital’s staffing during the Executive Council’s meeting last month.

Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky, D-Concord, called for an outside evaluation of the quality of care at Dartmouth-Hitchcock. Sununu wanted a review of the contract for other compliance issues by the state’s attorney general. He would also be seeking reimbursement from the state psychiatric hospital for payments based on full staffing.

“Throughout the course of this contract, the state agreed that the staffing levels have been appropriate and the patient care is high quality,” according to a statement from the hospital. “From the inception of this contract to provide clinical psychiatric services at New Hampshire Hospital, Dartmouth-Hitchcock has provided the state, including through weekly reports, current and projected staffing levels and any projected deficiencies.”

Dartmouth-Hitchcock also said it has “only been paid by the state through January of this year.”

“In light of questions raised regarding compensation for Dartmouth-Hitchcock, it is critically important to note that the agreement with the state is a ‘fixed price’ contract, and Dartmouth-Hitchcock has only been paid by the state through January of this year,” according to the statement. “Any suggestion that Dartmouth-Hitchcock has not been completely forthcoming with the state is factually incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding that requires clarification.”

The hospital said it is “deeply troubled” by criticisms from Sununu and Meyers and requested a meeting with them.

“Consequently, we have requested a meeting with Governor Sununu and Commissioner Meyers to discuss our mutual concerns and forge a path forward,” the statement reads. “Dartmouth-Hitchcock has been, and will remain, fully committed to the care of the State’s most vulnerable citizens, and we look forward to working with interim CEO Donald Shumway in continuing to provide that care at New Hampshire Hospital.”

Yet, the controversy comes on the heels of several news reports about concerns that the state doesn’t provide enough mental health services and that waiting list times for treatment beds has also increased.

The contract with Dartmouth-Hitchcock was controversial from the start when it was signed in September 2016 and became a significant issue during the election.

Last year, Dartmouth-Hitchcock transferred from Dartmouth College’s medical school to the private hospital and a group of psychiatrists quit amid a labor contract dispute.

The Executive Council approved the contract on September 7 and two days later, Dartmouth-Hitchcock announced its intention to lay off between 270 and 460 employees. The layoff announcement took then-Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan by surprise, she said. It became a talking point for the New Hampshire Republican Party in their battle to reelect former Republican U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

The NHGOP also filed right-to-know requests charging that Hassan knew about the layoff announcement before the Executive Council voted on the contract.

At the time, Sununu, who was an executive councilor and gubernatorial candidate, called to cancel the contract and rebid it. However, he was outvoted and has since not called for the contract to be rebid.

Dartmouth-Hitchcock CEO James Weinstein also announced in December that he would retire from Dartmouth-Hitchcock on June 30.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

A bill seeking to change the requirements to receive food stamps in New Hampshire could be much needed reform for the welfare system or would prevent about 17,000 people from getting food assistance. It just depends on who’s talking.

Senate Bill 7 was introduced by Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, on Tuesday in front of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, and includes key provisions such as requiring the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to use federal limits to evaluate families for food stamp eligibility and requiring individuals to pay child support if they receive food stamps.

“It’s time for this reform to take place,” Avard said. “Food stamp programs have outpaced job programs. We need to get people back into the workforce. The intent of this legislation is to strengthen New Hampshire’s food stamp program so that it can remain solvent for those who truly need the benefits for years to come. By requiring an asset test, we are protecting those most in need be ensuring precious resources are not being diverted to those who do not need assistance.”

Avard is especially passionate about the child support provision, because he said it personally affects his family. He said his daughter is owed $29,000 in child support.

“That affects my grandchildren,” Avard said. “We need to reverse that trend, we need to support the parents that have dependent children. Our children deserve better.”

Democratic Sen. Martha Fuller-Clark questioned the child support provision and how the state would force noncustodial parents to pay the money.The bill would require individuals to cooperate with the Division of Child Support Services, and custodial parents who seek food stamp assistance would have to identify the noncustodial parent.

Opponents find fault with the child support provision, but they also say the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is already very precise, not easily abused, and the bill would target families who are working but are struggling to pay their bills.

“(Senate Bill) 7 is directed at struggling working poor families with children,” said Sarah Mattson Dustin, policy director for New Hampshire Legal Assistance. “They’re working, but they still can’t make ends meet with the high cost of basic needs. The need for food is the most basic of human needs.”

She said the law would make it difficult for people to qualify for food stamps if they have a gross family income greater than 130 percent of the federal poverty level — or $2,184 a month for a family of three. The federal government pays for SNAP benefits, but New Hampshire covers 50 percent of the administrative costs of the program.

The bill would also get rid of “expanded categorical eligibility,” a mechanism within the law that allows for families who make more than income limit to receive food assistance, but still have enough expenses for services like child care that if factored into the formula, would qualify them for food stamps. Opponents said striking that provision would negatively affect the families and children on welfare.

The Granite State’s expanded categorical eligibility differs from many states because in order to qualify for that, they must have children.

Sam Adolphsen, commissioner of finance for Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, said he supports the bill since the neighboring state has a similar law on the books.

“Welfare for able-bodied adults should be temporary and they shouldn’t rely on taxpayers,” he testified. “Those who can go to work should work.”

Maine’s food assistance law, passed under Republican Gov. Paul LePage, also includes work and volunteer requirements. Adolphsen said the state has led the country in getting people off food stamps and into a job.

“They didn’t just disappear,” he said. “They went to work. A job truly lifted them out of poverty.”

However, a report by the Portland Press Herald found that even though there are fewer people on food stamps, the state received approximately $155 million in federal food assistance funds that it is not spending, and is trying to divert to programs to help the elderly.

The number of children who receive food assistance has dropped from 22,425 in 2012 to 8,461 in 2016, according to the Press Herald. Yet, there are still 19,000 kids living in extreme poverty.

Also, the Good Shepherd Food Bank, Maine’s largest hunger relief organization, released a study earlier this month titled, “Hunger Pains: Widespread food insecurity threatens Maine’s future,” which doesn’t paint a rosy picture on the current state of poverty in the state.

The New Hampshire Food Bank said if the bill was passed, they wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand of food. Even though less people would technically be on food stamps, Eileen Groll Liponis, executive director of the Food Bank, said she is concerned that cities and towns would need to foot the bill for food assistance as more families turn to local food pantries for help.

“We…are unable to handle the anticipated (food) poundage this bill would create,” she said. “That would take power to buy food away for so many.”

The bill does have the potential to make its way to the governor’s desk. Most of the Republican leadership in the Legislature supports it, including Senate President Chuck Morse, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, who is also chair of the health and human services committee, and House Speaker Shawn Jasper.

Before the start of the legislative session, Jasper said he wanted to do something with welfare reform.

“There’s a lot more to do in the area of welfare reform, and we’re looking forward potentially to block grants coming from Washington that will take some of the strings off,” he told NH1 News in December. “There are a lot of things that we can do to actually save the taxpayers money now that we have control and do it in a way that takes care of the neediest people in the state but makes sure that the scams are kept to a minimum.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

After Gov. Chris Sununu released his $12.1 billion biennium budget on Thursday, the overall sentiment among Democrats and Republicans was “the devil is in the details.”

Those details will be hammered out in the next few months as the House and Senate make their recommendations to Sununu’s 2018-2019 budget. Overall it appears both parties believe it’s a solid budget with room for improvement. Republicans praised it for being “a realistic, conservative budget which is transparent, forward thinking and strengthens education, supports our cities and towns and focuses on solving real problems that have plagued taxpayers for years,” according to Senate leadership.

Democrats were glad that Sununu kept some of his campaign promises, but were also critical that he didn’t provide too many details on proposals they deemed important, including Medicaid expansion and full-day kindergarten.

“I am very concerned about the $500 million cut from state agency budget requests and what that could mean to the citizens of New Hampshire,” House Minority Leader Steve Shurtleff said in a statement. “The governor’s budget address made no mention of the successful NH Health Protection Program, leaving serious unanswered questions for the 50,000 Granite Staters who rely on the program for their health care coverage.”

In his budget proposal, Sununu includes more than $50 million in spending to address an existing shortfall in the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) fiscal 2017 budget.

In January, DHHS projected a $65.9 million dollar budget shortfall. Commissioner Jeffrey Meyers pushed back against the accusation his department overspent, claiming instead Medicaid costs did not decline as the legislature expected during the last budget debate. That put Sununu in the awkward position of writing a budget with an unexpected hole in it, while also figuring out how to handle Medicaid for the state.

As for the deficit, Sununu is requiring the commissioner to make quarterly reports to him and members of the legislature leadership “about where we actually stand on our true costs, so we can become a more nimble government that’s responsive, not just reactive.”

“As governor, I won’t make people wait until after an election to discover we may have a shortfall,” he said in remarks during a Thursday joint legislative session. “We have to be transparent. We have to be honest with the people and honest with ourselves.”

Democrats’ claim he didn’t mention Medicaid expansion is true. He only mentioned the program when talking about the DHHS deficit, since that’s where the department says its money went.

“And where we have failed in the past, I am pushing for true accounting of our Medicaid program so we can reconcile estimated Medicaid payments to actual costs,” Sununu said. “And as we go forward, be sure that we won’t wait two years to check in on them again.”

He doesn’t say if he plans to expand, repeal, or replace NH Health Protection Program. The Medicaid program in New Hampshire received bipartisan support in the legislature last year when lawmakers extended the program until Dec. 31, 2018.

That legislation gives Sununu wiggle room as he attempts to balance politics and health coverage for the state. As Washington debates repealing the Affordable Care Act, several states including New Hampshire are waiting to see how Congress and President Donald Trump’s administration handles the issue.

Sununu was reluctant to say anything about Medicaid on the campaign trail, commenting he was worried about financing the program in the long-term, but didn’t mention repeal. Not wanting to permanently fund the program, he told voters it was better to let the federal government make the first move.

Before the budget speech, Democrats waited to see if Sununu would fulfill his campaign promise of funding full-day kindergarten. His proposal includes $9 million a year for full-day kindergarten, but after the speech Democrats sought clarity on determining which communities get funding.

.@ChrisSununu needs to explain targeted full day k. $9 million a year while giving $15 million to charter schools? #nhpolitics

— NH Young Democrats (@NHYoungDems) February 9, 2017

Sununu said funds, which will be awarded in addition to education adequacy grants, would target the communities that need it most based on a community’s property wealth, the number of students on subsidized lunch programs, and communities with a high number of English as a second language students.

“So I am proud today to be the first governor to deliver a real full-day kindergarten program for communities across the state,” he added.

There’s a big distinction to be made with the state “mandating” full-day kindergarten and simply funding full-day kindergarten. Several Democrats sought to require school districts to offer full-day kindergarten, but Sununu’s budget doesn’t make that a requirement. He’s leaving it up to the individual cities and towns, but they’ll receive more funds if they opt-in.

In towns that vote to implement full-day kindergarten, school districts presently only receive 50 percent of the state’s per-pupil grant for kindergarten students. Under Sununu’s plan, the neediest communities can apply for additional grants to make the program possible.

Rep. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, who sits on the House Education Committee, said she wasn’t thrilled about Sununu’s full-day kindergarten funding proposal. Sullivan said it should be a local community’s decision, and could eventually lead to mandated full-day kindergarten.

I agree with @NHSpeaker. This is a huge issue 4 me. Parental & local control in jeopardy. Next step=Mandated K. #NHPolitics https://t.co/HuCwQVuCv9

— Victoria Sullivan (@VSullivan4NH) February 9, 2017

House Speaker Shawn Jasper told reporters Sununu’s full-day kindergarten proposal probably won’t be included in the House version of the budget.

“I think that is going to be a stretch,” he said. “I think if you looked around the hall, you probably didn’t see a lot of enthusiasm on the part of Republicans on that issue. We’ll have different priorities in some areas than the governor has, certainly. I don’t think there’s ever been a budget that’s gone into the House and come out looking the same way, but he’s given us a great starting point.”

The two-year budget must be passed by June 30 to go into effect on July 1 of the next fiscal year. The House Finance Committee will look at Sununu’s budget before making a recommendation to the full House. After the House passes its version of a budget, it goes to the Senate Finance Committee, which will recommend its own proposals to the full Senate, before going to the governor’s desk for his signature or veto in spring.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.