Transcript Highlights:

• We don't see a need to provide that one-time funding.
• with those funds.
• We understand that the funding for differentiated assistance is also supposed to go to the support needed
• I strongly support the $20 million one-time investment in emergency basic needs funding for UC campuses
• I strongly support the 20 million one-time investment in emergency basic needs, funded for UC campuses

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s May Revision TK-12 education proposals, beginning with Proposition 98. The Department of Finance explained that the minimum guarantee rises by about $6.4 billion relative to the January budget across the three-year window, with a total of $124.9 billion in 2024-25, $125.1 billion in 2025-26, and $127.1 billion in 2026-27. Finance also described revised settle-up and reserve actions, including maintaining a $3.9 billion settle-up balance, increasing discretionary deposits into the Prop. 98 reserve, and ending with a projected reserve balance of about $10.3 billion. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the overall estimates were reasonable but urged the state to fully fund the guarantee and use other budget actions or reserves to manage volatility rather than delay settle-up payments. Members questioned the rationale for leaving the $3.9 billion unsettled, and Finance said the amount reflects revenue uncertainty and the risk of overappropriating Prop. 98 if revenues later fall. The committee then reviewed the Department of Education portion of the May Revision. Finance said the budget adds positions and state operations funding for CDE and includes trailer bill changes affecting community schools, preschool, literacy, special education, charter accountability, and other programs. The LAO highlighted concerns and recommendations on several proposals, including the size and structure of the LCFF increase, the special education base-rate increase, additional one-time community schools funding, literacy coach and math professional development augmentations, the multilingual screener, inclusive college grants, homelessness grants, and the proposed paid pregnancy disability leave mandate. CDE supported the special education increase, paid pregnancy leave, community schools, homelessness funding, literacy and math investments, and preschool parity, while urging more support for county offices of education and clearer definitions and implementation details for some programs. Finance said the paid pregnancy leave proposal would cost an estimated $218 million annually and is intended as a recruitment and retention measure. In the Commission on Teacher Credentialing item, Finance proposed funding for legal staffing tied to SB 848 and educator misconduct cases, plus funding and fee changes to support a statewide transcript review platform for subject matter competency and additional support for the residency technical assistance center. The LAO said it had no concerns with the staffing for misconduct and SB 848, recommended the transcript review platform and related fee increase if the platform moves forward, and recommended rejecting the residency technical assistance center expansion because current funding lasts through 2029. CTC said the misconduct workload has grown over the last five to six years and that AI would be used only as a backstop to human review in the transcript system. Public commenters were split, with unions and education groups supporting special education, paid pregnancy leave, community schools, homelessness funding, and literacy investments, while opposing the $3.9 billion settle-up delay and the reduction to preschool COLA.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the total funding needed to complete the network, including already appropriated funds?
• So the LAO's evaluation is that these are essential needs that need to be funded.
• I don't think that there's a suggestion that we shouldn't fund essential needs.
• More sustained General Fund support is needed.
• So this is a really critical program, and this funding is badly needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to look at funding, properly funding, the judges, the commissioners, the public defenders, and
• of the settlement needs to be, and doesn't have to be a lot, but we just need to fund that at my office
• I just need help implementing it. But this would be additional funding?
• I just need help implementing it. Okay. But this would be additional funding.
• the courts at the level they need to be funded locally.

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:

• State Revolving Fund.
• State Revolving Fund.
• And it's a way to do the funding as a revolving loan fund.
• Give them access to funds to help them start building the revenue they need for building what, as a group
• We need area, we need water, we need evaporation ponds.

Summary: The task force met to focus on funding systems and incentive structures for a proposed regional waste infrastructure effort, including how a future WIPA framework might support solid waste planning in the Willamette Valley. Staff and members heard presentations from DEQ on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, from Business Oregon on the Special Public Works Fund, and from Oregon State Treasury on state bonding capacity and the bond issuance process. Presenters explained how their programs are structured, how projects are scored or approved, what kinds of public entities and projects are eligible, and how interagency coordination and co-funding can work. DEQ emphasized that its revolving loan fund is driven by water-quality benefits and public-health criteria, while Business Oregon described a broader infrastructure loan program for public entities with no scoring system, and Treasury outlined the state’s debt-capacity process and the differences between general obligation and lottery bonds. Members used the presentations to discuss whether similar funding tools could support solid waste infrastructure, especially for transfer stations, regional hubs, and related facilities that may need to be built before Coffin Butte reaches the end of its lifespan. Several questions centered on whether public-private partnerships could qualify, whether equipment inside facilities could be financed, how repayment would work, and whether planning costs could be covered. DEQ and Business Oregon both said they could potentially collaborate on scoring or co-funding, but noted eligibility limits and the need for public ownership in many cases. Treasury said bond capacity is limited and competitive, especially for lottery bonds, and that project authorization generally runs on a two-year cycle, though unused authority can sometimes be reauthorized. In task force discussion, members debated whether the group should pursue a dedicated funding lane for the seven-county region rather than having local governments compete with other statewide needs. Some members stressed the importance of criteria to avoid stranded assets and to ensure funding is available when projects are ready, while others raised concerns about how cities and counties would generate revenue to repay debt during construction and early operations. The group also discussed flow control, system fees, and the need for regional collaboration among counties, cities, and haulers to create enough waste volume to support new infrastructure. Staff noted that pre-session filing materials for the legislature are due September 11, and the chair said the August meeting will focus on organizational structure and identifying partners. During public comment, Representative Kevin Mannix submitted written testimony supporting the WIPA concept and urging the task force to endorse it. Commissioner Bubba King of Yamhill County urged the task force to compare alternatives objectively and warned against adding bureaucracy before evaluating existing infrastructure and costs. Commissioners Kevin Cameron and Roger Nyquist of Marion and Linn counties described regional hub-and-spoke concepts, transfer stations, and intermodal options, emphasizing the need for planning, strategic siting, and collaboration with haulers and local governments.

Transcript Highlights:

• This additional funding is needed due to the growth of eligible children in the program.
• It was a one-time donation that we fully expended the funds and no longer need the authority.
• for somebody else who also needs access to the funding because X number of dollars, right?
• You're going to get that up and running and you need this, you need this funding.
• for somebody else who also needs access to the funding because X number of dollars, right?

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee heard the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services present its FY 2027 budget request, with Director Sarah Wilson and budget staff describing the department’s mission, major divisions, and the impact of federal funding shifts, especially the FMAP change that will shift costs to general revenue. Wilson emphasized prevention, public health infrastructure, workforce capacity, and data modernization, while several members praised the department’s responsiveness and cost-cutting efforts. The discussion repeatedly focused on lapses, excess authority, and the department’s stated practice of spending federal and other funds before general revenue where possible. Members asked detailed questions about local public health agency support, nutrition programs, rural health and primary care, newborn screening, the state public health lab, and the department’s use of flexibility and reallocations. There was extended discussion of substance use disorder funding: the department explained that some funding is being reduced in its own budget because transfer authority is being added for the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Corrections, while some other SUD-related lines are actual reductions. Members also questioned tobacco prevention and cessation cuts, maternal and infant health programs, fetal infant mortality review, and minority health initiatives, with staff explaining program purposes and noting that some reductions were tied to excess authority or to moving programs to other departments. The committee also reviewed specific operational items such as the Health Initiatives Fund transfer, debt offset escrow for loan repayment defaults, donated funds authority, emergency preparedness, environmental health, health informatics, HIV/STI/hepatitis services, local public health incentives, and the COVID/ARPA authority reductions. Several members requested follow-up information on vacancies, lapse trends, grant spending plans, and program details. No final vote or formal action was taken in the portion provided; the chair recessed briefly and the hearing continued with additional budget testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• We could use extension plan funding, but they will probably need dollars specifically to help community
• This is ongoing work with funding needs.
• We need to know what the conversations are, what's happening, and then we need them to be properly funded
• system. ...the need for permanent funding for the county office coordinator positions outside of the
• In order to continue that collaboration, we need the $1 billion of ongoing annual funds. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing on the Governor’s proposal to convert the California Community Schools Partnership Program from a one-time grant model into an ongoing $1 billion Proposition 98 program. Finance and CDE described the expansion as a way to sustain existing community schools and add thousands more, with county offices, regional/state technical assistance centers, annual self-certification, and a future accreditation process intended to support fidelity to the state framework. The LAO opposed shifting to an ongoing categorical program and recommended continuing one-time grants, while suggesting longer-term funding for technical assistance and, if ongoing funding is adopted, stronger planning, reporting, phased expansion, and clearer accreditation timelines. Committee members pressed the administration on how the new proposal could fund far more schools with less money than the original $4.1 billion program, how much of the funding would go to existing cohorts versus new schools, and whether the proposal sufficiently requires planning and implementation before funds are received. Testimony from practitioners and advocates largely supported ongoing funding but emphasized that money alone is not enough. Speakers from LPI, CTA, San Diego Unified, Fresno County, the Partnership for the Future of Learning, and Sacramento County urged stronger requirements for shared governance, explicit commitment to the community schools framework, annual reporting beginning in year one, and continued or expanded support for coordinators and technical assistance. Several witnesses said the proposal should better protect county office coordination roles, maintain preferences for partnerships in the technical assistance structure, and ensure the system can support more than 6,000 schools. Others highlighted the need for specialized supports for middle and high schools, better integration with other state programs such as ELOP, universal meals, TK, and the LCFF equity multiplier, and more detailed accountability and accreditation processes. No formal vote was taken during the portion of the hearing reflected in the transcript. The chair indicated that the committee wanted additional information on the funding breakdown, the use of reverted funds, and the proposed support structure before taking action, and administration witnesses said a more detailed proposal would be brought forward in the May Revise.

Transcript Highlights:

• So after December 31, 2029, centers that receive funding will need to have that designation.
• of our centers to understand and support their funding needs.
• So DHCS... ...of our centers to understand and support their funding needs.
• If you're asking here in the BCP, you would need to know if you have the funds for it. Yeah.
• The crisis centers report a statewide need far above the current funding levels.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:52:22.400><c> of</c> um funding to uh meet the needs of um funding to uh meet the needs of families
• We did ask for it as a prioritized need, but it was not funded.
• will be additional funds needed to serve this population.
• </c> that there will be additional funds that there will be additional funds needed<01:08:24.159><c>
• So, in order to lower the total general fund need in the budget, the carry-forward funds were applied

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We need the assessment of ensuring funds are in all the areas where the need is demonstrated.
• We need the assessment of ensuring funds are in all the areas where the need is demonstrated.
• However, because staff will need annual training, he said ongoing funds are needed for long-term implementation
• We need to find a way to make sure that programs are fully funded in a way to best meet the needs of
• So we really need to fund the child care expansion as promised.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think if we went around the table here, everybody would say, yeah, those centers do need funding.
• Chairman, on the isolated special needs isolated funding.
• left over that moves down to isolated fund special needs isolated...
• Any additional funding left over that moves down to isolated fund special needs isolated funding.
• and needs, Over the years, you know, based on the evaluation that we've made, both on funding and needs

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• So please reject these cuts and preserve education funding. Our kids need you.
• So please reject these cuts and preserve education funding. Our kids need you. Thank you.
• So please reject these cuts and preserve education funding. Our kids need you.
• So please reject these cuts and preserve education funding. Our kids need you. Thank you.
• Cutting funding does not reduce need.

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee held a public hearing on proposed substitute House Bill 2289, the House operating budget. Budget staff Mary Monroe gave a detailed overview of the proposal’s near general fund outlook, reserve levels, major revenue assumptions, and major spending and savings items. She highlighted assumed revenue from capital gains and a proposed “millionaires tax,” a transfer from the budget stabilization account, administrative reductions across agencies, and several major policy shifts, including changes affecting Working Connections Child Care, K-12 education, higher education, long-term care, behavioral health, wildfire response, and state employee compensation. Members then asked questions, including about the higher education building account/operating fee swap and its interaction with the capital budget and Climate Commitment Act funds. The committee also announced amendment deadlines for the budget process. The bulk of the meeting was public testimony, with many speakers generally supporting or opposing specific parts of the budget. Supportive testimony praised funding for wildfire prevention, public health, reproductive health, civil legal aid, the Poison Center, some higher education institutions, and certain disability and child welfare services. Many speakers urged restoration or protection of funding for K-12 education, especially transition to kindergarten, local effort assistance, bus depreciation, and Running Start; others opposed cuts to child care, early learning, public defense, long-term care, adult day and home care services, occupational/physical/speech therapy for Medicaid patients, and community and technical colleges. Several local government, health, and nonprofit representatives also asked the committee to preserve public works, homelessness, energy assistance, environmental justice, and recovery/diversion programs, while some business and public safety groups sought continued funding for organized retail crime prevention and related initiatives. No votes were taken during the hearing. The committee recessed briefly and later resumed with virtual testimony, where additional witnesses repeated concerns about education cuts, long-term care, health care access, disability services, dispute resolution, early childhood programs, and the need for ongoing or increased funding in those areas.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, it provides resources needed for matching funds and educational... outreach that is often
• are desperately needed, and we support the coordinating board's key funding and allocation methodology
• Additionally, both CRU and HEAF funding... empower us to address acute campus and student needs.
• we need in order to fund Task Force 3 in the Rio Grande Valley. is they're always left out so we want
• , we've never been able to fully fund or give them the funding that's needed in order to.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Transcript Highlights:

• I know, but what I would say is that there needs to be a focus on the funding.
• This rider is no longer needed as funding is part of the agency's baseline.
• We do understand the need to increase steady funding on that. I just need to find a source for you.
• It is really important to have these funds; they're desperately needed.
• To qualify for the TEF fund, you need $20 million in research expenditures.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So, taking a look at that need and taking a look at HJR7 and setting up this dedicated funding, that
• manage their local projects, funding capabilities, and reduce their need for state assistance.
• this need, and this will leave a long-term water funding gap. ...an infrastructure funding gap of just
• I need to go to the Texas Water Fund. That would be ideal. But still, I support HJR7.
• Our point is that the majority of the water supply funding and/or the funding needs in the state would

Bills: HB3077 , HJR2 , HJR7 , HJR7

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• I think if we went around the table here, everybody would say, yeah, those centers do need funding.
• for these funds to schools and whether they support services for individuals with special needs.
• Performance fund in the future, we just utilize what we need in the current budget year. ...fund in the
• On the isolated special needs, isolated funding, we spent 45, budgeted 175, authorized 175.
• left over that moves down to special needs isolated funding.

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Summary: The committee heard a series of Arkansas Department of Human Services budget presentations and questions, beginning with the Secretary’s Office and then the Division of Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services. Staff described the divisions’ appropriations, funding sources, and major programs, including senior centers, Meals on Wheels, mental health grants, substance abuse treatment, community alcohol safety, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, and crisis stabilization units. Members raised concerns about flat or limited funding for senior services, the use and tracing of federal block grants, the lack of a funding source for the veterans’ mental health grant, and the mechanics of the community alcohol safety and treatment programs. The committee also discussed patient benefits funds at state facilities, transportation for senior center clients, and whether some special-language appropriations or fund balances should be revisited. Executive recommendations were adopted for the divisions considered. The committee then reviewed the Division of Children and Family Services and the Division of County Operations. Questions focused on foster care growth, adoption subsidies, professional fees tied to staff training and onboarding, vacancies, the Children’s Trust Fund, and TANF subgrants. Members asked about the reduction or elimination of TANF funding to child advocacy centers and other subgrantees, and DHS explained that prior reserves had been spent down and that the department was now trying to live within the annual TANF block grant and rebuild reserves. County operations questions also covered summer EBT, SNAP employment and training, the farmers’ market program, and the expected impact of a federal SNAP administrative match change, which DHS estimated would increase state costs by about $24 million annually, with roughly $18 million affecting the current year because the change begins October 1. Executive recommendations were again adopted. Finally, the committee heard from the Division of Developmental Disability Services and the Division of Medical Services. DDS testimony covered vacancies, staffing shortages, human development center construction and repairs, the reopening of the Boonville work training program, and funding for infant infirmary and child/family life programs. Medical Services testimony covered the Medicaid program, the current FMAP rate, the Our Kids B CHIP program, Medicaid payments to schools, nursing home distress funding, and large appropriation lines used to provide flexibility for claims and potential facility closures. Members asked for more detail on school Medicaid payments, reserve balances, and why some appropriations were much larger than actual spending. In each division, the committee moved and adopted Executive REC after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of those CCTR awarded funds not yet in contract, it is typical that contracts need time to complete the
• We ask that uncontracted funds not be treated as a lack of need.
• There are still folks who have not gotten what they need from those funds.
• So these indicators could help determine whether counties need or should access provisional funding.
• And have expressed a need for funding to remain at the same level to continue providing services.

Summary: The committee first heard May Revision child care and human services items. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the analyst supported. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a reduction in federal and Proposition 64 funding absorbed through a shift from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment program, a 2.01% child care COLA, disaster-related infrastructure grants, a new administrative support cost structure for Alternative Payment agencies, the removal of prospective pay funding after a federal rule change, a reappropriation for existing infrastructure grants, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended asking for more justification for shifting reductions to CAP, supported the COLA reduction but wanted consistency across programs, recommended removing prospective pay funding, opposed the administrative cost shift, and suggested further review of disaster grant alignment. Members pressed the administration on why more slots would be cut for the same savings, why the COLA was reduced, and whether the administrative percentage would grow over time. The administration said the changes were intended to avoid disrupting currently enrolled families, reflect point-in-time relinquishments and unspent funds, and stabilize contractor operations. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, and county representatives, urged full COLA funding, rejection of child care slot reductions, preservation of prospective pay, and continued investment in child care infrastructure and access. The subcommittee then recessed before moving to health items. In Part B, the Department of State Hospitals presented its May Revision proposals, including a central utility plant replacement project at Metropolitan State Hospital, funding for a continuum electronic health record system, reduced county bed billing authority to reflect phase-in of additional LPS beds, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscription services, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal to use Behavioral Health Services Act funds instead of General Fund for training programs. The department said the EHR would modernize records and improve continuity of care, and that the contract exemption would prevent delays in essential clinical information services. No votes were taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• of our centers to understand and support their funding needs.
• So D.H... ...of our centers to understand and support their funding needs.
• If you're asking here in BCP, you would need to know if you have the funds for it. Yeah.
• Is it that the crisis centers report their total funding needs for operation is $105 million?
• The crisis centers report a statewide need far above the current funding levels.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• For our CAP funds, which are our voucher funds, we do see sometimes that we need our APPs to be able
• I just wanted to make sure we had that on record since additional funding would be needed to serve those
• For one-time costs, for year one-time cost, we would need one-twelfth of the funds appropriated in Schedule
• The funding would need to be provided in the year prior for prospective pay to be enacted in the first
• , but the funding is running out and we will need more funding to continue to provide the services.

Transcript Highlights:

• While campuses fund some repairs each year, the state general fund allocation cannot meet the needs of
• Since that time, the CSU has relied on several less predictable funding sources to meet its capital needs
• A consistent multi-year funding plan is essential to addressing CSU's capital needs effectively.
• or things like that, so we can actually map out when we need the funding.
• So basically, we funded fewer gym projects in the past, which meant that that need continued to remain

Transcript Highlights:

• Your department looks at it and says, where do we need these funds? Is that...
• We need to look at funding, properly funding, the judges, the commissioners, the public defenders, and
• of the settlement needs to be, and doesn't have to be a lot, but we just need to... ...fund that at
• I just need help implementing it. Okay. But this would be additional funding.
• the courts at the level they need to be funded locally.

Committee: House Appropriations