Transcript Highlights:

• There's also the Court Facilities Trust Fund. This fund was made...
• the General Fund.
• and the General Fund.
• Should we be funding from the General Fund into those funds based on what the needs are?
• Should we be funding from the General Fund into those funds based on what the needs are?

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused first on courthouse facility funding and then on the Governor’s proposed court facilities budget. Legislative Analyst’s Office staff outlined the state’s court-facilities funding structure, including the 2002 shift of trial court facility responsibility from counties to the state, the main funding accounts, the insolvency of the construction fund, the move to General Fund support, the backlog of deferred maintenance, and the large estimated cost of needed new construction and repairs. Judicial Council representatives and judges from Los Angeles and Mendocino described severe seismic, safety, ADA, security, and maintenance problems, with examples of floods, elevator failures, asbestos-related closures, and long-delayed or underfunded projects. They argued that chronic underinvestment is making facilities less safe and more expensive to maintain, and that courthouse conditions directly affect access to justice and public confidence. Committee members pressed witnesses on how projects are prioritized, whether population and filing volume are adequately reflected, why reassessments have not been updated since 2019, how long acquisitions and construction take, and what level of funding would actually close the gap. Members also questioned the fixed county contribution, the use of General Fund backfills, and whether the state should set a clearer long-term funding target for the judicial branch. LAO staff emphasized that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other budget priorities and said the Legislature must decide its appetite for funding. Judicial Council staff said the current prioritization was based on the 2019 reassessment and trailer bill language, that a new reassessment would cost about $14 million, and that acquisition delays are often driven by willing-seller issues and CEQA requirements. The chair asked for written testimony and indicated the committee would consider a future field hearing. In the second panel, Judicial Council and Department of Finance representatives reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for court facilities. They said the proposal includes continued backfill for the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, several new construction and reappropriation items, relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building, and completion of a fire/life-safety project in Orange County. A court executive from Ventura testified that courthouse conditions affect public trust, employee morale, and the quality of service, citing roof leaks, elevator breakdowns, and HVAC failures as examples of why sustained facilities funding is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the NAP 2.0 program, which will continue funding for the 15 positions previously approved, funding
• These services are funded because of county resources provided through VLF funding.
• This is not new funding. It's funding already owed. Thank you.
• This is not new funding.
• This is not new funding. It's funding already old. ...and fewer deputies solving crimes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other funding in the future.
• fund in order.
• infrastructure fund.
• In the 1970s, the Reclamation Fund was established as a non-reverting fund and is funded by the conservation
• that will be used to fund the reclamation fund so that balance will begin to build.

Committee: House Water & Natural Resources Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• $1.5 billion from the general fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support fire prevention,
• Which is the general fund, rather than funding it from what everybody recognizes is a temporary funding
• To fund an essential service, particularly an essential safety service, from a temporary Funding from
• a temporary fund rather than from a general fund is an architectural decision the Governor is making
• Not general fund: the environmental license plate fee, the waste discharge permit fund, etc.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we know we need to seed fund some of this, and excess sites funds is really drained down.
• in bond funds.
• funded projects.
• funding is not enough.
• funding is not enough.

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee 5 on State Administration heard two housing-related trailer bill items tied to the Governor’s reorganization plan. The first item would codify the creation of a new Housing and Homelessness Agency and a Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency structure; the second would further streamline the state housing finance system by creating a Housing Development and Finance Committee and reserving most private activity bond capacity for affordable housing. Administration officials said the changes are intended to reduce duplication, speed awards to construction, and make housing funding more predictable and efficient. Agency leaders described recent housing investments and implementation steps, including work groups, coordination with Finance, the Controller, and the Treasurer’s Office, and development of new guidelines and staffing. Members raised concerns about limited funding, the need for better program-by-program outcome data, youth homelessness, excess sites, and fraud prevention. The Interagency Council on Homelessness presented new three-year action plan metrics, including goals to increase exits from unsheltered homelessness to 70% and move more people into permanent housing, while also noting current performance data and quarterly public reporting. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it had no concerns with the first trailer bill, but supported the general concept of the second while recommending changes, including removing or revising the proposed 50% bond-cap floor for the new committee and adding attention to 9% and state tax credits. Public commenters, including local governments, nonprofit developers, housing authorities, and advocacy groups, largely supported the reorganization and streamlining goals, but several urged stronger protections for deeply affordable housing, earlier reallocation of unused bond authority, continued access to 9% credits, and more funding for housing programs. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the chair closed item one and moved to item two after member and public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• The largest portion of this goes towards the Housing Trust Fund, where $225 million in funding includes
• She applied because that project, funded with Housing Trust Fund dollars, would be an opportunity for
• We offer our strong support for the additional funding being provided to the Salmon Recovery Funding
• We offer our strong support for the additional funding being provided to the Salmon Recovery Funding
• We're seeking additional funding to the program that will allow our project to be funded.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held its first meeting of the 2026 session to hear Governor Ferguson’s proposed supplemental capital budget from OFM. Budget staff said the proposal uses nearly all of the roughly $400 million in available bond capacity, leaving about $5.4 million unused, and includes additional funding from the Common School Construction account, the Climate Commitment Account, and federal funds. OFM described housing as the largest priority, with $237 million total, including $225 million for the Housing Trust Fund for affordable rental housing, homeownership, preservation, and manufactured home community acquisition; it also highlighted urgent state facility needs, climate and clean energy investments, natural resource projects, and education funding for school seismic safety, small district and tribal compact school modernization, lead pipe remediation, and higher education preservation projects. Committee members asked about the timing of housing production, and OFM said the proposed supplemental projects would not be completed within the biennium. Public testimony in the housing section strongly supported the governor’s housing investments, especially the Housing Trust Fund, manufactured housing preservation, and homeownership programs, while several speakers asked for larger appropriations for workforce housing, community land trusts, right-to-counsel, and specific local projects such as Thrive Center Tacoma, Alliance Place, Casa Mia, and Native and immigrant community facilities. One testifier criticized overall state tax policy, but the chair clarified that the capital budget is bonded and does not directly raise taxes. Testimony on K-12 education generally supported the proposed funding for small school modernization, seismic safety, and Healthy Kids, Healthy Schools lead remediation, with rural districts emphasizing the importance of planning and construction grants for aging facilities. Higher education witnesses supported preservation and deferred maintenance funding but asked for additional support for projects at Cascadia College, WSU Spokane, UW’s decarbonization work, and other campus infrastructure needs. Natural resources testimony backed Salmon Recovery Funding Board and community forest investments, while asking for more funding for ranked RCO projects. In the final section, local governments and utilities opposed a proposed $75 million transfer from the Public Works Assistance account to the operating budget, warning it would reduce infrastructure lending capacity; other speakers supported the Washington State Green Bank, public works financing, and several local economic development and utility projects. No votes or formal committee action were taken at the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that the total funding for that? And is it funded every year, or is it just funded on occasion?
• It's funded annually. It's funded annually.
• And our main fund is on its way to being 100% funded.
• to fund 195.
• and the LECOs Fund on top of that is fully funded.

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations from the Legislative Budget Board and agency officials on several agencies, starting with the Texas Historical Commission. LBB described a large biennial reduction driven mainly by the removal of one-time funding and discussed capital projects, rider changes, and exceptional items including Presidio La Bahia and the National Museum of the Pacific War. Senators asked about heritage trails, courthouse grants, unexpended balance authority, and the status of historical-site funding. Historical Commission leadership emphasized preservation, courthouse restoration, heritage tourism, coordination with the Alamo and other Texas Revolution sites, and requested additional IT, staffing, and vehicle funding. No votes were taken. The committee then reviewed the Pension Review Board and the Employees Retirement System. The Pension Review Board’s budget was largely unchanged aside from IT maintenance and salary adjustments, with an exceptional item for additional IT enhancements. Members discussed the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System’s funding dispute and the need for a workable restoration plan. ERS presented a much larger budget, including funding for the retirement system, the group benefits plan, and the legacy payment intended to reduce unfunded liability. Senators focused heavily on pension investment returns, benchmark comparisons, and rising health-care costs, especially pharmacy spending driven by GLP-1 drugs; ERS said the plan covers about 540,000 lives and that premiums would rise 8% while benefits remain unchanged. ERS also said it had no exceptional items, and committee members requested more detailed benchmark information. The committee also heard from the Texas Emergency Services Retirement System and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. TESSORS reported an unfunded liability, an infinite amortization period, and requested additional state support, staffing, and IT funding, including a statutory change to allow a higher contribution level; the agency warned that without more funding it may have to cut benefits. CEPRIT’s presentation covered its bond-funded cancer research and prevention portfolio, revenue-sharing from funded projects, and a request to increase salary limits for its CEO and chief scientific officer. Senators questioned CEPRIT’s accomplishments and return on investment, while CEPRIT cited screening, prevention, and research outcomes, including tens of thousands of detected cancers and precursors and hundreds of thousands of first-time screenings. The meeting ended after these presentations and questions, with no recorded committee action or vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• And now this funding...
• proposed funding.
• We have to fund CalWORKs.
• So currently AAP funding.
• They face a funding cliff.

Summary: The hearing began with opening remarks on the Governor’s May Revision for child care and human services, with committee members and advocates stressing that the budget should not be balanced on the backs of low-income families, children, and providers. Legislative members and public witnesses strongly opposed the proposed suspension of the child care COLA, reductions to the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program, and the lack of codified rate reform tied to the alternative methodology. Several speakers also urged more support for providers affected by the Eaton fire and other disasters, and called for child care to be funded at the true cost of care and for additional slots to be restored. Administration, LAO, and Department of Education staff described the child care proposal as maintaining existing funding levels while adding administrative resources to prepare for federally required prospective payment changes and single-rate reform. The administration said the May Revision would suspend the 2025–26 COLA and reduce Bridge Program funding to align with utilization, while the LAO raised questions about the size and purpose of the proposed rate-reform and prospective-payment funding and recommended rejecting a Department of Technology exemption. CDE supported continued early education investments but said it would need additional resources if prospective pay were extended to state preschool, and it objected to a proposed reallocation of preschool funds for inclusive education grants. The committee then moved to the IHSS portion of the May Revision. DSS outlined five major proposals: capping provider work hours at 50 per week, eliminating IHSS for undocumented adults age 19 and older, shifting certain Community First Choice reassessment penalties to counties, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test as a conforming IHSS reduction, and automating the termination of IHSS when Medi-Cal eligibility ends. DSS also discussed funding to implement a federal HCBS access rule and a separate reassessment of IHSS administrative methodology that found counties would need additional administrative funding. Finance said the proposals were intended to slow program growth and improve sustainability, while the LAO said it was still analyzing the package and raised concerns about implementation, county workload, and the potential loss of services. Committee members and public commenters criticized the IHSS cuts, especially the overtime cap and the elimination of services for undocumented adults and people affected by the asset test. Advocates argued that IHSS workers and recipients depend on these services, that county administration is already underfunded, and that the proposals could destabilize vulnerable consumers. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue to fight for child care and would not pause on child care, and the meeting recessed before moving on to the remaining May Revision items.

Transcript Highlights:

• It into the Rainy Day Fund as well as withdrew from the Rainy Day Fund as part of the 2024 Budget Act
• Are you thinking of a fund that is actually funded by the Legislature?
• There's no funding that would go into a said fund.
• When we say new funding, has there ever been funding for Prop. 36?
• These safer projects require stable, multi-year funding to ensure consistent funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee opened its hearing on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget with remarks emphasizing the start of a months-long process, the need for fiscal responsibility, and concerns about structural deficits, federal funding losses, housing and homelessness, and oversight. The vice chair echoed those concerns, warning against budgets built on short-term fixes and urging accountability. The Department of Finance presented a balanced budget year proposal of about $349 billion in total expenditures, including $248 billion General Fund, while acknowledging a structural imbalance in the out years and proposing a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. Finance said the budget relies on stronger-than-expected revenues, but also on constitutional obligations such as Proposition 98 and Proposition 2, and on suspending a rainy-day fund true-up deposit to cover a projected $2.9 billion budget-year deficit. The administration highlighted higher education funding, climate and wildfire resilience investments, a new ZEV incentive, added Health and Human Services costs tied to H.R. 1, child care funding, and three tax proposals: third-party delivery tax compliance, a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit, and an extension of the California Competes tax credit. The LAO, by contrast, warned that the budget is “precariously balanced,” cited downside risk from stock market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to use reserves, avoid suspending rainy-day deposits, and begin shrinking multi-year deficits sooner rather than later. Member questions focused on wildfire mitigation and insurance, transit and GGRF funding, federal cuts affecting CalFresh and Medi-Cal, the proposed tax credits, homelessness accountability language, and education funding. Several members pressed for earlier partnership on deficit solutions and for more scrutiny of budget choices. The committee also discussed declining enrollment in K-12, community colleges, and CSU, with concerns about whether funding formulas are aligned with actual student demand. No formal votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Part two is unassigned fund funds.
• Unassigned fund balance is fund balance.
• and</c> over use of funds are trust funds and over use of funds are trust funds and most<03:55:52.160
• </c> trust funds because the contingency fund trust funds because the contingency fund is<03:57:11.840
• </c> dissolve the fund. dissolve the fund.

Committee: House Education Funding

Transcript Highlights:

• our general fund.
• All comes out of this same fund, which is the state road fund.
• fund?
• project fund and the local government road fund.
• It's a project funded by the Los Lunas Highway Acquisition Fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you heard, funds from CCA will decrease over time, so it's important to use these funds in a way that
• As you heard, funds from CCA will decrease over time, so it's important to use these funds in a way that
• Current funding goes through the current fiscal year at $100,000 in state funds, matched by more than
• Current funding goes through the current fiscal year at $100,000 in state funds matched by more than
• These funds are already dedicated to dollars. These funds are already dedicated to staffing.

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee continued its public hearing on House Bill 2289, the fiscal biennial supplemental operating budget appropriations bill. The chair and vice chair explained the hearing process, limited testimony to one minute per person, and then heard extensive public comment from a wide range of advocates, local officials, service providers, and residents. No committee vote was taken during the hearing. Much of the testimony focused on opposition to proposed budget shifts involving Climate Commitment Act revenue, especially the proposed diversion of $569 million to other uses, including the Working Families Tax Credit. Environmental, public health, and local government witnesses argued those funds should remain dedicated to climate pollution reduction, wildfire resilience, clean transportation, natural climate solutions, and affordability programs. Several speakers also urged full funding for wildfire response and forest health, including the HB 1168 commitment, and opposed transfers from the Public Works Assistance Account. Other major topics included Medicaid and long-term care rates, with nursing home and assisted living providers warning that freezing or delaying rate rebasing would worsen staffing shortages and threaten access to care. Public health and health care advocates opposed cuts to foundational public health services, Apple Health expansion, and pharmacy benefit changes, while oral health advocates asked to preserve Medicaid dental funding and support Dentist Link. Testimony also supported or opposed funding for K-12 programs such as special education, the Ninth Grade Success Initiative, and homeless student stability; early learning and child care subsidies; disability services; public defense; housing and homelessness prevention; food assistance; higher education; and immigrant legal services. The committee concluded the hearing and adjourned after public testimony ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• dedicated fund account.
• dedicated fund account.
• and first responder fund, the legal support fund, and the debt collection fund.
• We fund that with state funds. And then the ICAC unit is some federal money.
• They can't fund it.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The Appropriations Committee first reviewed the Department of Justice FY 2027 budget, which was presented at $117.8 million, with most funding coming from statutory dedications and the largest program areas being criminal law/Medicaid fraud and civil law. The Attorney General described major work in Troop NOLA, Medicaid fraud, opioid and PBM litigation, and especially child exploitation and online predator investigations. She said ICAC tips are rising sharply, local law enforcement partnerships have expanded, and her office needs more analysts, more permanent positions, and more expenditure authority for the legal support fund and related programs. Members asked about case backlogs, staffing, settlement funds, and whether more resources could be directed toward outreach, mental health, and technology; the Attorney General said she wants to expand cyber capacity, training, and prevention efforts, and that some settlement recoveries are being used to support existing programs and fraud enforcement. Committee members also focused heavily on child safety, truancy, and mental health. Several representatives described local concerns about online exploitation, trafficking, self-harm, and the need for school-based training and community outreach. The Attorney General said she wants a broader prevention strategy involving parents, schools, and behavioral health resources, and she discussed using outreach models such as anti-vaping campaigns and town halls. On opioid settlement oversight, members raised concerns about the size of the funds and the need for stronger state oversight; the Attorney General agreed more structure and compliance monitoring would be useful and said drug courts and treatment programs are effective investments. The committee then moved to the judicial branch budget presentation. The judiciary requested $229.6 million in FY 2027, plus $5.6 million in one-time funding, with most of the budget coming from state general fund. The presentation highlighted increases for judge salaries, staff pay adjustments, health insurance, operating costs, and 17 unfunded positions, along with one-time requests for security and technology upgrades. Chief Justice John Weimer and other justices said the budget would help core court functions and statewide programs such as CASA, drug courts, and FINS, and they emphasized the need for better staffing and technology in the courts. A major discussion centered on truancy and the FINS program. Justice Griffin said statewide collaboration with education officials had reduced truancy and that FINS officers are trained to identify children who may be runaways or trafficking victims. The justices and members supported expanding FINS so every judicial district has coverage, and they said the program helps keep children out of deeper system involvement. Members also asked about security funding, technology improvements, and the 17 unfunded positions, which were described as mostly clerical, IT, and support roles in appellate and district courts. No votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• the funding.
• funding for research.
• But funding research is much more than just funding a process.
• But funding research is much more than just funding a process.
• I'm funding most of it from other funds. So if she uses further funds more, thank you.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies

Summary: The committee on Economic Development held a hearing on the DRIVE Act, a proposal to invest $400 million in Massachusetts research and innovation without new taxes. Governor Healey and administration officials said the bill would direct $200 million to public higher education research and regional partnerships and $200 million to a research funding pool for hospitals, universities, and other institutions, with the goal of retaining talent, leveraging private and philanthropic dollars, and offsetting major federal R&D cuts. They argued that research is a core economic engine for the state, supporting jobs across labs, construction, services, and surrounding businesses, and said the bill would help protect the Commonwealth’s tax base and competitiveness during a period of federal uncertainty and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs. Committee members raised concerns about whether Fair Share surtax dollars should instead be used for K-12 and other community needs, whether the proposal is enough given the scale of lost federal grants, and how the money would be allocated. The governor responded that the funds are one-time surplus dollars, that most surtax revenue already supports education, and that the bill is meant as a bridge to stabilize public higher education and research. She also said the legislation includes a review board and could support a revolving or matched-fund approach in some cases. Several members pressed for more detail on selection criteria, future funding, and whether private companies and large endowments should contribute more. University of Massachusetts leaders and researchers testified that federal grant cancellations and delays are already causing layoffs, furloughs, rescinded admissions, and lost research capacity. UMass officials said the bill would help preserve faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and research programs in medicine, climate science, marine science, Braille instruction, and AI decision-making. They emphasized that the funding should be merit-based and that the state needs to act quickly to prevent talent from leaving Massachusetts. Business, labor, and industry groups, including MassBio, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, AIM, the AFL-CIO, and Building Trades, supported the bill, saying it would protect jobs, sustain the innovation ecosystem, and reinforce Massachusetts’ national leadership in research and life sciences. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We administer the project fund.
• Capital Fund.
• facilities fund.
• We're not funded. Those kinds of things aren't funded by the legislature for us.
• , Behavioral Health Capital Fund, and Child Care Facility Fund.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• money, and then the general fund would fund that.
• That's 81% of our funding. That's 10% of our total general fund budget that we lose.
• So their per-pupil funding goes from $2,618 to $7,093 in Title funds, per-pupil Title funds for 9 through
• Basically, our funding this year, of the total funding that we received this year, 2%... ...of our funding
• , that that fund would protect the K-12 funding formula.

Committee: Senate Appropriations - Education and Environment Division

Summary: The committee met to hear and discuss three education bills and related budget items. House Bill 1214 would revise K-12 transportation funding by replacing the current rider-based formula with a new formula tied more closely to district size, square mileage, building counts, and the weighted student payment. Sponsors and DPI said the change would better reflect actual transportation costs, hold districts harmless overall, and likely increase funding by about $4 million beyond current spending; they also said parent-provided transportation and open-enrollment mileage rules would remain largely unchanged. No opposition was heard, and the committee closed discussion without taking final action in the transcript. The committee then reviewed House Bill 1013, the education appropriations bill, and walked through proposed adjustments to program and pass-through grants. The chair proposed keeping or reducing some items, eliminating others, and moving one-time items to the stabilization fund; examples included leaving free meals at $4.5 million for now, keeping the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, reducing some grant lines, and removing several new or one-time grants. DPI also explained that the student information system would remain a flow-through grant for this biennium but would move in-house after July 1, 2026. The committee also discussed adding an FTE for the School for the Blind and making a small equipment swap at the Center for Distance Education. House Bill 1369 was discussed as the main school aid bill, including a proposed 2 percent and 2 percent per-pupil payment increase, higher construction bidding thresholds, elimination of the 12 percent cap, and a transfer of $75 million from Foundation Aid to the School Construction Revolving Loan Fund, with the chair suggesting $100 million instead. DPI explained that the bill also included a policy change returning placement decisions for students with disabilities in congregate care to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with support from the governor’s office. The committee heard testimony from school officials seeking gap funding for Title I losses caused by a switch from free-and-reduced-lunch to census-based allocations, saying districts with many open-enrolled students could lose substantial funding and staff positions. Later, the governor’s office presented a proposed $1.5 million one-time appropriation to help schools buy secure storage for student cell phones if a statewide device policy is adopted; members raised concerns about cost, local control, and whether the money would be enough. The committee also heard student testimony and then recessed without voting on the amendment in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Student Housing Grant Program bond funding has provided funds for seven projects at the University
• General Fund.
• Core funds support our campus operations, and when we discuss available funds, we subtract those funds
• We are requesting that the Legislature repay the deferred compact funds and, in so doing, fully fund
• We need to fully fund the compact.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education held its first 2026 hearing on higher education, focusing on UC and CSU system updates, student housing, enrollment, and core operations. In opening remarks, the chair noted recent state fiscal stress, the prior rejection of proposed UC/CSU cuts, and the Governor’s proposed 5% ongoing compact increases. UC President James B. Milliken and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia described the systems’ public value, research and workforce roles, and the impact of federal actions on grants, financial aid, and campus operations. Both also emphasized Title IX and civil rights efforts; CSU said it had implemented nearly all state auditor recommendations and was on track to finish the remaining one, while UC highlighted its systemwide civil rights and Title IX offices. Both leaders said federal investigations, grant cancellations, and litigation demands were consuming staff time and money, with UC reporting more than 200 grants lost or affected and CSU citing more than $161 million in lost grants and more than 1,600 grants affected overall. The committee then heard on student housing. Finance and LAO staff said the Governor’s budget made no major new housing proposal but continued support for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. CSU reported 12 supported projects that will add about 5,047 beds, most below market rate, with four already open and seven more expected this year; it also said it has about 68,000 beds systemwide, a 92% occupancy rate, and ongoing emergency housing support. UC said the program has supported seven UC projects and two joint community college projects, adding more than 7,000 beds total, but nearly 10,000 UC students were on housing waitlists at the start of fall 2025. UC asked for additional state support, including possible bond funding and a statutory change to allow UC participation in public-private partnership housing projects. Members discussed rapid rehousing, student homelessness, faculty and staff housing, and community college housing partnerships, with both systems describing existing emergency beds and support services. On enrollment, LAO recommended maintaining UC’s 2026-27 resident undergraduate target, funding enrollment growth separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident reduction plan, and holding UC flat in 2027-28. For CSU, LAO recommended revising the 2026-27 target downward to reflect current projections, funding growth separately, and holding 2027-28 flat. CSU said it had rebounded from COVID declines, now exceeds its funded target by about 3,000 FTE, and is shifting about $89 million and 10,000 FTE spots from lower-demand campuses to higher-demand ones while developing turnaround plans for seven campuses with sustained enrollment declines, including Sonoma State. CSU also described direct admissions, transfer success pathways, and new degree programs aimed at workforce needs. UC said it had surpassed its compact enrollment goals, planned to add 2,721 California undergraduates in 2026-27, and was seeking $5.5 million for health professional programs. Members raised concerns about underprepared freshmen, K-12 alignment, nonresident caps at UC San Diego, deferred maintenance, ROTC access, and the need for stronger turnaround plans and teacher preparation pipelines. The final item on core operations addressed the Governor’s proposal to defer 3% base funding again, moving the one-time deferral to 2027-28 and allowing short-term zero-interest loans to cover it.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> fund is 11%. fund is 11%. other<00:14:55.079><c> funds.
• We were still funding stopped funding.
• Go ahead. bianium, that fund will be used to fund bianium, that fund will be used to fund the<01:07:09.359
• ><c> game</c><01:48:04.199><c> funds</c> highway funds and fish and game funds highway funds and fish
• Highway funds support turnpike funds.

Summary: The meeting was a House budget briefing focused on the overall state budget and the first of three divisions. The presenter reviewed the size and structure of the budget, noting that the state had eliminated the interest and dividends tax and still balanced the budget. He explained the major spending categories in the general fund and total budget, emphasizing that health and human services and education remain the largest areas, while transportation is largely self-funded. He also walked through the revenue picture, including business taxes, insurance taxes, court fees, communications taxes, and Medicaid recoveries, and said the remaining interest and dividends tax revenue reflected late payments from prior assessments. Members asked about the size of the tax cut from eliminating the interest and dividends tax, federal funding stability, and why Medicaid was being reduced if federal support was expected to remain steady. The response was that the lost revenue would have been about $200 million absent repeal, and that the budget gap was addressed through many small cuts across departments. On federal funds, the presenter said most aid is tied to multi-year grants and that core programs such as Medicare and Medicaid were expected to remain relatively stable, though some federal reductions could occur. He also said some agency reductions came from eliminating long-vacant, funded positions and from expected lapses. The discussion then moved into Division One, which covers smaller and miscellaneous agencies. The division made cuts to the governor’s office, eliminated a temporary position at the Governor’s Commission on Disability, reduced Department of Information Technology spending through a back-of-budget cut, and found savings in Administrative Services. It also delayed maintenance at the Sununu Youth Services Center, stopped advertising for paid family medical leave, changed retiree health insurance funding, and consolidated several personnel-related boards into one. The division eliminated the Commission on Aging and the Office of the Child Advocate, made a temporary special education advocate position permanent, reduced the Secretary of State’s budget, kept municipal rooms-and-meals distributions flat, and made changes to the retirement system, including $55 million to improve Group 2 retirement benefits and a new retirement structure for future state hires. The judicial branch was also asked to find savings and received two additional judges because of expected caseload increases from other eliminations.

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand the challenges around hiring with one-time funds. funds with limited funds.
• It's very hard to do that with one-time funding. Funding.
• Education funding, we try to really ensure that that equity lens is placed on the funding.
• but instead through just funding aid funding it through LCFF funding.
• The federal funds were weighted towards how much Title I funding a district received, for example.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund or all other funds, and some agencies it's a mix.
• funds.
• from other funds?
• in federal funds.
• So we do not have funding to fund Highway 85 from the interstate to 200.

Committee: Joint Budget Section