^[PDF] Overview of the Governor's Budget 1993-94

More specifically, the budget proposes to lower K-12 school funding in the current year by $315 million, and to use $122 million of the $525 million “overappropriation” to pay for outstanding Proposition 98 obligations from prior years.
https://lao.ca.gov/1993/Overview_Gov_Budget_170_0193.pdf

^[PDF] Overview of the May Revision 1993-94

The shift would reallocate $2.6 billion of property tax revenue from local govern- ments to schools in order to reduce the state’s education funding requirement Figure 4 New Budget Solutions Proposed in the May Revision a
https://lao.ca.gov/1993/Overview_May_Revision_176_0593.pdf

^[PDF] California Update: 1993-94 Budget Enacted

California Update: 1993-94 Budget Enacted -25 General Fund Revenue Performance For May 1993 In May, the Departmentof Finance increased its January forecast for General Fund rev- enues for 1992-93 and 1993-94.
https://lao.ca.gov/1993/reports/cal_update_0793.pdf

^[PDF] California Update: Superior Court Invalidates Proposition 98 Funding Shifts

Types of Funding Shifts Thestate deems funds originallyappropriated in one fiscal year as a loan, to be repaid by schools from appropriations in the subsequent fiscal year. The state has implemented recaptures when there has been a mid-year reduction In the estimate of the minimum amount of state school support required under Proposition 98.
https://lao.ca.gov/1993/reports/cal_update_superior_court_invalidates_prop_98_59_1193.pdf

^[PDF] Local Government Property Tax Transfers

This is because the budget proposal (1) maintains the current-year require- ment that RDAs transfer to schools an amount equal to 16 percent of agency property tax revenues and (2) further limits agency property tax revenues to the dollar amount needed to pay that year's debt service.
https://lao.ca.gov/1993/reports/local_gov_prop_tax_transfer_151_0293.pdf

^[PDF] Performance Budgeting: Reshaping The State’s Budget Process

Performance Budgeting: Reshaping The State’s Budget Process Legislative Analyst's Office October 25, 1993 'II BACKGROUND It is hard for most people to get excited about the state budget process with its mountain of numbers, intricate details, and end- less jargon.
https://lao.ca.gov/1993/reports/mgwb_performance_budgeting_183_1093.pdf

^[PDF] Trial Court Funding

Currently AB 32 (Isenberg) is moving through the Legislature to provide the distribution formula for the Trial Court Trust Fund revenues in the current year. However, the bill is silent about the distribution of trust funds in the budget year.
https://lao.ca.gov/1993/reports/trial_court_funding_0393_reprint.pdf

MAJOR FEATURES OF THE 1994 CALIFORNIA BUDGET

Including funds available as a result of the fee increases, the UC will experience an increase of $76.4 million, or 4.3 percent, above the current year. In its plan, the Legislature provided (1) a 3 percent faculty and staff salary increase beginning on October 1, 1994; (2) merit salary increases for faculty and staff; and (3) $25 million in new lease-payment revenue bonds for priority-one deferred maintenance projects.
https://lao.ca.gov/1994/94budget.html

^[PDF] Bonds and the 1994 Ballots

In addition, some of the assumptions used in establishing the 10-year financing scheme are no longer valid. For example, the 10-year total excluded any additional state bonds for K-12 school projects.
https://lao.ca.gov/1994/Bonds_and_1994_Ballots.pdf

THE PRESIDENT'S WELFARE REFORM PROPOSAL:

Another significant change in the President's proposal is that mandatory participation is limited to those born after 1971 (initially, those under age 25). Thus, with each passing year, the age limit for those required to participate in the program will increase, thereby resulting in an increasing percentage of mandatory participants.
https://lao.ca.gov/1994/clinwelf.htm