Use either the form or links on the side to filter the list of publications. Browse other LAO products using the links at the bottom of the sidebar.
4,639 Publications Found
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 9, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
February 9, 2011 - Presented to: Assembly Subcommittee No. 3 On Resources and Transportation Hon. Richard Gordon, Chair
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 7, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and Revenue and Taxation
February 7, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
February 7, 2011 - Since 2007-08, state support for K-12 education has dropped notably, though this reduction has been partly offset by one-time federal aid and state K-12 payment deferrals. Per-pupil programmatic funding was down 3.7 percent in 2009-10 and 5 percent in 2010-11. To help school districts manage this reduction, the state temporarily removed the strings associated with roughly 40 categorical programs and eliminated various other requirements. We surveyed school districts to gather information regarding how they were being affected by recent federal and state actions. Most importantly, the survey responses show that many districts: (1) have reserved some federal Ed Jobs for 2011–12; (2) would find an additional deferral in 2011–12 more difficult to accommodate; (3) have benefited notably from existing flexibility provisions and desire additional flexibility; and (4) already have increased class sizes notably, instituted furlough days, laid off some teachers, and shortened the school year. Given these survey findings, we identify several ways the Legislature could provide school districts with more flexibility in the short term. We also provide the Legislature with a relatively simple approach for making more lasting improvements to California’s K–12 finance system.
February 4, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation
February 3, 2011 - Presented to the Senate Select Committee on Recovery, Reform, and Realignment. February 2, 2011.
February 3, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 State Administration and General Government
February 3, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration
February 3, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government
February 3, 2011 - This responds to Senator Padilla's request that we conduct an independent review of the Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program at the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC). This program, which will automatically expire unless extended through legislative action, provides grants for research to develop energy technologies that benefit the environment, provide greater electricity system reliability, and lower system costs. We find that (1) the CEC has not demonstrated that there has been a substantial payoff to date from the state’s investment of more than $700 million in ratepayer funds, (2) there is a role for the state to continue to support public interest energy research, and (3) if the Legislature decides that there should be a continuing state role in this area of research, improvements could be made to the implementation of this role, including tightening funding eligibility parameters and changing the process by which research funding is allocated.
February 2, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee