This Amendment to House Joint Resolution 2 adds to the required reporting requirement that DHSS shall provide a comparison of the costs and benefits of implementing the Restaurant Meals Program in some zip codes as opposed to statewide, and if the decision is that starting with tailored zip codes is preferable, the steps that will be taken to ensure statewide implementation is possible in the future.

Plain English Breakdown

Checked against official source text during the last sync.

Amendment on Restaurant Meals Program Reporting

This amendment requires state officials to study whether starting a food program in specific areas or the whole state is better, and report their findings.

What This Bill Does

• Requires DHSS to compare costs and benefits of running the program in some zip codes versus all over the state.
• Asks for a plan that names who will lead the effort if participating in the program is recommended.
• Requests details on how to expand from specific areas to the whole state later, if starting with tailored zip codes is preferred.
• Fixes a spelling mistake and splits rules into two parts for easier reading.

Who It Names or Affects

• The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
• Members of the General Assembly
• The Controller General

Terms To Know

Restaurant Meals Program (RMP)

A program referred to in this bill as RMP.

DHSS

The state agency responsible for health and social services programs that must submit the report.

Limits and Unknowns

• This amendment only adds reporting requirements; it does not start the program yet.
• The final decision on where to launch depends on whether participating is recommended in the report.

Official Summary Text

This Amendment to House Joint Resolution 2 adds to the required reporting requirement that DHSS shall provide a comparison of the costs and benefits of implementing the Restaurant Meals Program in some zip codes as opposed to statewide, and if the decision is that starting with tailored zip codes is preferable, the steps that will be taken to ensure statewide implementation is possible in the future. This Amendment breaks the reporting requirements into 2 clauses for readability and also corrects a typographical error.

Current Bill Text

Legislation Document

SPONSOR:

Rep. Neal

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

153rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY

HOUSE AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2

AMEND House Joint Resolution 2 on line 49 by inserting “to” after “relevant” and before “its” therein.

FURTHER AMEND House Joint Resolution 2 by deleting lines 51 through 53 in their entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“RMP, and a comparison of the costs and benefits of implementing the RMP in some zip codes as opposed to statewide.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if participating in the RMP is recommended, the report shall include a proposed implementation plan to include who will lead this effort, and whether it is recommended that the RMP be initiated statewide or within tailored zip codes, and if the decision is that starting with tailored zip codes is preferable, the steps that will be taken to ensure statewide implementation is possible in the future.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that DHSS shall submit its report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, with copies to all members of the General Assembly, the Controller General, and the Director and the Librarian of the Division of Legislative Services.”.

SYNOPSIS

This Amendment to House Joint Resolution 2 adds to the required reporting requirement that DHSS shall provide a comparison of the costs and benefits of implementing the Restaurant Meals Program in some zip codes as opposed to statewide, and if the decision is that starting with tailored zip codes is preferable, the steps that will be taken to ensure statewide implementation is possible in the future. This Amendment breaks the reporting requirements into 2 clauses for readability and also corrects a typographical error.