Back to the Report

More publications like . . .

The 2016-17 Budget: The Governor's State Office Building Proposal


Report

[PDF] The Administration’s Sacramento Office Building Construction Strategy: Ensuring Robust Oversight

December 14, 2016 - This report provides background information on Sacramento state office buildings and summarizes the actions taken in the 2016-17 budget process. It assesses the administration’s regional strategy for state office buildings in the Sacramento area. Finally, it provides recommendations to assist the Legislature as it faces key decision points related to the administration’s strategy.

Post

The 2018-19 Budget: The May Revision—State Project Infrastructure Fund

May 14, 2018 - The Governor’s May Revision proposes to deposit an additional $630 million General Fund into the continuously appropriated State Project Infrastructure Fund (SPIF). This funding is anticipated to fund the renovation of the Bateson, Unruh, and Resources Buildings, as well as the demolition of the State Printing Plant. We find that if these projects are a legislative priority for General Fund resources, it is reasonable to set aside funding for them. However, we continue to have serious concerns with the SPIF, which we find limits legislative oversight. Accordingly, we recommend modifying the SPIF so that it is no longer continuously appropriated.

Report

[PDF] The 2016-17 Budget: Overview of the Governor's Budget

January 11, 2016 - This publication is our office’s initial response to the 2016-17 Governor’s Budget proposal. Estimates of state personal income taxes and required school funding are up significantly. In allocating discretionary resources in the 2016-17 budget, the Governor prioritizes growing state budget reserves. Specifically, he increases total reserves to more than $10 billion and also allocates a sizable portion of discretionary resources to one-time infrastructure spending. We encourage the Legislature, as it crafts this year’s budget in line with its own priorities, to begin with a robust target for reserves for the end of 2016-17 and to concentrate spending on one-time purposes. This would still leave some funds available for targeted ongoing commitments—particularly if the Legislature extends the managed care organization (MCO) tax. Such a measured approach would better position the state for any near-term economic downturn.

Post

The 2017-18 Budget: Department of General Services

February 3, 2017 - This analysis includes reviews of the following budget proposals for DGS in the Governor’s 2017-18 budget plan:

  • State Project Infrastructure Funding in 2017-18
  • Sacramento Region: State Printing Plant Demolition Preliminary Plans
  • Zero Emission Vehicle Project
  • Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (AB 2515)
  • Building Standards Commission, Exterior Elevated Elements (SB 465)

Report

The 2020-21 Budget: Department of General Services

February 12, 2020 - In this analysis, we assess the Governor’s 2020‑21 budget proposals for the Department of General Services (DGS). Specifically, we review and make recommendations regarding the Governor’s proposals for (1) additional staff for Contracted Fiscal Services (CFS) workload, including the establishment of a new strike team to assist departments performing accounting activities with the Financial Information System for California (FI$Cal); (2) renovating the Resources, Bateson, and Unruh buildings, and (3) funding elevator and fire system‑related deferred maintenance projects.

Post

The 2018-19 Budget: Department of General Services

February 20, 2018 - This analysis includes reviews of the following 2018‑19 budget proposals for DGS: (1) the construction of three state office buildings in the Sacramento area—Richards Boulevard, Bateson, and Unruh projects; and (2) Zero-Emission Vehicles.

Report

Overhauling the State's Infrastructure--Planning and Financing Process

December 21, 1998 - We recommend that the Legislature overhaul the planning of the state's infrastructure by developing an integrated statewide infrastructure plan.

Report

[PDF] The 2018-19 Budget: Overview of the Governor's Budget

January 12, 2018 - This publication is our office’s initial response to the Governor’s 2018-19 budget. In the proposed plan, the Governor places a high priority on building reserves, proposing a total reserve balance of nearly $16 billion. We believe the Governor’s continued focus on building more reserves is prudent in light of economic and federal budget uncertainty. In addition to building reserves, the Governor’s proposed budget allocates sizeable funding increases available within the constitutionally required guarantee for schools and community colleges and supports a variety of new infrastructure projects. This report also discusses how new federal tax changes may affect state revenues and reasons why we believe there could be more resources available in May.

Report

The 2019-20 Budget: Transportation Proposals

February 26, 2019 - The Governor's budget provides a total of $23.5 billion from various fund sources for all transportation departments and programs in 2019-20. This is a net increase of $1.4 billion, or 6 percent, over estimated current-year expenditures. In this report, we (1) review the Governor's 2019-20 transportation proposals, including those for the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA), the implementation of REAL ID, and the high-speed rail project, and (2) identify issues for legislative consideration.

Report

A Review of the 2002 California Infrastructure Plan

December 19, 2002 - We review the administration's report, 2002: California's Five-Year Infrastructure Plan, its first legislatively mandated plan for funding public sector capital outlay needs. We examine its strengths and suggest improvements for future plans.

Report

The 2014-15 Budget: A Review of the 2014 California Five-Year Infrastructure Plan

February 10, 2014 - In this report, we review California’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan, the first statewide infrastructure plan released by the administration since 2008. We commend the administration’s renewed focus on infrastructure. We also find that the plan raises some important policy issues related to the financing and maintenance of state infrastructure and serves as a valuable starting point for legislative discussions. However, we note that the plan does not include some key information and suggest some changes that could make the plan more helpful to the Legislature. In addition, given the size of the state’s infrastructure investments and their long-term nature, we recommend that the Legislature take a more active role in considering infrastructure in a comprehensive way. In order to assist the Legislature, we suggest some broad questions it may find helpful in guiding future discussions. We further suggest that the Legislature consider how, as an institution, it addresses infrastructure issues—for example, by creating a joint infrastructure committee.