To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
February 16, 2011 - In our report The 2011-12 Budget: Should California End Redevelopment Agencies? (http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/2440), we analyzed the California Redevelopment Association’s study regarding the economic effects of redevelopment. We concluded that this study significantly overstated the number of jobs resulting from redevelopment. After publication, the researchers explained to us why they thought two of our three reasons were partly incorrect. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the extent to which we agree and disagree with their observations. While we appreciate the additional information on this study, the information provided does not change our criticisms of the study or our finding that it vastly overstates the employment effects of redevelopment.
February 14, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Budget Oversight and Program Evaluation
February 10, 2011 - In this 15-minute video, LAO State Finance Director Jason Sisney describes why public employee retirement costs have risen substantially in recent years for California governments and the Legislature's options for creating new types of retirement benefits for future state and local employees. At the same time, as Sisney discusses, the Legislature may have to identify new funding soon to address substantial unfunded liabilities in the teachers' and University of California retirement systems, among others.
February 8, 2011 - California’s expansive use of redevelopment has engendered significant controversy. Program advocates contend that it is a much needed tool to promote economic development in blighted areas. Program critics counter that it diverts property tax revenues from core government services and increases state education costs. The Governor’s budget includes a plan for dissolving redevelopment agencies and distributing their funds (above the amounts necessary to pay outstanding debt) to other local agencies. We find that the administration’s proposal has merit, but suggest recognizing all the redevelopment revenues as property taxes.
Note: In a letter dated February 16th, 2011 we responded to questions regarding our analysis of the California Redevelopment Association’s study of the economic effects of redevelopment included in this report.February 7, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and Revenue and Taxation
February 3, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 State Administration and General Government
February 3, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government
February 2, 2011 - Presented to Senate Governance and Finance Committee
February 1, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration
January 31, 2011 - The Governor proposes (1) $52 million to pay for noneducation mandates and (2) to suspend mandates relating to absentee ballots and open meetings. In this handout we summarize the Governor’s proposals and discuss alternatives for legislative consideration.
January 26, 2011 - Presented to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance. January 26, 2011.
January 18, 2011 - 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.
September 22, 2010 - Presented to: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Senate Local Government Committee. September 22, 2010.
June 24, 2010 - Presented to: Conference Committee on the Budget
June 17, 2010 - Presented to The Conference Committee on the Budget