February 27, 2023 - In this post, we analyze the Governor’s 2023-24 budget proposal to change the funding approach for various California Highway Patrol and Department of Motor Vehicles capital outlay projects from the General Fund to lease revenue bonds.
August 9, 1994 - Two bond measures totaling $1.2 billion will be considered by California voters in November. The Legislature soon must decide which, if any, additional general obligation bond measures to place on the November 1994 ballot. The following factors must be considered as the Legislature makes these decisions. (1) Tens of billions of dollars will be needed over the next five years to meet the state’s identified capital outlay needs; (2) Only $1.3 billion of previously authorized general; obligation bonds are available to address these needs; (3) How well the state addresses its capital outlay needs will influence the state’s future competitiveness and economic growth, and Californians’ quality of life; (4) the state’s annual debt burden has risen sharply in recent years. These debt costs are a direct trade-off to using General Fund monies for support of other state programs.
February 27, 2024 - This report provides information and recommendations for the Legislature to consider regarding various environmental and transportation special funds that are at risk of insolvency.
December 1, 1987 - This report deals with the general subject of bond financing, including the policy factors which the Legislature must consider regarding the use of bonds.
March 6, 2014 - The Governor’s budget provides a total of $16.7 billion from various fund sources—the General Fund, special funds, bond funds, federal funds, and reimbursements for various transportation departments and programs under the Transportation Agency in 2014-15. This is a decline of $560 million, or 3.2 percent, below estimated expenditures for the current year. In this report, we review the Governor’s 2014-15 budget proposals for various transportation departments and programs, including the California Department of Transportation, the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the California Highway Patrol, and the Department of Motor Vehicles. We identify concerns with several of the proposals and make recommendations for legislative consideration. For example, we find that the Governor's high-speed rail proposals raise several issues. Specifically, we find (1) using cap-and-trade auction revenues for high-speed rail may not maximize greenhouse gas reductions, (2) there currently is not a funding plan to complete the project’s Initial Operating Segment, (3) it is unclear how much cap-and-trade revenue will actually be available for high-speed rail in the future, and (4) that bond funds approved in Proposition 1A for high-speed rail currently face legal risks.
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.
February 20, 2002 - We discuss the Governor's different types of budget balancing borrowing ($4.8 billion) and the factors that should be focused on by the Legislature in evaluating these proposals and other types of borrowing options.
January 1, 1992 - The Legislature faces critical decisions on the bond package to be placed on the 1992 ballots. In this policy brief, we discuss the many considerations involved in making these decisions in light of the large magnitude of the state's infrastructure needs.
November 30, 2005 - Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee and Assembly Select Committee on Growth and Infrastructure
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
April 25, 2013 - Presented to: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
May 3, 1995 - Uses and Costs of Lease-Payment Bonds
May 3, 1995 - The Legislature has authorized $6.4 billion in /ease-payment bonds since 1983 and the Governor's Budget proposes $3.3 billion in new authorizations for 1995-96. Annual debt service costs on /ease-payment bonds have increased by almost $200 million over the last three years. For several reasons, total debt service costs for lease-payment bonds are significantly higher than general obligation bonds. We therefore recommend that the Legislature (1) minimize the use of lease-payment bonds in the future and (2) establish a multiyear plan to address its highest priority capital outlay needs using less costly financing alternatives-either direct appropriations or general obligation bonds. We also recommend a course of action for the budget year.
February 20, 2008 - Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill, Infrastructure Chapter