2004-05 Budget Perspectives and Issues: Deficiencies--Rethinking Unexpected Expenses

Some of the funding transferred this year has not met the tests for using Section 27.00, and the transfers were made over the objections of the Legislature. Overstep of Authority. The administration also has proposed transfers of funds pursuant to Section 27.00 (b) that did not comply with the 5  percent limit on such transfers.
https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2004/2004_pandi/pi_part_5b_deficiencies_anl04.htm

LAO 2005 Budget Analysis: Judicial Branch (0250)

We also think that the proposed reauthorization of the undesignated fees transfer has merit to the extent that courts bear the costs of p roviding the services for which the fees are being collected.
https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2005/crim_justice/cj_04_0250_anl05.htm

LAO 2006 Budget Analysis: Facilities Emergency Repair Program

However, it is likely this amount will increase before the final budget is passed, as typically additional u nexpended funds from prior years are identified and transferred into the Reversion Account during the second half of the fiscal year.
https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/education/ed_13_anl06.html

LAO 2006 Budget Analysis: Federal Funds

Although we think that proposal is reasonable in that it would transfer unused funds to the most struggling schools, the transfer likely would require federal approval. We therefore recommend the Legislature direct the California Department of Education to seek federal approval for making such a transfer.
https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/education/ed_14_anl06.html

LAO 2006 Budget Analysis: Migrant Education

These funds essentially would allow for a more gradua l transfer of student programs from the existing MEP centers to the districts themselves. Existing MEP centers also could use the transitional funding to provide training and technical assistance, as well as transfer services and staff to the district level.
https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/education/ed_15_anl06.html

LAO 2006 Budget Analysis: Department of Conservation (3480)

Grants to cities and counties for litter abatement and recycling activities ($11爉illion). Infrastructure loan guarantees ($10爉illion). Grants to encourage new and expanded end-uses for aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers ($10爉illion).
https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/resources/res_05_3480_anl06.html

LAO 2006 Budget Analysis: Funding for Transportation Programs

Guaranteeing Proposition 42 Transfers Improves Funding Predictability; Removes Budget Balancing Tool. Currently, the state can suspend partially or fully the Proposition 42 transfer when the Governor and the Legislature agree that making the transfer “will result in a significant negative fiscal impact on the range of functions of government funded by the General Fund.”
https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/transportation/tran_02_anl06.html

2005 Initiative Analysis: Preschool for All Act

Transfers into and maintenance of operations and facilities reserve funds. The SPI would determine a uniform statewide per-pupil rate for distribution of funds to COEs. In the early years of implementation, funds would be distributed based on the number of four-year-olds in each county.
https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2005/050658.htm

2006 Initiative Analysis: Redistricting Reform: The Empowering Democracy Act

The plan must minimize the splitting of counties and cities into multiple districts. After meeting the other requirements, the plan would also aim to maximize the number of “competitive” districts. The commission would develop its own criteria to define compe titiveness.
https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2006/060012.htm

^[PDF] California Flat Tax

Increased transfers would occur from the General Fund to transportation-related funds per Proposition 42 of about $1 billion in 2008-09 and more than $2 billion per year annually thereafter. • Tax Agency Administrative Costs.
https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2007/070642.pdf