2002-03 May Revision

The budget plan defers funding for about $1.6  billion of local agency mandate reimbursement claims, roughly half of which would have been paid to cities and counties. Issues and Considerationsfor the Legislature In evaluating the May Revision proposal, the Legislature may find it helpful to focus on three general questions: First, does the budget plan work?
https://lao.ca.gov/2002/may_revise/0502_may_revision.html

^[PDF] Enhancing Implementation and Oversight: Proposition 40 Resources Bond

Figure 1 Allocations of Proposition 40 Funds by Recipient Agency (In Millions) State Department $1,915.0 Parks and Recreation Acquisition and development of state parks 225.0 Parks and Recreation Local assistance 790.0 State Coastal Conservancy Land/water resource acquisition/restoration 200.0 San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program (Coastal Conservancy) Land/water resource
https://lao.ca.gov/2002/prop_40/prop_40_050702.pdf

California Spending Plan 2002: Chapter 4

The administration had initially proposed to reduce transfers of General Fund resources to the Cancer Research Fund by $25  million. But the budget plan that was finally adopted reflects a revised proposal by the Governor to restore $12.5  million from the General Fund that is to be matched by an equal amount of private-sector contributions for continued cancer research efforts.
https://lao.ca.gov/2002/spend_plan_02/0902_spend_plan_chap_4.html

New Mandates: Analysis of Measures Requiring Reimbursement

In 2000, the Legislature established a new trial court employee personnel system, transferring responsibility for court employment from counties to the courts. Finally, in 2002, the Legislature created a process for transferring trial court facilities from counties to the state.
https://lao.ca.gov/2003/state_mandates/state_mandates_1203.html

Supplemental Report 2002-03

The project will provide new emergency medium-voltage distribution switchgear, circuit breaker transfer switches, and retrofits the existing medium-voltage circuit breakers. This project will also provide a 1950 sf building addition to house the new electrical equipment.
https://lao.ca.gov/2003/supp_report/supp_rpt_2003_budget_act.html

^[PDF] Overview of the 2005-06 May Revision

Restore/Augment Spending—$1.7 Billion • Proposition 42 transfer to transportation—$1.3 billion. • Proposition 98 settle-up payments—$0.3 billion. • Senior citizens’ property tax and renters’ assistance programs—$0.1 billion.
https://lao.ca.gov/2005/may_revision/051605_may_revision.pdf

^[PDF] Overview of the 2008-09 May Revision

Transfers Out of the RSF. Unlike the state’s current reserves, the Legislature could not gener‑ ally access the funds in the RSF, including in cases of fiscal emergencies. Instead, funds could only be transferred from the RSF to the General Fund (by a two‑thirds legislative vote) in years in which General Fund revenues were forecasted to grow less than the cap set by the ten–year average growth rate—up to the amount of the cap.
https://lao.ca.gov/2008/bud/may_revise/may_revise_051908.pdf

^[PDF] 2009-10 Budget Analysis Series: Federal Economic Stimulus Package: Fiscal Effect on California

2009-10 Budget Analysis Series: Federal Economic Stimulus Package: Fiscal Effect on California
https://lao.ca.gov/2009/bud/fed_stimulus/fed_stimulus_031009.pdf

^[PDF] Department of Real Estate: Opportunities to Improve Consumer Protection

Department of Real Estate: Opportunities to Improve Consumer Protection
https://lao.ca.gov/2009/trns/real_estate/real_estate_051209.pdf

^[PDF] The 2016-17 Budget: Fiscal Impacts of Proposition 47

Regardless of the administration’s ultimate decision on the transfer amount, the Legislature could chose to provide additional funding to the programs funded by the SNSF. HOW TO PAY FOR SNSF DEPOSIT IN 2016-17?
https://lao.ca.gov/Reports/2016/3352/fiscal-impacts-prop47-021216.pdf