Presented to Senate Committee on Governance and Finance and Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water

California’s infrastructure includes a diverse array of capital facilities across many program areas. Additionally, the state provides funding for local public infrastructure such as K-12 schools and local streets and roads. Over the last decade, infrastructure costs have taken up a larger share of the state’s budget, yet the state’s infrastructure demands continue to grow. In this report, we summarize the state’s infrastructure spending and provide ideas for planning and funding future infrastructure. Specifically, we recommend that the Legislature establish a more coordinated process for financing infrastructure. Throughout the report, we also highlight ways the state could manage infrastructure to reduce state costs such as prioritizing the state’s infrastructure investments to the most critical and appropriate programs, adopting strategies to reduce infrastructure demand, and identifying additional revenue to support infrastructure.

The 2011-12 Governor’s Budget proposes to dissolve redevelopment agencies and shift the revenue to other state and local programs. In this initial overview we provide background on redevelopment agencies, assess the Governor’s proposal, and provide some additional issues for the Legislature to consider.

In a previous analysis, we pointed out that the sale-leaseback of state buildings authorized in 2009 legislation was poor fiscal policy and represented one imperfect option among many for balancing the state’s budget. Mainly due to changes in the interpretation of property tax assessments, our forecast of the cost of the sale-leaseback is approximately $800 million greater than our previous analysis. The Legislature may wish to consider whether this increase in costs merits changing course.

Recent legislation authorized the Department of General Services (DGS) to sell and then lease back 11 state-owned office properties. The sale-leaseback is designed to free up the state’s equity in the buildings to provide one-time revenue for addressing the state’s current budgetary shortfall. We estimate that the sale of buildings would result in one-time revenue to the state of between $600 million and $1.4 billion, but that annual leasing costs would eventually exceed ownership costs by approximately $200 million. Over the lives of these buildings, we estimate the transaction would cost the state between $600 million and $1.5 billion. The Legislature will need to weigh how these costs compare to other alternatives for addressing the state’s budget shortfall. In our view, taking on long-term obligations—like the lease payments on these buildings—in exchange for one-time revenue to pay for current services is bad budgeting practice as it simply shifts costs to future years. Therefore, we encourage the Legislature to strongly consider other budget alternatives.

(Short video introducing this report)

In this short video, analyst Mark Whitaker discusses the LAO report "Evaluating the Sale-Leaseback Proposal: Should the State Sell its Office Buildings?"

This report presents a summary of reports received by the LAO from California counties on construction projects that they completed with the design-build delivery method. Although it was difficult to draw conclusions from the reports received about the effectiveness of design-build compared to other project delivery methods, we do not think that the reports provide any evidence that would discourage the Legislature from granting design-build authority to local agencies on an ongoing basis. In doing so, however, we recommend the Legislature consider some changes such as creating uniform design-build statute, eliminating cost limitations, and requiring project cost to be a larger factor in awarding the design-build contract.

Sent to: Members, Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee and Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee

We examine the steps that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has taken to implement Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007 (AB 900, Solorio) which authorized a total of approximately $7.7 billion for a broad package of prison construction and rehabilitation initiatives in order to relieve the significant overcrowding problems facing state prisons. Based on our review, we identify several issues that merit legislative consideration. For example, we note that the department’s construction cost estimates for the infill bed projects reflect an almost quadrupling of costs since the last state prison was built about seven years ago. Moreover, we find that the cost to operate the infill bed and reentry facilities and pay the annual debt service for the lease-revenue bonds to construct these facilities will be significant. Based on the department’s estimates, when fully implemented, the infill bed and reentry facilities could increase General Fund costs by $1.3 billion annually.

Item 5225-301-0001 of the 2008 Budget Conference Committee (page 330).

Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill, Infrastructure Chapter

The Governor’s budget proposes to ask for voter approval of $48 billion in general obligation bonds. In this piece, we provide an update on the implementation of the bond package approved in 2006, describe the Governor’s new bond-related proposals, and analyze how the proposed additional bonds would affect the state’s debt-service payments for infrastructure.review infrastructure

Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill, Capital Outlay Chapter

Our office recently issued Implementing the 2006 Bond Package, aimed at helping the Legislature in overseeing the spending of the $43 billion in bond funds just approved by the voters. This report is intended to complement the report on the 2006 bond package. It answers basic questions about the state’s use of bonds to finance its infrastructure.review infrastructure

At her media presentation held on January 22nd, 2007, Elizabeth Hill discusses recommendations to assist the Legislature in implementing the bond package approved by voters in November 2006. (Windows Media format.)