OKPOLICY.ORG
Four years of federal surplus propping up Oklahoma’s budget is not enough to save the state’s budget
- For the budget year beginning July 1, 2025 (Fiscal Year 2026), state agencies will have $12.08 billion to spend (Figure 1). These appropriations are outlined in the general appropriations budget bill (House Bill 2766) during the 2025 legislative session.
- The FY 2026 budget is $1.6 billion (11.8 percent) less than the FY 2000 budget when adjusted for inflation and population growth. This means the state has about one-fifth less in revenue to provide shared public services than it did 25 years ago (Figure 1).
- In addition, the budget bill includes $783.5 million in supplemental funding for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2025 (FY 2025). Together, this brings the total spending for the 2025 legislative session to $12.87 billion.
- The legislature has increasingly left significant amounts of unspent cash in their General Revenue Fund reserves. A total of $1.525 billion in unspent cash remains from FY 2023 ($347.6 million), FY 2024 ($732.9 million), and FY 2025 ($445.8 million).
- The state’s budget has been propped up by federal funds over the past four years, allowing for strong state savings. However, reduced revenue from tax cuts and a tightening economy will shrink future budgets.
Specific state funds used for one-time payments for large projects
- Along with appropriating money to agencies, Oklahoma legislators can also appropriate money to different legislatively approved funds. In the FY 2026 general appropriations bill, money from these funds was appropriated as FY 2025 supplemental funding for specific projects. The money will be spent in FY 2026.
- $312 million in supplemental funds were appropriated to the Prison Acquisition Revolving Fund to facilitate the purchase of a private prison in Lawton, OK. Senate Bill 1160 directed $238 million from the Revenue Stabilization Fund, with the remaining balance drawn from the prior year’s unspent general revenue funds.
- The legislature allocated a total of $491 million from the Legacy Capital Fund (LCF). $250 million went to the OSU Veterinary Medicine Authority to expand its animal teaching hospitals. $200 million went to the pediatric heart hospital operated by the University of Oklahoma. $41.6 million is being used to expand military facilities, including gyms, for the Military Department.
- The Progressing Rural Economic Property (PREP) Fund allocated $4.2 million in supplemental funding to the Oklahoma Water Resources Board for water infrastructure projects, like the construction of water lines or connecting rural areas to public water supply to avoid contaminated well water. Additionally, $15 million in supplemental funding from the PREP fund went to the Department of Aerospace and Aeronautics for airport infrastructure upgrades, and $8 million was appropriated to the new “Emergency Medicine Revolving Fund,” which aims to train students at a level 1 trauma center, according to HB 2784. The Department of Commerce also received $10.8 million in one-time appropriations from the PREP fund, with $5 million allocated for a municipal park in Oklahoma County and $4 million for the relocation of a naval submarine in Muskogee.
- $103 million was allocated from the Statewide Recovery Fund, which is where the State of Oklahoma deposited ARPA funds for future use. This includes funding for critical services like mental health, food programs focused on distribution, education, and health assessments, water infrastructure projects, childcare, medical care for children, and emotional and academic services for incarcerated youth. Federal funds from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 continue to support crucial, yet underfunded, services in the state.
State savings are still strong, but lawmakers used one-time savings to justify ongoing tax cuts
- The legislature had to use state savings to cover the costs of services for FY 2026.
- Lawmakers moved $38 million out of the Constitutional Reserve Fund (aka Rainy Day Fund) to the Special Cash Fund. Since this money wasn’t appropriated in the current year’s budget, it is not accounted for in Figure 2.
- The legislature had to appropriate $34.6 million from the Rate Preservation Fund to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to maintain reimbursement rates for Medicaid providers when the share of Medicaid expenditures paid by the federal government (FMAP) decreased (Figure 2).
- At the beginning of session 2025, there was $1.365 billion in the Rainy Day Fund, $664 million in the Revenue Stabilization Fund, and $596 million in the Rate Preservation Fund. Currently, there is $1.33 billion in the Rainy Day Fund, $425 million in the Revenue Stabilization Fund, and $561 million in the Rate Preservation Fund, bringing total state savings to $2.31 billion at the beginning of FY 2026, which started on July 1, 2025 (Figure 3).
Every tax cut reduces the budget’s ability to handle current and future needs
- The legislature passed HB 2764, which cut the state’s income tax. This bill cut the income tax by a quarter of a percent and included a plan to eventually eliminate the income tax via future quarter-of-a-percent cuts if certain economic conditions are met. The legislature also eliminated the bottom three of the six income tax brackets. The impact of these tax cuts won’t be fully felt until FY 2027 (which starts on July 1, 2026). A full year of these cuts is estimated to cost $340 million in lost revenue for FY 2027, and $357 million the following fiscal year. Last year, the state eliminated the state portion of sales tax on groceries, costing the state about $418 million for FY 2026. This lost revenue is an annual recurring cost and will likely increase due to inflation.
- The revenue lost from the sales tax cuts and changing economic conditions put pressure on lawmakers when crafting this year’s budget. However, this is consistent with Oklahoma lawmakers’ history of cutting taxes in good economic conditions, followed by leaner years and, at times, economic busts.
- Oklahoma’s general revenue collections for FY 2025 were 2.6 percent higher than the estimate for the year. However, this is because of unexpectedly large revenue collections from individual and corporate income taxes and gross production (oil and gas) taxes compared to FY 2024. Sales tax revenue decreased by $314 million as predicted for FY 2025.
- With the income tax cuts made this session partially subsidized through state savings, the state’s budget is even less prepared for an economic downturn.
- Over the long term, the automatic trigger income tax cuts will eventually eliminate what is now the state’s largest source of revenue. These revenue losses will hinder the state’s ability to fulfill its day-to-day responsibilities, let alone weather future economic crises.
- The cap on the state’s long-term road maintenance fund – Rebuilding Oklahoma Access and Driver Safety (ROADS) – was increased by $20 million. However, current revenue sources are expected to be insufficient to fund the ROADS Fund. Some modifications were made to offset income tax revenue reallocations; however, overall, $19.3 million of income tax revenue will supplement ROADS funding, resulting in a decrease of the same amount in the general revenue apportionment.
Oklahoma’s unmet needs will remain unmet
- The school funding formula received an additional $25 million for FY 2026.
- At the same time, when adjusted for inflation and enrollment, per-pupil funding has decreased by 16 percent since 2008. Each student receives $717 less today than they did in 2008 (Figure 5).
- Education received the greatest share of this year’s appropriated funding at $5.76 billion (48 percent)[1], followed by Health and Social Services getting $2.32 billion (19 percent) (Figure 6). Although they receive a large portion of the state’s appropriations, it is not nearly enough to fund essential services and programs, such as public schools, mental health services, rural hospitals, and aging infrastructure.
- These programmatic shortages can be attributed to deep budget cuts at agencies during economic downturns. Since 2009, 27 agencies have faced greater than 30 percent cuts to their budgets, and 12 more have seen cuts ranging from 10 to 30 percent when adjusted for inflation and population growth[2] (Figure 8).
- Oklahoma has unmet needs that require targeted public investment to address. Lawmakers could have chosen to protect revenue and invest in state services, especially in the face of economic uncertainty. Instead, lawmakers delivered budget cuts or flat budgets to several state agencies compared to FY 2024. (And for all intents and purposes, flat budgets are budget cuts because flat budgets don’t account for inflation or population growth.)
- Instead of tax cuts, lawmakers could have chosen to put larger sums of money into everyday Oklahomans’ pockets by modernizing targeted tax credits – i.e. the Sales Tax Relief Credit (STRC), Child Tax Credit (CTC), or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
Looking forward: Where does the state go from here?
- Lawmakers need to be realistic about the impacts of federal policy on the state’s budget. They need to acknowledge that the state’s budget will be strained from recent federal cuts and must start planning for ways to alleviate the harm Oklahomans will face from programmatic cuts.
- Lawmakers should repeal the income tax elimination legislation and propose a balanced, revenue-raising budget that can fund the services Oklahomans rely on.
- This session saw lawmakers regress to their untransparent ways with the budget process – making decisions behind closed doors, without input from the majority of the legislature, and without adequate time for lawmakers and the public to evaluate the final budget bills. This is a step back from the transparency gains seen during the 2024 legislative session. Lawmakers should re-commit to transparency.
- Many lawmakers said they voted for income tax cuts to deliver fiscal relief to Oklahomans, but low- and middle-income earners won’t really get money back from these cuts. In fact, these Oklahomans may be even worse off because state services will likely be reduced or cut completely due to lost revenue from these tax cuts. Efforts to provide everyday Oklahomans with tax relief should be laser-focused on low- and middle-income Oklahomans who need it most by modernizing the CTC, EITC, and STRC.
Charts
Figure 1 (click to enlarge)
Figure 2 (click to enlarge)
[Click here for footnote about data and notes for state savings appropriations]
Figure 3 (click to enlarge)
Figure 4 (click to enlarge)
Figure 5 (click to enlarge)
Figure 6 (click to enlarge)
Figure 7 (click to enlarge)
Figure 8 (click to enlarge)
– – –
[1] In sections 14, 15, and 16 of the General Appropriations bill (HB 2766), appropriations are made to the Oklahoma State Department of Education which will be transferred to the Teacher’s Retirement System of Oklahoma. Since the ultimate use of the money is for Teacher’s Retirement and not OSDE, the money was allocated to the Teacher Retirement System in this report. This leads to a difference of $3.4 million between this report and the GA bill’s allocation of money for OSDE. The Education Subcommittee total does not change since both agencies are under this subcommittee. [Return to text]
[2] 27 agencies with more than 30% cut: Arts Council, Department of Career and Technology Education, Educational Television Authority, Regents for Higher Education, Department of Libraries, School of Science and Math, Center for Science and Technology, Auditor and Inspector, Emergency Management, House of Representatives, Lieutenant Governor, Senate, Tax Commission, Treasurer’s Office, Commission on Children and Youth, Office of Disability Concerns, Juvenile Affairs, J.D. McCarty Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Commerce, Historical Society, Department of Labor, Department of Tourism and Recreation, Department of Corrections, Council on Judicial Complaints, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and Pardon and Parole Board. 12 agencies facing a 10-30% cut: Commissioners of Land Office, Governor, Department of Human Services, Department of Rehabilitation, Department of Health, J.M. Davis Memorial Commission, Department of Mines, Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement, Court of Criminal Appeals, District Courts, Department of Public Safety, Supreme Court. [Return to text]
State Savings Appropriations – Data and Notes
(Mobile users will need to turn devices sideways)
[Return to Figure 2]
|
Fiscal Year |
State Savings Appropriations |
Notes/Justification |
Sources |
|
FY ’96 |
$22.7 |
From FY ’96 to ’09, the FY 26 Executive Budget numbers are the main source for the dollar amounts appropriated from savings. For those years, the Senate Appropriation numbers are off by one year (they lag by one year). That’s because in any FY that appropriations are made, the senate chose to show those appropriations in the year that they were made rather than the year they were appropriated for. Ex. Appropriations of $78.8 M made in session 2000 (FY 2000 will end when session 2000 ends) are for FY 2001. The senate shows that $78.8 M in FY 2000 because that is when the appropriations is made, the executive budget shows it for FY 2001 because that’s the year the appropriation is designated for. The senate only used this methodology until FY 2009 and then they changed it to match the executive budget’s methodology. NOTE: The reference column of the Senate Appropriations Report is not consistent, and at times inaccurate. From FY ’96-’09, the references for any given FY appropriations cite the next session’s legislation (i.e. FY 2000 cites session 2001 legislation which hasn’t happened yet because it occurs towards the end of FY 2001). This means the citations are off by two years. This must be related to the methodology the senate chose, but it doesn’t make sense. Knowing that all the senate numbers from FY ‘96-’09 should be moved down one year, then the citations would also shift down one year. So, FY 2000 would actually have an appropriation of $74.9 M (which is correct), but the reference would be 2000 regular session (which is incorrect, off by one year, should be Regular session 1999). |
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’97 |
$52.8 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’98 |
$154.4 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’99 |
$148.6 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’00 |
$74.9 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’01 |
$78.8 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’02 |
$268.6 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’03 |
$72.3 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’04 |
0 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’05 |
0 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’06 |
0 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’07 |
0 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’08 |
0 |
|
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’09 |
0 |
In FY ’09, the senate appropriations report changed how they assign money to Fiscal Years. The issue with references also got fixed in the senate appropriations report. From FY ‘10- ‘22 the senate and executive numbers still don’t match, but the reasons for this are related to new differences in the senate and executive accounting methodology. |
Sources: FY26 Executive Budget page 687. Senate FY 22 Appropriations report, page 241 |
|
FY ’10 |
$223.7 |
All the sources below have the same number for FY 10: FY 12 Exec budget appropriates $223.7 for FY10 (page C-20 (pdf page 229)) FY 11 Sen. Appropriations Report says $223.7 for FY 10 FY 12 Exec budget appropriates $223.7 for FY10 FY 22 Sen. Appropriations Report says $223.7 M for FY 10 |
FY 22 Sen Appropriations Report |
|
FY ’11 |
$272.8 |
FY 12 Exec budget says that appropriation of $123M was made in FY ‘10 for FY ‘11. Then in FY ‘11, appropriations were made of $149.1M for FY ‘11 and $100M for FY ‘12 in FY 11. However, the $100M for FY ‘12 was actually for special cash, so won’t be counted. So the final amount for FY ‘11 is $272.8M ($123.7M + $149.1M). The FY 12 Exec Budget numbers were chosen for these reasons: (1) the senate, depending on the source, often changes the amount appropriated for FY ’11 – they give two different numbers for FY 11*, (2) the FY ‘12 executive budget number $272.8 M ($123.7M + $149.1M) matches the FY ‘12 Sen Appropriations number of $272.7M on page 6. *Sen. Appropriations FY ‘22 says $149M for FY ‘11 (we don’t count the $223.7M appropriated to Special cash in FY ‘11). *Sen Approp FY ‘11 says $149.1M for FY ‘11 *Sen Approp FY ‘12 says $149M in the table (we don’t count the $223.7M appropriated to Special cash in FY ‘11) but in the text on page 6 it says $272.7M was appropriated for FY ‘11 and an additional $103M was transferred to Special Cash Fund for FY 12. |
Final Source used for FY ‘11: |
|
FY ’12 |
0 |
The senate appropriations reports of FY ‘13 and FY ‘22, as well as, the Executive Budget from FY ‘13 and FY ’26 show $0 appropriations for FY ‘12. The reason OK Policy’s historical numbers in prior budget highlights is off is likely because we originally included the $100 million transfer from Rainy Day Fund to Special Cash for FY ’12 as an appropriation. However, it should not be counted as appropriations because even though it was a withdrawal from the RDF, it was not appropriated in the FY ‘12 General Appropriations Budget. Also, since OMES does not count it, OK Policy feels stronger in its decision not to include it. |
|
|
FY ’13 |
$45 |
This $45 M passed in May 2013 and was for storm recovery. It had an emergency clause and was an FY ‘13 supplemental, so OMES put it in FY 13, but the Senate put it in FY ‘14. OK Policy chose to maintain consistency in its methodology of accounting and placed it under FY ‘13 appropriations. |
PFD pages 186 and 62. Report pages B-43 and C-19 |
|
FY ’14 |
0 |
|
Sources: FY 2026 Executive Budget page 687 and FY 2022 Senate Appropriations report |
|
FY ’15 |
0 |
The sum of FY ‘15 to 18 appropriations made in the executive budget is $465.18 M, which is equal to the sum of FY ‘16 to 18 appropriations of the senate report. So the differences between the two sources’ allocations for FY 15-18 are in the accounting methods. For FY 2015, the Executive Budget FY 2026 says $150M was appropriated for FY 2015 and $144.4M was appropriated for FY 2016. However, the FY 2022 Senate Report FY 2022 (or FY 2018-19) says $0 was appropriated to FY 15 and $228.6 was appropriated for FY 2016. The senate report is correct in this case based on the bill references and the FY years those bills appropriated money to. Senate Appropriations Report numbers explanation: SB 846 and SB 847 from regular session 2015 appropriated $75M each. Both the bills went into effect July 1st of 2015, which means it was appropriated for FY 2016. SB 1571 (appropriated 27.58M) and SB 1572 (appropriated $51M) from regular session 2016 both had emergency clauses making them effective in FY 2016. This is why FY 2015 appropriations is $0 and FY 2016 appropriations is $228.58 M ($75M +$75M + 27.58M + $51M) Executive budget numbers explanation: Executive budget put SB 846 (appropriates $75M) and SB 847 (appropriates $75M) appropriations in FY 2015 because that’s the FY in which the appropriation was made, but they don’t account for the fact that the appropriation was for FY 2016. For FY 2016, the executive budget adds up all the appropriations made in regular session 2016 and assigns that to FY 2016 regardless of effective dates or emergency clauses and that’s how they get $144.4M ($27.58M + $51M + $65.865M). Note: Revenue Stabilization Fund was created in Session 2016. |
Sources: FY 2026 Executive Budget (or FY 2020 Executive Budget*) vs FY 2022 Senate Appropriations report (or FY ‘18 – ’19 Senate Appropriations Report**). Also, SB 846 and SB 847 from Session 2015, and SB 1571 and SB 1572 from Session 2016.
|
|
FY ’16 |
$228.58 |
||
|
FY ’17 |
$130.25 |
For FY 2017 and FY 2018, both the Executive Budget and Senate Appropriations Report are not consistent in their accounting methods. OK Policy decided to keep its accounting method consistent: Count the appropriations in the FY that the money was appropriated for. To do this, each bill referenced in the Senate Appropriations Report reference column was analyzed, determined when the bills passed and if they had emergency clauses or effective dates and based on that information, designated the bills to either FY 2017 or FY 2018. Final Number explanation: SB 1584 from session 2016 appropriated $65.865M which went into effect July 1st 2016, which means it was appropriated for FY 2017. From session 2017, SB 842 (Appropriated $60.185M) and HB 2342 (Appropriated $4.2M), are the only two bills that went into effect during FY 2017 and therefore are counted in FY 2017. So the total for FY 2017 is: $130.3M ($65.685M + $60.185M + $4.2M). Senate Appropriations Report numbers explanation: They only count SB 1584 passed in regular session 2016 for FY 2017. Executive budget numbers explanation: The executive budget counts up all the bills passed during regular session 2017 (SB 842 [$60.185M], HB 2342 [$4.2M], SB 844 [$32M], SB 852 [$33M], HB 2360 [$18M]) and leaves out SB 1584 [$65.865M] passed in regular session 2016 and HB 1081x [$23.34M] passed in 1st extraordinary session 2017. |
Session 2016 bills SB 1584 (effective July 1, 2016, so FY 2017 appropriation) Session 2017 bills SB 842 (effective June 15, 2017, so FY 2017 appropriation): HB 2342 (emergency clause, so FY 2017 appropriation) SB 844 (Effective July 1, 2017, so FY 2018 appropriation) SB 852 (Effective July 1, 2017, so FY 2018 appropriation) HB 2360 (Effective July 1, 2017, so FY 2018 appropriation) HB 1081x (emergency clause, passed on Oct. 31 in extraordinary session, so FY 2018 appropriation) |
|
FY ’18 |
$106.338 |
See note for FY 2017 for methodology. Final OK Policy number explanation: Bills from regular session 2017 that appropriated money to FY 2018 are counted. These include SB 844 (Appropriated $32M), SB 852 (Appropriated $33M) and HB 2360 (Appropriated $18M), which all went into effect July 1st 2017, aka FY 2018. Also, there was an appropriation made in the 1st extraordinary session of 2017 through HB 2360 which went into effect Oct 31st 2017, aka FY 2018. So the total appropriation for FY 2018 is: $106.338M ($32M+$33M+$18M+$23.338M). Senate Appropriations Report FY 22 numbers Explanation: The senate just added all the bill passed in Regular session 2017 and the extraordinary 2017 session. Executive Budget FY 26 numbers explanation: They only counted HB 2360 passed in the extraordinary 2017 session. |
|
|
FY ’19 |
0 |
No appropriations were made from the Rainy Day Fund. Additionally, no money was appropriated from the Rate Preservation Fund or Revenue Stabilization Fund for FY 2019. Note: Rate Preservation Fund (RPF) was created in session 2019. First Deposit made into Revenue Stabilization Fund was during session 2019. |
Source: SB 1600 (General Appropriations bill) of regular session 2018 Senate Appropriations Report FY 22 |
|
FY ’20 |
$568 |
According to the FY ‘26 Executive Budget, $503 M was appropriated from the CRF, $201.6M of which was deposited to the Revenue Stabilization Fund. Additionally, the Senate Appropriations Report of FY ‘22 shows that $64.1 M was appropriated from the Revenue Stabilization Fund. No money appropriated FROM Rate Preservation Fund for FY 2020 according to Session 2019 GA bill HB 2765. |
Source for CRF: Source for RSF: Source for RPF: |
|
FY ’21 |
$406.2 |
OK Policy’s numbers do match other sources for FY 2021: the GA bill for that year (SB 1922, Sec 9, 50, 80, 104, 117, 124 & 134. ) shows $162.5M was appropriated from the Revenue Stabilization Fund, and we know from the Executive Budget FY 26 and Sen Appropriations Report FY 22 that $243.7M was appropriated from the Rainy Day Fund, which adds up to $406.2M. No appropriations made from Rate Preservation Fund. |
For RSF: General appropriations bill from session 2020 SB 1922 Sec 9, 50, 80, 104, 117, 124 & 134. Or Source for RPF: GA bill session 2020 SB 1922 |
|
FY ’22 |
0 |
Executive Budget FY 24 shows no appropriations made from the Rainy Day Fund. HB 2900 doesn’t make any appropriations from the Rate Preservation Fund or Revenue Stabilization Fund. Some money was appropriated through the “agency revolving fund” which consisted of funds from the FMAP rate preservation fund as well as ARPA money appropriated to the State Recovery Fund. This was not accounted for here. https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/bud25.pdf#page=664 |
Source: Executive Budget Book FY 2024 Source for RPF and RSF: GA bill session 2021 HB 2900 |
|
FY ’23 |
$30.19 |
Executive Budget FY 25 shows no appropriations made from the Rainy Day Fund. Funds appropriated from the Rate Preservation Fund come from the GA bill SB 1040, section 80, 84, 94 – effective July 1st 2022, which is FY 2023. No appropriations made from the Revenue Stabilization Fund for FY 2023. |
Source: Executive Budget Book FY 2025 Source for RPF and RSF: GA bill session 2022 SB 1040 |
|
FY ’24 |
0 |
Executive Budget FY 26 shows no appropriations made from the Rainy Day Fund. GA Bill from Session 2023 HB 1004X does not mention appropriations from Rate Preservation Fund or Revenue Stabilization Fund for FY 2024. |
Source for RDF: Executive Budget Book FY 2026 Source for RPF and RSF: GA bill 1st special session 2023 HB 1004x |
|
FY ’25 |
0 |
No appropriations made from the Rainy Day Fund, the Rate Preservation Fund or Revenue Stabilization Fund in SB 1125 (GA Bill session 2024) |
Source for RPF and RSF: GA bill regular session 2024 SB 1125 |
|
FY ’26 |
$35 |
Sec 154 of HB 2766 makes a transfer of $38.077M from CRF to Special Cash, but that is not counted. No mention of funds transferred from RSF in HB 2766. For RPF, Section 78 HB 2766 mentions $35M appropriated from RPF (GA bill session 2025). |
Source for RPF and RSF: GA bill regular session 2025 HB 2766 |
