Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Bettencourt, do we subsidize these application fees for public students?
• Senator Creighton, do we subsidize these fees? Sending SAT scores, ACT scores to colleges.
• Do we subsidize these fees for public education students.
• That's what this amendment is about. is covering those fees, correct? I may. Mr.
• It does not appear that they were because there is no fee subsidy associated with it.

Bills: SB2, SJR36, SB2, SB2, SR29, SB2

Keywords: Maverick County, recognition, economic development, Texas Senate, community celebration, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• supplies, office space, a range of unreimbursed or contracted services, followed by IT, insurance, legal fees
• To get this money and use it, because that's what it is—it's their licensing fees.
• So, I'd like to know which of these are the enterprise that are coming from fees, and they use it to
• That was allocated to Title I to rural—you know, I'll use K 5 Plus as the example.
• There's 5 million in there allocated every year.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• off to get my master's degree at Stanford, where they paid for all of that because I had no dues, no fees
• If they want to have eight people speaking, well, they're going to have to allocate the time.
• The only way that seems fair to me is to allocate the time among all of you.
• We did a couple of reports on fines and fees, which was a big issue for the legislature.
• Acting Director Carr mentioned the Fines and Fees Bill from a couple of years ago.

Transcript Highlights:

• One-time allocations are deeply, deeply appreciated.
• We took $20 million of one-time reserves and allocated it to those campuses that can grow.
• We took $20 million of one-time reserves and allocated it to those campuses that can grow.
• University and the funding allocation provided in the 2526 state budget.
• We allocated those to individual campus. divvying up those funds we allocated those to individual campus

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• He said their contracts already have a dispute resolution process that appropriately allocates risk,
• We're going to negotiate a contract and you're going to charge us a fee and we're going to pay it.
• We're going to negotiate a contract and you're going to charge us a fee and we're going to pay it.
• And the government's able to have certain risk allocation factors that is well within their scope of
• And the government's able to have certain risk allocation factors that is well within their scope of

Bills: SB75, SB715, SB776, SB1299, SB1405, SB1968, SB2021, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB2330, SB2411

Keywords: electric generation, reliability, ERCOT, Public Utility Commission, penalties, performance requirements, energy policy, construction contracts, compensatory damages, government delays, contractor, legislation, nonprofit donor privacy, membership lists, supporter confidentiality, volunteer privacy, association rights, public records exemption, Texas Public Information Act, government transparency

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and favorably reported several bills without objection or by recorded vote, including SB 783, SB 1238, SB 1706, SB 1791, SB 458, SB 1644, and SB 1810, with some of them also sent to the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then moved into hearings on additional bills. SB 1968, by Senator Schwertner, would update the Real Estate License Act by repealing subagency, requiring written buyer-agent agreements before showings, and clarifying when a formal buyer representation agreement must be signed. Texas Realtors testified in support, saying the bill modernizes agency rules and increases transparency, while a committee substitute corrected drafting issues. SB 2411, the annual update to the Texas Business Organizations Code, was also laid out and left pending after supportive testimony from the Texas Business Law Foundation and drafting committee representatives. The committee also heard SB 2321, which would codify ERCOT’s current practice of notifying TCEQ when backup generation needs enforcement discretion for grid reliability; Sierra Club and a chamber of commerce witness supported it with suggestions for clearer emissions reporting, and the bill was left pending. SB 2077 would broaden eligibility for the Texas Mutual Insurance Company board by narrowing conflict restrictions tied to insurance-related interests; Texas Mutual supported the change and the bill was left pending. SB 1405, a broadband bill, would align state law with FCC standards and streamline Broadband Development Office processes; it was left pending after supportive testimony. SB 1299, protecting nonprofit donor privacy, drew support from privacy advocates and concerns from one witness about transparency for publicly funded nonprofit operations; it was left pending. The committee then heard SB 776, which would bar government construction contracts from shifting delay damages to contractors when delays are caused solely by the public owner. Contractors, surety representatives, and water infrastructure advocates supported the bill, arguing it would improve fairness and reduce inflated bids, while water utilities and critical infrastructure entities opposed it, warning of more litigation and higher costs; the bill was left pending. Finally, SB 715, which would apply reliability requirements retroactively to all generation resources in ERCOT, drew opposition from renewable and storage groups and support from some critics of renewable subsidies, with witnesses split over whether it would improve reliability or raise costs; testimony was underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• in May about a better way to allocate in May about a better way to allocate Capital<00:15:24.440
• And page 1101 is our Advanced Placement fee, 7374.
• higher ed transcript administrative fees higher ed transcript administrative fees which<01:28:49.360
• In addition, they do get an allocation so that schools identify those students.
• and interpreters... receiving funds through a fee the cart receiving funds through a fee the cart oh

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is money that could be allocated for costs other than a special election.
• Are we just going to allocate money? What is the appropriation limit? DOF.
• SB 280 includes an appropriation for the Secretary of State and allows the state controller to allocate
• This amends the Mitigation Fee Act to require that any deviation from lower traffic impact fees be supported
• The 2025 budget included large assessment fee increases on licensees, The 2025 budget included large

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on August 20, 2025, and considered a large number of bills, with most of the discussion centered on election redistricting and several health, labor, environmental, and government-operations measures. The first major item was ACA 8, a constitutional amendment tied to a proposed November special election and temporary mid-decade congressional redistricting in response to partisan redistricting efforts in other states. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, a 2020 redistricting commissioner, labor groups, and allies of the measure, argued it was necessary to defend democracy, protect representation, and respond to federal actions affecting California. Opponents, including Assemblymember Tom Lackey reading a statement for Assemblymember Gallagher and Assemblymember Dixon, argued the measure would undermine the independent redistricting commission, amount to a partisan power grab, and cost taxpayers roughly $230 million. Committee members also focused heavily on fiscal questions, including litigation costs and county election funding, and Department of Finance staff said counties would be made whole and funding would be advanced. The committee ultimately voted the measure out on a B roll call. The committee then heard SB 280, the implementing bill for the special election and related redistricting process. Supporters repeated the argument that California needed to respond to Texas and other states, while opponents again emphasized the cost, the strain on county budgets, and the state’s broader fiscal pressures. Department of Finance witnesses said the election funding would be provided in advance and that the state would work with counties and the Secretary of State. The bill was moved out on a roll call after extended debate. The committee also advanced several other bills, including SB 283 on battery storage safety standards, SB 470 extending remote participation and open-meeting flexibility for state boards and commissions, SB 697 modernizing stream adjudication procedures, SB 513 requiring more accessible employee training records, SB 30 restricting transfer of older diesel locomotives, SB 841 and SB 81 creating protections for vulnerable facilities and health care spaces from immigration enforcement, SB 358 revising traffic impact fee standards, and SB 630 streamlining state parks land acquisitions. Other measures discussed included SB 62 expanding health coverage benefits, SB 68 requiring restaurant allergen disclosures, and the committee heard both support and opposition on SB 68 from the California Restaurant Association and consumer advocates. Supporters of the health and immigrant-protection bills emphasized patient safety, reproductive health, immigrant rights, and access to care, while opponents on the restaurant bill warned of added mandates and litigation risk for small businesses. Across the hearing, committee members frequently returned to fiscal impacts, county implementation burdens, and whether the bills would save money, cost money, or shift costs to local governments. Several bills were reported out of committee, often on A or B roll calls, with some members not voting on particular measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• impact fees is there a reservoir of fees impact fees is there a reservoir of fees that<00:45:24.839
• to impact fee law, those fees are supposed to be updated every three years, which they just haven't
• fee law those fees according to impact fee law those fees are<00:50:10.359> supposed<00:50:10.640
• Authority administers School impact fees Authority administers School impact fees previously<00:
• calculation on what their impact fee calculation on what their impact fee might<00:56:55.920>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was just an inappropriate allocation of funds.
• It was just an inappropriate allocation of funds.
• It was just an inappropriate allocation of funds.
• Do we recoup anything in the way of fines or fees or anything in the way of payments from those that
• Fines or fees or anything in the way of payments from those that we can identify who the owner might

Summary: The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee first took up the appointment of Joshua Kellum to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Kellum described his background in diversified land, agricultural, materials, and real estate operations and said he views himself as a conservationist. Senators questioned him closely about his development background, the balance of perspectives on the commission, his vote supporting the black bear hunt, and the use of Fish and Wildlife Foundation funds for the “Yes on 2” campaign. Supporters argued he is primarily a land steward and conservation-minded landowner, while opponents said the commission is already dominated by developers and lacks scientific or conservation expertise. After debate, the committee voted to recommend Kellum’s confirmation, with Senator Smith voting no and the rest of the voting members in favor. The committee then received a presentation from FWC on implementation of recently enacted boating and vessel laws. Bill Holcomb outlined changes under SB 1388 (the Boater Freedom Act), including limits on vessel stops and boarding, a new Florida Freedom Boater Safety Inspection decal, and revised rules for Springs Protection Zones. He also reviewed SB 164 on derelict and at-risk vessels, including new enforcement tools, a long-term anchoring permit, and updated penalties; HB 289, Lucy’s Law, which strengthens boating safety penalties and education requirements; SB 830 on the disposition of migrant vessels; and HB 735 on water access facilities and boating infrastructure. Holcomb said FWC is in rulemaking, training officers, and updating forms and permitting systems to implement the laws. Members asked follow-up questions about derelict vessel cost recovery and whether penalties go back to the state, and about the Springs Protection Zone standard. Holcomb said the state can recover removal costs from responsible owners and that the new springs standard requires “significant harm” and that vessel activity be the predominant cause, with subject matter experts and partner agencies helping make those determinations. He said Silver Glen Springs remains a proposed zone but was paused pending the new criteria and rulemaking. The committee took no further action on the presentation and adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fee Hill for being here, the analyst. Mr. Auditor, thank you for being here.
• And I believe—I don't know, David, does DFA manage the allocation of those funds? Which agency?
• But there are others who are moving to an a la carte fee-for-service model.
• The fees will be used by the motor vehicle program to update current New Mexico driver licenses.
• fees—into the operating budget.

Bills: HB1

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• It creates stricter licensing and higher fees.
• I think it's $150-something stupid license fee now.
• We were challenged on fees.
• Yes, sir, with the fees coming in, if those were to be, and that is an ask that our department The fees
• And this means funds are not allocated across the state.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These funds are generated through user fees, local levies, and state aid. Thank you. Thank you.
• These funds are generated through user fees, local levies, and state aid. Thank you. Thank you.
• These funds are generated through user fees, local levies, and state aid. Thank you. Thank you.
• These funds are generated through user fees, local levies, and state aid. Thank you. Thank you.
• These funds are generated through user fees, local levies, and state aid. Thank you. Thank you.

Bills: HF6, HF52, HF53

Keywords: education, literacy, science of reading, school performance, funding flexibility, innovation zones, equity and inclusion, HF52, New Germany, wastewater treatment, wastewater facility, sewer infrastructure, capital investment, bonding bill, state bonds, Public Facilities Authority, municipal infrastructure, water quality, sanitation, sewage treatment

Transcript Highlights:

• charging fees that were not authorized—we addressed that by clarifying those fees and also stating that
• In 2023, this board raked in $4.4 million in licensing fees and spent... ...million in licensing fees
• From the fees, the $4.5 million, I promise you I'm going to get to my question.
• fee publicly and keep it quiet.
• Have the hearing, pay the fee, move on kind of...

Bills: HB191, HB35, HB29, HB123, HB35, HB29, HB191, HB123

Keywords: sales tax, use tax, sales and use tax, local tax exemption, county tax, municipal tax, county commission, municipality, Alabama Department of Revenue, tax exemption, ordinance, resolution, fiscal year, September 1 effective date, notice requirement, local government, tax administration, revenue law, state and local taxation, volunteer firefighters

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's less funding available to allocate to local governments.
• So just to clarify, so the first two, however much comes in by formulas allocated out...
• And yet we don't allocate any General Fund ongoing. We don't do ongoing funding.
• the subcommittee to look at allocations for both zero mission and near zero as well.
• Historically, there's been GGRF funding allocated for these programs. There's not right now.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• and how these fees compare to the rest of the fees that cover the cost of regulation for the industry
• Uh, general revenue as opposed to fee-based income. Um, Mr.
• I would want to Surcharges and fees to be uniform.
• Um, do you anticipate to add the surcharge to the fees?
• That there's an appropriate offset on the fee. Not necessarily the surcharge, but the fee.

Bills: HB16

Keywords: judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:42.880> that<00:13:43.040> money, those of us who allocated that money, those
• of us who allocated that money, right?
• This will allow us to fees the year.
• Importantly, it increases allocations for cities and towns.
• Importantly, it increases allocations Importantly, it increases allocations for<00:53:37.600> cities

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Y'all said, uh, said you were probably overprogrammed the monies that was allocated last time.
• <00:25:16.960> Are<00:25:17.120> you<00:25:18.240> is that was allocated last
• Are you is that was allocated last time.
• We pay roughly $135,000 a year in lifeguard fees.
• And so we're a year in lifeguard fees.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Protection, Energy and Environment, and Tourism met for its fourth meeting and approved the February 10 minutes. The committee then heard a presentation from the Cabinet for Economic Development, led by Secretary Jeff Noel, with staff from the cabinet and Kentucky Innovation. The presentation focused on the cabinet’s strategy, including workforce, entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure, and placemaking, and emphasized a goal of supporting higher-wage jobs while tailoring programs to urban, non-urban, and rural “heritage communities.” The cabinet reviewed several funding tools and programs, including economic development bond funds, EDF funds, KBI, the Kentucky Innovation Pool, KSTC-related startup and commercialization programs, veteran workforce programs, and Bluegrass State Skills Corporation training funds. Officials said many projects take years to close and that funds are often committed before they are actually disbursed because reimbursements occur after project completion. They also said Kentucky is less competitive than before because of changes in tax policy and that EDF funds are increasingly important to remain competitive with other states. Members asked about whether previously allocated money remained available, whether some funds could be clawed back, and the status of the Blue Oval project. The cabinet said it is oversubscribed, with some committed dollars likely to go unused and be reoffered to other projects. On Blue Oval, officials said progress had been made and described negotiations tied to repayment and job creation requirements. They also discussed the Ford/SK loan structure, saying the companies may assume the full $250 million obligation and that repayments would be required if job targets are not met. The presentation closed with discussion of workforce coordination and the need to connect economic development projects with training and support systems, including possible ripple effects for rural suppliers and related businesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• within the boundaries of a separate municipality that provide service to must not impose more rates, fees
• individual in the state to participate in emissions trading programs or prohibit providing the allocation
• changes include provides additional safeguards with the pilot program, specifically regarding the fees
• The property is near an existing line and the customer pays all lawful rates and fees.
• This means municipal residents may face reduced service or higher fees just because the county doesn't

Transcript Highlights:

• very first hearing we had, and it's something I want to bring up again: the issue of the budget allocating
• first hearing we had, and something I want to bring up again, and that's the issue of the budget allocating
• And historically, we've allocated the marginal costs for growth, We've allocated the marginal costs for
• Obviously, there are some student health fees and things like that that pay for some of the mental health
• However, in contrast to the $115 million allocated to the community colleges for this work, the CSU has

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an oversight hearing on the California State University system covering enrollment, core operations, Title IX/civil rights, and basic needs. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s 2026-27 budget does not change CSU enrollment targets from the prior year and proposes a 5% ongoing General Fund increase for core operations as the final year of the compact. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended a lower resident undergraduate enrollment target than the Governor’s proposal, separate funding for enrollment growth rather than folding it into base, a smaller or no base increase tied more closely to inflation, earmarking some base funds for capital renewal, retiring deferred payments, and avoiding new multi-year compact commitments. CSU said enrollment has rebounded for three straight years, but growth is uneven across campuses, with several Northern California campuses still facing structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. CSU described a multi-year reallocation plan shifting about 10,000 FTE and $89 million in ongoing funding toward higher-demand campuses, plus $40 million in one-time support, and said seven campuses submitted turnaround plans aimed at recovering enrollment over the next several years. The system highlighted strategies such as dual enrollment, guaranteed admission pathways with community colleges, outreach to high school students, retention and advising efforts, and new degree models for working adults and military-connected students. Members raised questions about how campus targets are set, whether the May Board of Trustees discussion will address a systemwide enrollment framework, and how CSU will manage future deficits if projected out-year funding does not materialize. On core operations and facilities, CSU said it faces about $320 million in mandatory cost increases in 2026-27 and is pursuing shared services, procurement consolidation, campus administrative sharing, and program redesigns to reduce costs. CSU and the LAO emphasized the system’s large deferred maintenance backlog, estimated at $8.6 billion, and discussed whether CSU’s bond/debt capacity is sufficient to address it; CSU requested up to $1.1 billion for deferred maintenance, while the administration did not propose new funding. The committee also heard CSU’s annual Title IX and civil rights update: CSU said it has implemented 15 of 16 State Auditor recommendations, has dedicated Title IX coordinators at every campus, is using a systemwide case management dashboard, and is piloting centralized investigations at five campuses. Finally, on basic needs, the Governor maintained current funding levels for food assistance/basic needs, rapid rehousing, and mental health. CSU reported heavy use of food pantries, CalFresh support, emergency housing, and counseling services, while warning that federal changes to CalFresh and related funding could make it harder to serve students in need.

Transcript Highlights:

• Formula grants that are allocated based on criteria set by the Congress.
• Uh, a little bit more detail, um, some notable federal allocations for the FY 26 budget, uh, which was
• Both the state at the PED level and school districts get allocation Title II allocations, and they're
• Fee for service.
• Um, Significant rate increases were allocated in the last two years.