[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6568341,"mediaKeyId","3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec","parentId",3203125,"title","Students press Assembly subcommittee to restore CalFood funding to $60 million annually","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",9427000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec&start=9427&end=9427","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec/thumbnail_9427000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568341/California/Students-press-Assembly-subcommittee-to-restore-CalFood-funding-to-60-million-annually","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568341-21c4c248a0e8634e519d66fd49aea316/orig.mp4?Expires=1770450932&Signature=LF65-LComJ-frRf5exuG5L2ZTgIDUONAKnQgZBcJTB8vymhuPn1LD8nUutXOCuy5DPEuF2i6TiB02W2YgiCxJ2qBSKeU1wrlTurz-yA-H3lhNDhtOZS14ZqTYgBHg1Tiv4GwURO414lBb7ehGCDv40LcFx7uDg-BSQOZNi0pIlDQD8LaMN04xZbJ59zOmtU4NBFHq1qO~xd3xW3nv4dFNG5PMD9b2rDeDTP4miZoqv9MUf1j97J1uwJAbgB2EyUiJxuSDjRPHfumVA7U1yYWFd9m6AGEaJOUlue08pmYGq2TQNgxw~8jtc1HXzdY3lu7Er97xih8Wxa1CprZEUWV0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","Multiple students and campus representatives used the hearing's public comment period to urge the Legislature to restore CalFood funding to $60 million annually, arguing reduced allocations would harm students' ability to afford food and succeed academically.

Who spoke and what they asked
Student leaders and campus staff from the University of California, Riverside and other campuses described food insecurity on campuses and requested that CalFood be funded at $60 million per year on an ongoing basis. Jordan Lili Dove, a second‑year data science and public policy student at UC Riverside, said the program is essential and asked the Legislature to “allocate a minimum of $60,000,000 to these programs.” Multiple subsequent speakers — including student leaders and campus staff — repeated the $60 million figure and described campus pantries' high demand.

Why they made the ask
Speakers said CalFood funding enables campus pantries to purchase food affordably and to supply other basic‑needs products (hygiene and menstrual supplies) that many low‑income students rely on. Commenters linked food security to student success and timely graduation, and argued that steep cuts to basic‑needs supports would have long‑term negative consequences for students and communities.

Other public comments
A UC Berkeley vice chancellor briefly addressed campus renewal needs at Berkeley, saying the campus faces roughly $13 billion in facility modernization needs over 20 years and a $2 billion capital renewal backlog; he asked the Legislature for help on capital renewal as well.

Ending note
The public comment block highlighted the immediate student demand for basic‑needs funding and the political pressure on budget subcommittees to consider restoring CalFood support; the subcommittee did not take a formal vote during public comment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance","oneSentenceSummary","During public comment, dozens of students and campus representatives urged the Assembly subcommittee to restore ongoing CalFood funding to $60 million a year to support campus food pantries and other basic‑needs services.","taxTitle","California State Assembly, House, Legislative, California","taxId",17099,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568344,"ScholarShare seeks three permanent staff for CalKids as outreach and data efforts expand",1497,7775000,9272000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec&start=7775&end=9272","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec/thumbnail_7775000.jpg","/articles/6568344/California/ScholarShare-seeks-three-permanent-staff-for-CalKids-as-outreach-and-data-efforts-expand","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568344-2fb5d63a834335845b26a5f9b4091dd2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770450932&Signature=NcpZ07GJMDRNlROfVyy8qLLTG9kZ90ypzS0JQt0Ji~c1N28pyhA9yAqgqSB9WWcZT8H9tyOZCkqarjHKE~POAbtsvMuyqYTgrTn0J97Iea1Y8RTJezJxOXOKUiVbsrd8ERzoTujn-qOropVMHucO~PA64Fujm0LUNt6wDPoxqNX5cokM56h272oqI-Iw0ZvhtvViiZhdxvBPD46NY3Q1YB3cnbmJwqFD-KDJF42fraa8AbyG0fjAFGTMgLGw5wBZh9GZenyipR6g4I3hQ6p-73uw0yn4tjtyXBG3mvL0VeUhKlb74d8KzRSQs5zsOgRF6zBJ~o4vr8XJBtc~HLVL2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The subcommittee considered a budget change proposal to add three permanent positions and $566,000 ongoing general fund to support the CalKids program, California's statewide automatic college‑savings initiative administered by the ScholarShare Investment Board.

Program background and scale
Cassandra de Benedetto, Executive Director of the ScholarShare Investment Board, told the committee that CalKids was launched in 2022 and now enrolls more than 5 million children (\"over 1,100,000 newborns and nearly 4,000,000 public school students\") and that “nearly 600,000 students and families have claimed their Cal Kids scholarship.” She said the board has distributed more than $45 million to roughly 86,000 college‑aged students, with about $41 million going to UC, CSU and community colleges in California.

Staffing proposal and LAO view
Amin Singh of the Department of Finance presented the governor's request for three permanent positions and ongoing funding. Natalie Gonzalez of the Legislative Analyst's Office recommended approval of the two nonsupervisory positions to address workload in customer service, outreach and data management, but urged rejecting the proposed manager position for now. Gonzalez said ScholarShare is already spending $7.5 million on a two‑year paid marketing contract and the LAO recommended revisiting the need for a manager after the marketing campaign's results are analyzed: “We recommend rejecting the manager position at this time.”

Outreach and data sharing
ScholarShare described outreach underway, including a paid media campaign, community events, partnerships with CalWORKs and Covered California, and a texting pilot with Riverside County that produced a marked increase in website traffic. De Benedetto said the board is implementing AB 2508 (which modifies eligibility and outreach), and that additional staff would be needed to implement that statutory change and support data‑management work and partnerships such as a planned data‑sharing arrangement with Cradle to Career and the California Student Aid Commission.

Committee reaction and next steps
Members expressed interest in the Riverside pilot and asked ScholarShare to share metrics linking marketing and outreach to claims. The LAO asked ScholarShare to reassess whether a managerial marketing position is necessary after current paid campaigns conclude. The committee held the item open for follow up and additional documentation on outreach outcomes and data‑sharing agreements.","ScholarShare requested three ongoing positions to support the CalKids college‑savings program; the LAO recommended approving two but asked the Legislature to defer the manager position until marketing campaign results are analyzed.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568349,"LAO questions community college project scoring for Proposition 2; Chancellor's Office defends matrix",1117,6737000,7854000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec&start=6737&end=7854","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec/thumbnail_6737000.jpg","/articles/6568349/California/LAO-questions-community-college-project-scoring-for-Proposition-2-Chancellors-Office-defends-matrix","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568349-556b87057bcd8b785b0055e96fade861/orig.mp4?Expires=1770450933&Signature=gHN18umBW5qHrTShvPScXTIvCT42UVA9N3ogA6qPve-E4O3BHZ5AUJhV0LLn0I0sGMFIDx4NC9r8AtdI~bp6Mj~XISpOAEb~CoyF8GF4EA2yZXkAjFFN4kSBWVBW8qhrVri7xR36q4ZnHaYugB2hUfkY5-2QYlZ5iPdLE0bUZ2wRo7PV0f8hMSn~sA9fWtjOlH8h6tZt3F4MWMM63v9ouPNTbZ0nGL19GSqppOKEpY2R0HfVzY65lNTqGzHv5e5K~aXLJMLwg~WiHzk09ix~U80iCuZA3t5u0gExdlCY89rm8asdfsMip2bhMiOUVFlMaSEv-RbXc9Owl6Hfx0HQ-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Department of Finance staff, Legislative Analyst's Office analysts and the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office briefed Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on the selection of projects for Proposition 2 funding and the scoring system that prioritized projects.

The proposal and selection
Alexandra Waldman of the Department of Finance described the governor's Proposition 2 implementation proposal: $1.5 billion was approved by voters for community college projects, and the administration proposed 29 projects in the governor's budget, with roughly $51.5 million state cost in the budget year and $728.8 million total state cost over the projects' lifetimes.

LAO concerns
Lisa King of the Legislative Analyst's Office said the Chancellor's Office uses a point‑based matrix that (after life‑safety projects are removed) currently allocates 65% of remaining funds to modernization and 35% to growth. The LAO told the committee that the Chancellor's Office five‑year plan shows roughly 80% of identified needs are modernization and only 20% growth, and suggested the Legislature consider whether the funding split should be adjusted. King also flagged that about one‑third of the proposed projects are gymnasiums, a high share compared with the previous bond implementation (Proposition 51) where gym projects were constrained to a separate 15% category. The LAO recommended that the Chancellor's Office explain the rationale for the matrix and consider adjustments if the Legislature disagrees with the priorities.

Chancellor's Office response
Chris Ferguson of the California Community Colleges said the scoring matrix was developed through a participatory governance process and reduced in complexity in 2020 to align with the Vision for Success. He said the current 65/35 split was built into the matrix and reflected system priorities at the time it was finalized. Ferguson said changes to the scoring system would require stakeholder consultation and could take one to two years.

Process and transparency requests
Committee members pressed for greater transparency about which projects are categorized as life safety, modernization or growth and asked the Chancellor's Office and Department of Finance to provide clearer public documentation. Department of Finance staff said they could provide a breakdown on request. Several members suggested the scoring system should be revisited to reflect the current balance of system needs, including the LAO suggestion that a larger share of funds go to modernization.

Ending note
The committee held the item open and requested follow‑up materials, including clearer project breakdowns and an explanation from the Chancellor's Office on the scoring rationale and potential changes.","The Legislature heard how Proposition 2 funds were selected for community college projects, with the LAO urging review of the Chancellor's Office scoring system after finding a high share of gym projects and a mismatch between modernization needs and the chosen split of funds.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568354,"Assembly panel hears billions in deferred maintenance at UC, CSU and community colleges; bond possible in 2026",416,2269000,2685000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec&start=2269&end=2685","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3203125-5b0d51987ffd872206b062ce050718ec/thumbnail_2269000.jpg","/articles/6568354/California/Assembly-panel-hears-billions-in-deferred-maintenance-at-UC-CSU-and-community-colleges-bond-possible-in-2026","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568354-9a7cb5827fcec9366fb849099e0631b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770450932&Signature=ALtRnYU5ifTPTWAFPOTVrSIub1uqY6MSSnfJEBS8SbiDBw-SJz0E50-VF67kpEYrYjPcmYSPBFTPJZ5mZeRym-Vj7UrT~ChzLT2cBmBaf7jxM8zPripPPcgSe~dfZCpUBUitfl2HYuw8dckjuH8JDIpVmVaHYy5snFloOPM6PiqPfmM7weOEcegb--1kXi76SRSRx1XENUB6YeRgLETPXk7XXdW3GLS2gPMV2TJrGme~d81F2uZRofKdMnO-pc2GTXdg0hf4FWNN267pAIvL8hP1lW1olp1ivs7tMXJcQaq0BjweK-hXed54-EYZ9YsRMtFh6654QxfVeJVIh6b4PA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California State Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance on Aug. 4 heard from the Legislative Analyst's Office and the three public higher‑education systems that deferred maintenance, seismic retrofits and new student housing needs total in the tens of billions of dollars and threaten campuses' ability to serve students.

Chair Alvarez opened the hearing saying the panel's “final hearing of the proposed budget” would focus on “capital outlay and building maintenance for our UC, CSU, and college campuses,” and noted lawmakers are “hoping that in 2026 we can go forward to the voters with a bond,” referring to ongoing policy work on Assembly Bill 48.

Why it matters: campus infrastructure funding affects safety, instructional capacity and housing affordability for students. Lawmakers and analysts said the state does not currently have a routine, data‑driven program to fund capital renewal, leaving policymakers unable to measure the gap between emerging needs and current spending.

Key findings and testimony
- The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) told the committee that campus square footage and building counts have continued to grow while much of that inventory is aging. Ian Kline of the LAO said “the number of buildings and gross square footage has continued to grow, with the latter increasing by nearly 70%.” The LAO also reported classroom and instructional lab spaces are a relatively small share of total space (about 10% at UC and 25% at CSU) and that reported utilization at the segments is below legislative standards.

- The University of California's chief financial officer, Nathan Brostrom, told the panel UC's capital financial plan totals roughly $30 billion over five years and said the system cataloged “$8,500,000,000 in deferred maintenance projects” and about $13 billion in seismic renovation needs. Brostrom said UC has not had a state general‑obligation university bond in nearly 20 years and that building renewal for education and research “has no incremental revenue source to support this debt.”

- Paul Gano of the California State University Chancellor's Office said CSU's five‑year capital plan identifies nearly $31 billion in project needs, with the system's deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $8 billion. He described a shift since the mid‑2000s from predictable state bond support to a mix of one‑time appropriations, debt restructurings and campus financing that “none of them individually or collectively match the scale, certainty and impact of the previous bond funding.”

- Chris Ferguson of the California Community Colleges said the system's unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion in its latest five‑year plan, noting that more than 57% of community college facilities are over 25 years old and almost half are over 40 years old.

Data and process concerns
LAO analysts told the committee that campuses do not consistently report capital renewal spending by fund source, making it hard for the Legislature to know how much segments are already spending from tuition, auxiliary revenue, bond proceeds and other sources. LAO analyst Jennifer Paciello said “the data on capital renewal spending hasn't improved much over the last 2 years” and recommended requiring more granular, regular reporting, including annual facility condition and replacement‑value estimates.

Debt and financing
Witnesses described multiple financing tools in use: voter‑approved state general obligation (GO) bonds historically, authority granted to UC and CSU to issue university bonds (AB 94), campus‑issued debt for housing and medical centers, lease revenue bonds and local voter measures for community colleges. Brostrom said UC's total outstanding debt had grown to about $34 billion, driven largely by housing and medical center financing. CSU reported debt service that counts toward its statutory cap (12%) and noted other payments that do not count toward the cap.

Priorities and implementation
Campus leaders said they have prioritized projects through long‑range development plans and system capital plans but emphasized practical limits on how many projects can be implemented concurrently. CSU said some large projects become shovel‑ready within 9–12 months after schematic design; CSU also flagged that many renewal projects are amenable to quicker procurement. UC described an “integrated capital asset management” process (ICAM) to triage and sequence renewal work and noted the importance of pairing new‑construction approvals with plans for ongoing operation and capital renewal costs.

What the LAO recommended
The LAO suggested the Legislature: require more consistent reporting of facility condition and spending; consider funding targets for capital renewal (LAO noted a common best practice of 2–4% of a portfolio's replacement value); and monitor segment debt service and capacity for new financing.

Next steps and outstanding questions
Committee members pressed witnesses on how many projects in the five‑year plans are truly shovel‑ready, how utilization metrics should influence prioritization, and whether a future state bond should be structured to prioritize modernization and seismic work versus growth. Several witnesses and the LAO agreed that clearer, regularly reported metrics on condition, replacement value and renewal spending would improve legislative oversight.

Ending note
Committee staff said the hearing would inform future budget deliberations and policy work on AB 48 and on how the state might structure a bond or ongoing funding strategy to address the multi‑billion dollar backlog of renewal and seismic projects across UC, CSU and the California Community Colleges.","Legislative analysts and campus leaders told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 that California's public higher education systems face multi‑billion dollar deferred maintenance and seismic needs, and discussed whether a voter bond (proposed in AB 48) would be part of a long‑term strategy.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Students press Assembly subcommittee to restore CalFood funding to $60 million annually

ScholarShare seeks three permanent staff for CalKids as outreach and data efforts expand

LAO questions community college project scoring for Proposition 2; Chancellor's Office defends matrix

Assembly panel hears billions in deferred maintenance at UC, CSU and community colleges; bond possible in 2026