Transcript Highlights:

• The first page shows you the General Fund and Education Trust Fund combined.
• And then the last page is just your Highway Fund and your fishing game fund.
• Fund and 41% to the Education Trust Fund.
• Fund and 41% to the Education Trust Fund.
• ><c> is</c><00:16:36.920><c> um</c> general fund education trust fund is um general fund education trust

Summary: The committee first met in a revenue estimate work session to approve an LSR codifying the committee’s revenue estimates. Members reviewed the process for turning the LSR into a House Resolution and discussed how the adopted estimates would be used to amend House Bill 1. After a brief question-and-answer about current revenue splits and the governor’s proposed video lottery and tax-split changes, the committee voted 19-0 to approve the revenue estimates. The committee then moved into executive session on HB 669, which would require all revenue from the statewide education property tax to be deposited into the education trust fund and set an equalized statewide tax rate. Supporters argued the bill would better direct education funding, while opponents said it was unnecessary or duplicative. The committee voted 12-7 to retain the bill (ITL), and a minority report was noted. Next, the committee considered HB 290, which would raise cigarette and electronic cigarette taxes and create a study committee on tobacco and nicotine taxes. Testimony focused on revenue needs, inflation, public health, and concerns that a higher tax could reduce sales or drive purchases across state lines. The committee voted 11-8 to ITL the bill, with a minority report. The committee also ITL’d HB 402, dealing with whether Education Freedom Account payments are taxable income, after debate over unintended consequences and whether the bill’s language was misleading; that vote was 11-8 with a minority report. Finally, the committee opened HB 483, and Representative Tierney moved ITL, arguing the bill’s requirement that the scholarship organization be incorporated in New Hampshire would likely violate the Commerce Clause; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Gator should be fully funded.
• years to the general fund from unspent funds.
• The program is not just funding tuition; it's funding opportunity, it's funding confidence, and it's
• funding futures.
• received the state funding.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• funding.
• It's three-year funding instead of one-year funding, or things of that sort.
• So the Public Education Reform Fund was amended as an existing fund.
• Is it their SEG funds? Supplemental funds when school districts have to pay out these funds.
• the Community Benefit Fund.

Committee: Senate Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• But what we know is that that funding is not sustainable as general fund state.
• So you refer to the failed California fund, or the depleted California fund.
• He also asked whether the general fund is being let off the hook for 1168 funding and whether the fund
• He also asked whether the general fund would be let off the hook for 1168 funding and whether the fund
• There's also the investment and prevention and recovery funding, 1168 funding.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 2275, which would create a Wildfire Prevention and Protection Fund and a new council to oversee utility wildfire mitigation, claims payments, and related administration. Staff explained that investor-owned utilities would be required to participate, consumer-owned utilities could opt in, and utilities would pay annual contributions and maintain approved wildfire mitigation plans to qualify for claims coverage. The prime sponsor, Rep. Christine Reeves, said the bill was intended to address wildfire liability, support prevention, and create a more comprehensive statewide approach to wildfire risk. Members asked about retroactivity to July 1, 2021, utility contribution limits, and whether the bill would lower rates or improve mitigation funding. Public testimony was split. Supporters included the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Department of Natural Resources, wildfire survivors, and several wildfire and insurance advocates, who emphasized the need for compensation, stable funding, prevention, and better resilience planning. Opponents included several utilities, utility associations, business groups, and public utility district representatives, who argued the bill would shift uncapped costs to ratepayers, lacked clear liability reform and solvency protections, and could be vulnerable to future fund sweeps. Some witnesses cited California’s wildfire fund as a model, while others said Washington needed a broader, more holistic solution focused on prevention and liability reform. No vote was taken on HB 2275; the public hearing was closed after testimony. The committee then moved to executive session on House Bill 2238, which directs the Department of Agriculture to develop a statewide food security strategy and adds food security coordination and food system performance monitoring to the department’s duties. Four amendments were adopted: L-061, requiring consideration of regulatory cost metrics and periodic competitiveness reporting; L-062, directing the strategy to recommend legislative actions to make food more affordable and reduce food assistance need; L-060, adding people with lived experience of food insecurity and BIPOC small farmers to consultation requirements and focusing on root causes of hunger; and L-063, adding fuel and labor cost tracking to agricultural viability metrics. Amendment L-064, which would have required a consultant study on proposed agricultural labor legislation, failed on a 5-6 roll call vote. The committee then adopted the amended substitute and reported Substitute House Bill 2238 out of committee with a due pass recommendation by an 11-0 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• EL funding in FY26.
• and where to direct those funds.
• at-risk funding for that district or charter school. to generate funding at-risk funding for that district
• it to preserve at-risk funding for a specific group, or is it just to fund PD's methodology?
• funds to provide scholarships.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate did not include funding for this, so we would ask that this funding continue and move forward
• Funding this list will fund the first phase of the Deschutes River watershed recovery project.
• Funding this list will fund the first phase of the Deschutes River watershed recovery project.
• We're requesting $700,000 in capital funding from the Climate Commitment Act to be funded for our rooftop
• Request to fully fund our project.

Summary: The Capital Budget Committee held a hearing on Proposed Substitute House Bill 2295, the supplemental capital budget. Staff said the proposal totals nearly $911 million, including about $400 million in bonds and $511 million from other state and federal sources, with much of the increase over the governor’s proposal coming from Climate Commitment Act (CCA) funding. Major spending areas include housing and homelessness, K-12 construction, human services facilities, and CCA-funded clean energy, decarbonization, and habitat restoration projects. The chair said the committee would not take amendments at the hearing and planned to vote out the budget on Thursday, with a technical fix striker expected. Testimony was largely supportive of the House proposal, with many witnesses asking the committee to preserve or increase specific items in final negotiations. Housing advocates urged support for the Housing Trust Fund, manufactured housing preservation, and projects such as Alliance Place, Cloverdale Cottages, Cherry Street Village, Somos, and the Thrive Center. Education and public facility witnesses backed investments in school seismic safety, small district modernization, Healthy Kids Healthy Schools, community college and university maintenance, and projects at Cascadia College, WSU, CWU, and UW. Health and human services testimony supported behavioral health, Tubman Center, HealthPoint, pregnant parenting treatment, and the Yakima Behavioral Health Hub. Natural resources, climate, and infrastructure witnesses praised funding for Flood Plains by Design, community forests, trust land transfer, salmon recovery, the Skokomish land purchase, and the Lower Columbia River dredging project. Several local governments and organizations requested additional support or Senate-level funding for specific projects, while Climate Solutions cautioned against using CCA dollars to backfill existing obligations. The committee heard no votes during the hearing, and the chair closed by saying the budget would be executed on Thursday.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund.
• Funding recommendations include approximately $1.4 million in all funds for the biennium.
• fund.
• million in other funds.
• I thought I saw funding in one of the agencies requesting funding. Do what? I...

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• While the university has endowment funds, both state law and UC policy restrict the use of these funds
• campus core funds.
• Okay, so that is funded also with state General Fund. Thank you. That helps clarify that.
• General Fund.
• Please fund CalBridge.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an extended hearing focused primarily on University of California budget issues, enrollment, housing, and Title IX. Chair David Alvarez opened by noting the governor’s proposed 8% ongoing General Fund reduction to UC, the deferral of compact funding, and the College of the Law budget item, while emphasizing that no votes would be taken that day. Public commenters, including UC Davis employees and lecturers, urged restoration of UC funding and opposed the hiring freeze, saying cuts would worsen staffing shortages, reduce research capacity, and harm students and patients. On UC core operations, the Department of Finance said the governor’s budget maintains the compact but defers $240.8 million in ongoing support and continues a planned 7.95% reduction, while the LAO recommended rejecting the deferrals and instead making any changes in the budget year. UC San Diego’s chancellor and UC Office of the President argued the cuts and deferrals would create major campus shortfalls, force hiring freezes, larger class sizes, fewer course offerings, delayed projects, and possible layoffs. Committee members questioned whether cuts could be shifted away from students and toward administration, discussed UCOP reserves and bond debt, and noted that UC’s budget structure makes the campus-level impact larger than the headline reduction. The committee also reviewed enrollment trends and nonresident replacement. The LAO said UC resident enrollment has grown and recommended revisiting 2026-27 targets and pausing the nonresident replacement plan if state funding does not improve. UC said it has exceeded California undergraduate enrollment and nonresident replacement goals, but warned that continued growth without funding would force enrollment reductions and harm quality. Members discussed the role of nonresident and international students, tuition rates, and the value of UC as a pathway for California students and a source of talent for the state. A separate housing item covered the state’s Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. UC reported that recent bond savings could support additional affordable beds at UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara, but the LAO and Finance noted the Legislature would need to decide how to use the $6.2 million in savings from the original projects. The committee also heard a Title IX update from UC’s systemwide civil rights office, which described campus Title IX structures, training, and policy enforcement, and said the system has been working to improve confidentiality guidance and streamline complaint processes after survey feedback showed confusion and lengthy procedures.

Transcript Highlights:

• We administer the fund.
• But in terms of facilities funding, we really don't use federal funds for that.
• the PSCOC funds.
• We have funded three with the funding, and those funds have been long-standing in New Mexico.
• Those funds are mainly meant to be put into these permanent funds for education.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund.
• </c> line 223 is the parks and trails fund. line 223 is the parks and trails fund.
• and Trails Fund.
• and Trails Fund.
• </c> who the funding is going to. who the funding is going to.

Summary: House File 2563, the Omnibus Legacy Bill, was presented as a roughly $779 million package funding projects across Minnesota through the four Legacy funds: Outdoor Heritage, Clean Water, Parks and Trails, and Arts and Cultural Heritage. Chairs Vang and McDonald described the bill as a responsible one-time spending measure with no ongoing base funding, emphasizing habitat restoration, water protection, parks and trails, and arts and cultural heritage. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the spreadsheet, explaining that the bill largely follows the recommendations of the relevant councils and governor, with some additions such as a Wilderness Inquiry partnership, an Ash River sewer extension, competitive grant funding, and several arts and history projects. Staff highlighted the major allocations and structure of the bill: Outdoor Heritage funding for land and habitat projects, Clean Water funding for water-quality work, Parks and Trails funding following the traditional 40-40-20 split, and Arts and Cultural Heritage funding for the State Arts Board, Minnesota Historical Society, Humanities Center, Indian Affairs Council, Department of Education, and other recipients. They also noted policy provisions requiring Clean Water Council recommendations to be broken out by fiscal year, requiring recent 990 forms for arts grantees, limiting arts funds from being used for capital construction except in specified cases, and extending a prior appropriation for the Sunni Lee memorial project. Members asked about land acquisition, the new 990 requirement, and reduced funding for children’s museums; chairs and staff responded that Outdoor Heritage includes land acquisition, the 990 is simply a documentation requirement, and children’s museum funding is lower because more money is now placed in a competitive grant pool. The chairs said the bill reflects compromise and an effort to keep the bill relatively clean of earmarks, while also noting that a Department of Revenue transfer of more than $31 million from legacy funds affected available funding and forced difficult choices. After discussion, the committee laid the bill over, with the chair noting it was also being done in honor of Representative Mary Murphy.

Transcript Highlights:

• And Section 2 is one-time funding and what we are funding.
• And Section 2 is one-time funding and what we are funding.
• service fund.
• Is that other funds? Federal funds? SIF funds? Funds, federal funds, SIF funds.
• They were not funded at all. They were funded with $0 in the budget.

Bills: SB2015

Committee: Senate Appropriations - Human Resources Division

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Human Resources Division met with all members present and took up several bills, focusing most of the discussion on SB 1577 and SB 1619, along with a detailed review of the HHS budget bill draft. On SB 1577, Senator Magrum explained that the bill was being revised to focus on wastewater rather than raw water, possibly shifting the Washburn project to the Department of Water Resources so it could access matching funds, and potentially converting the bill into a line of credit if federal money is restored later. Members discussed whether to keep an emergency clause or instead use a date-based approach, and agreed the bill would likely be handled through the full committee and possibly reconsidered later. On SB 1619, Senator Davison said amendments were still being worked on, including changes requested by the Bank of North Dakota, and the committee planned to hold it for possible amendment before full committee consideration. The bulk of the meeting was a section-by-section review of the HHS appropriations bill draft. Members discussed one-time funding items such as technology projects, child care programs, housing programs, behavioral health facility grants, infant and toddler care provider support, juvenile justice diversion, medical housing, and other public health and human services projects. Several adjustments were noted, including reductions or changes to IMD-related funding, incarcerated-person treatment funding, the child welfare technology project, and the provider rate increase. The committee also discussed the FTE block grant structure at length, with staff explaining that the apparent increase in positions reflected budgeting mechanics, zero-dollar “phantom” positions, and positions approved previously but not counted in the FTE total. Members raised concerns about transparency and whether the bill should list FTE numbers, but staff said the block grant was intended to give the department flexibility while quarterly reporting would provide oversight. Other topics included Medicaid expansion funding and provider reimbursement rules, the move toward certifying human service centers as certified community behavioral health clinics, a moratorium on new ICF beds, and studies or reports on Medicaid, obesity, disability services, truancy, and behavioral health facility grants. The committee also discussed removing or revising broad intent language in Section 31 so the department would report findings rather than implement changes without further legislative action. No final votes were taken in the transcript; instead, members agreed to make a few technical adjustments, continue reviewing the bill, and likely revisit it the next day before moving it to conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, I thank you very much. fund by $1 for every $1 of federal funds fund by $1 for every $1
• </c> little bit about the the funding plan? little bit about the the funding plan?
• </c> private funds uh for those projects. private funds uh for those projects.
• </c> that all the funds that will be needed? that all the funds that will be needed?
• </c> perpetually funded uh payments. perpetually funded uh payments.

Bills: HB0111 , HB0112 , HB0122

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• That's one-time funding of about $500,000 General Fund State.
• all General Fund State.
• all general fund state.
• that aren't funded today.
• The Dan Thompson Fund, $2 million gets pulled out of the Dan Thompson Fund into the general fund.

Bills: HB2289

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: appropriations, budget, fiscal matters, state spending, general fund, supplemental budget, biennial budget, substitute bill, public defense, civil legal aid, courts, judicial branch, homelessness, supportive housing, affordable housing, behavioral health, juvenile rehabilitation, youth services, child welfare, foster care

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also requires that, effective the same year, additional funding through a fund be known as the
• supplemental school aid fund and requires the fund to be appropriated by the Legislature based on the
• supplemental school aid fund and requires the fund to be appropriated by the Legislature based on the
• No, they're funded differently. They're funded differently. Okay. All right. Thank you.
• The strike-and-insert amendment changes how that fund is funded.

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with a quorum present, approved the prior meeting minutes, and then took up several House bills with strike-and-insert amendments. House Bill 5510 was amended to incorporate provisions from Senate Bills 1065 and 928, modernizing Alcohol Beverage Control licensing and adding rules for low-proof spirit alcohol products, including a $1.25 per gallon tax; the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. The committee then considered House Bill 5453 on school funding. After discussion of a proposed block-grant system and supplemental aid for special education, the committee adopted an amendment replacing much of the bill with weighted funding for level two and level three special education students, exempting those funds from block grant rules and limiting their use to direct instruction. The committee also adopted a clarification to extend the special education funding to charter school students and reported the amended bill to the Senate. House Bill 5412, dealing with multi-year technology licensing contracts for local fiscal bodies and science-of-reading training for K-5 teachers, was amended to clarify contract language, delay implementation dates, change “endorsement” to “training,” and require charter school teachers to participate; it was then reported. The committee next amended and reported House Bill 4006, which creates aerospace development and workforce grant programs, changing the funding mechanism to use Department of Commerce reporting and personal income tax proceeds rather than direct employee withholdings. It also took up House Bill 4009, combining voluntary portable benefits for independent contractors with microcredentialing and an expanded apprenticeship tax credit, adopted the Finance Committee amendment, and reported it. Finally, House Bill 4004 creating the Recharge West Virginia training reimbursement program was amended to raise the annual employer reimbursement cap from $50,000 to $100,000 while keeping the $10,000 per-employee limit, and the committee reported the bill. The meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• It still totals $30 billion, with $16 billion in state funds and $14 billion in local funds.
• The funding structure for students funded in the FEFP remains the same.
• million from local funds.
• Funding includes $1.4 billion in general revenue and $4.6 billion in trust funds.
• We say we don’t fund water, but we fund it at nearly a billion dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the local school board the funding the local school board the funding flexibility<00:03:35.959><
• fund balance accounts.
• fund fund one budget district's general fund fund one budget is<00:20:47.960><c> more</c><00:20:48.159
• </c> funding is calculated how that funding funding is calculated how that funding has<00:59:01.440><
• fund or that fund transfers out of this fund or that fund I<01:24:35.560><c> get</c><01:24:35.840><c

Bills: HF957 , HF877

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• That's one-time funding of about $500,000 General Fund-State.
• , all General Fund-State.
• all general fund state.
• that aren't funded today.
• The Dan Thompson Fund, $2 million gets pulled out of the Dan Thompson Fund into the general fund.

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee met in executive session on a proposed substitute operating budget bill and worked through a long series of amendments before voting on the bill. Members discussed a wide range of budget items, including court funding for Thurston County civil filings, Attorney General funding for a domestic extremism task force, grants for Yakima aquatics access, North Mason mobile integrated health, mentoring programs, poverty reduction work, a proposed Department of Housing task force, federal grant inventory staffing, HEAL Act funding, assisted living rebasing, DCYF family resource centers and pediatric interim care, law enforcement training and equipment, shellfish and birthing center licensing fees, school bus depreciation, charter school accountability, transition to kindergarten priorities, and several Fish and Wildlife and OSPI grants. The committee also considered amendments related to the Columbia River Gorge Commission, shrub-steppe habitat mitigation, and a study on Lower Snake River reservoir drawdown impacts. Debate on many amendments centered on whether items were statewide priorities or local projects, and on the fiscal constraints of the budget. Supporters often argued that proposals would protect vulnerable populations, improve public safety, or leverage future savings and outside funding; opponents frequently cited budget pressure, the availability of existing funding, or the need to avoid singling out local projects. Some amendments were adopted, including Clark 343 on intent to fund up to 10,000 additional eCAP slots, Jones 419 on paint stewardship funding, and Stevens 070 limiting birthing center license fees. Many others failed, including amendments on Thurston County court funding, the domestic extremism task force, Yakima aquatics, North Mason mobile integrated health, mentoring, poverty reduction workgroup funding, the Department of Housing task force, federal grant staffing, HEAL Act funding, assisted living rebasing, the PIC Center contract, the Lacey regional training academy, and several Fish and Wildlife and OSPI-related proposals. The committee then moved to the underlying bill, Proposed Substitute House Bill 2289, and adopted a do pass motion after disposing of the amendments. The transcript indicates the committee ultimately reported the bill out of committee with a do pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• being used to fund a portion of the Cal Fire General Fund shift.
• being used to fund a portion of the Cal Fire General Fund shift.
• , not General Funds.
• Did that take the place of general funding, General Fund funding for those projects?
• The funding that's proposed from Prop. 4 this year wasn't being funded by the General Fund previously

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard opening remarks on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget and presentations from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Chair Laird described the proposal as roughly balanced with $23 billion in reserves, while Vice Chair Niello argued the revenue estimates were overly optimistic and warned of a structural deficit, calling for a deeper review of programs and concern over the state’s $20 billion unemployment insurance debt. Finance said the budget is balanced in the budget year but still leaves a roughly $2.9 billion deficit, with out-year gaps above $20 billion, and characterized the plan as largely a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. The LAO said its office sees substantial downside risk to the revenue forecast, emphasized the volatility of stock-market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to begin addressing the structural deficit now rather than waiting until May. Members focused on the implications of federal policy changes, Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and the MCO tax, as well as the state’s reserve strategy. Senators Menjivar and Richardson raised concerns about health coverage reductions, county costs, hospital finances, and the lack of a broader revenue solution, while Finance said the state cannot fully backfill federal cuts and is still assessing the impacts. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal to suspend the rainy day fund deposit and setting aside the proposed Proposition 98 settle-up rather than using it for spending. Finance defended both proposals as necessary to balance the budget year and said it plans to begin discussions with legislative leaders before the May Revision. The committee also discussed climate and transportation funding, including cap-and-trade/GGRF allocations for Cal Fire, interest earnings from the fund, zero-emission vehicle incentives, and AB 617 air quality investments. Senator Reyes questioned the focus on light-duty ZEV incentives instead of heavy-duty vehicles, and Finance said the proposal is intended to partially replace the federal consumer tax credit and that some heavy-duty funding remains from prior years. Senator Richardson also raised concerns about Olympics-related infrastructure, courthouse repairs, and displaced workers, while other members stressed homelessness funding and the need for more immediate action on out-year budget problems. No formal votes or actions were taken during the portion provided; the hearing was informational and moved into member questions after the presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• by special funds, positions that are funded by general funds.
• Can those emergency water deliveries be funded by the revolving fund or the general fund?
• Are they 100% funded by special fund, or is some General Fund slipping in there?
• that fund it and the General Fund.
• funded.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation heard an informational hearing with Secretary Garcia and CalEPA-related departments on the administration’s budget proposals and related environmental programs. Secretary Garcia highlighted CalEPA’s work on methane reduction, community air protection, water infrastructure, Exide cleanup, safer pesticide alternatives, Prop 4 implementation, and Bay-Delta water quality, while emphasizing the impact of federal rollbacks and the need for flexible state response. Members raised broader policy concerns about the polluter-pays principle, special fund vacancies, and whether the state is maintaining sufficient staffing and enforcement capacity, especially after recent fee increases. A major portion of the hearing focused on landfill support, response, and enforcement, particularly subsurface elevated temperature events at Chiquita Canyon and El Sobrante. CalEPA requested $5.1 million and 12 positions to improve monitoring, technical response, coordination, and enforcement across CalRecycle, CARB, DTSC, the Water Board, and OEHHA. Assembly Member Schiavo described severe community impacts from Chiquita Canyon and pressed for stronger state action, more transparency, and accountability from landfill operators; Assembly Member Rogers emphasized that accountability must mean forcing operators to take preventive measures and bear the costs. Agency staff said the proposal would help augment current response efforts, support local enforcement agencies, and improve early detection, while acknowledging that the causes of set events are not fully understood and may involve factors such as lithium-ion batteries, oxygen intrusion, and gas extraction practices. The committee then heard an update on the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water program and the effects of the new cap-and-invest structure. State Water Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel reported that the program has reduced the number of Californians without safe drinking water from 1.6 million to about 600,000 since 2019, while also bringing 320 systems back into compliance and distributing $1.8 billion in drinking water grants. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that under SB 840, SAFER is now in a lower funding tier, which could reduce annual proceeds from the prior $130 million level to a projected $92 million in 2026-27 and delay funding until later in the year. Members expressed concern that this deprioritizes rural drinking water needs, while the board said it would continue using SAFER’s flexible funds for emergency water, technical assistance, and construction, and would keep pushing consolidations and other long-term solutions for the remaining failing systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• Despite the recent rate increases and general fund transfer into this fund to supplement it, the fund
• fund and from the general fund; many things receive funding from these sources.
• Funding from the permanent fund, but one of the funds within the permanent fund is dedicated to Miners
• Funding from the permanent fund is part of the permanent fund.
• A small amount from the general fund funds the operations.