November 15, 2017 - Debt service is a significant General Fund expenditure. In this post, we discuss how we estimate the state’s debt burden will change over the forecast period.
This is part of a collection of material for The 2018-19 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook. See a complete list of this year's fiscal outlook material on our fiscal outlook budget page.
February 5, 2007 - 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
February 20, 2008 - Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill, Infrastructure Chapter
August 25, 2011 - 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.
January 6, 1994 - The Legislature faces important decisions on the bond package to be placed on the 1994 ballots. We urge the Legislature not to use an arbitrary debt-service ratio as the sole or driving factor in making decisions on bonds. The key consideration should be the tradeoff of using state revenues to pay debt service on bonds to develop infrastructure versus using these revenues to support or enhance other state programs. It is critical that the Legislature establish infrastructure priorities and target future state bonds to address these priorities.
November 18, 2009 - Our forecast of California’s General Fund revenues and expenditures shows that the state must address a General Fund budget problem of $20.7 billion between now and the time the Legislature enacts a 2010–11 state budget plan. The budget problem consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for 2009–10 and a $14.4 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2010–11. Addressing this large shortfall will require painful choices—on top of the difficult choices the Legislature made earlier this year.
January 30, 2006 - We review infrastructure proposals in the Strategic Growth Initiative related to transportation. Presented to the Assembly Transportation Committee, Hon. Jenny Oropeza, Chair
November 20, 2008 - The state’s struggling economy has severely reduced expected revenues. Combined with rising state expenses, we project that the state will need $27.8 billion in budget solutions over the 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years. The state’s revenue collapse is so dramatic and the underlying economic factors are so weak that we forecast huge budget shortfalls through 2013-14 absent corrective action. From 2010-11 through 2013-14, we project annual shortfalls that are consistently in the range of $22 billion. Closing a projected $28 billion budget shortfall will be a monumental task. We believe the Legislature must take major ongoing actions by both reducing base spending and increasing revenues. If the Legislature has any hope of developing a fiscally responsible 2009–10 budget, it must begin laying the groundwork now.
February 1, 1991 - In this analysis, we examine some of the major infrastructure- related problems facing the Legislature. These include: (1) identifying the state's infrastructure needs; (2) setting priorities to meet these needs; (3) assessing the state's ability to finance additional bonded indebtedness needed for infrastructure; and (4) establishing a financing plan to carry out the Legislature's priorities, including the extent and timing of future bond measure submittals to the voters.