^[PDF] The 2019-20 Budget: Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

The 2019-20 Budget: Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2019/3933/natural-resources-environmental-protection-021419.pdf

^[PDF] Overview of Legislature’s Budget Package

General Fund Condition Under Legislature’s Budget Package (In Millions) 2020-21 2021-22 Prior-year fund balance $6,361 $28,213 Revenues and transfers 187,661 173,711 Expenditures 165,809 195,548 Ending Fund Balance $28,213 $6,376 Encumbrances $3,175 $3,175 Reserves SFEU $25,038 $3,201 Budget Stabilization Account 12,034 15,874 Safety Net Reserve 450 1,200 Total Reserves $37,522 $20,275 SFEU = Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/FO/2021/overview-budget-package-061421.pdf

^[PDF] Key Fiscal and Policy Issues Facing California

Cities and counties spend roughly $30 billion annually. The Legislature’s role in defining crimes and what penalties they carry can significantly affect the cost of the system. WHAT ARE KEY LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS?
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2024/4830/Key-Fiscal-and-Policy-Issues-Facing-California-020724.pdf

^[PDF] Assessing California’s Climate Policies—An Overview

Some Policies Result in Substantial Economic Transfers. As discussed earlier, some of the most visible effects of state climate policies are transfers of money, rather than net economic costs. For example, cap-and-trade results in a large transfer of money from households and businesses that pay—either directly or indirectly—for allowances needed to cover their emissions.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2018/3911/climate-policies-overview-122118.pdf

^[PDF] Assessing California’s Climate Policies—Transportation

Another benefit cited for consumers that drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, including ZEVs, is that their ongoing costs of ownership will be lower, largely because of reduced fuel and maintenance costs.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2018/3912/climate-policies-transportation-122118.pdf

^[PDF] The 2023-24 Budget: Considering Inflation’s Effects on State Programs

Both types of projects may be infrastructure in the broad sense, with differences— like ownership of the asset—making one but not the other eligible for administrative augmentation. As the Legislature considers the Governor’s budget, we suggest it also consider which programs have preexisting processes for adjusting for inflation and which do not and whether automatic adjustments align with its priorities.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2022/4647/Inflation-Effects-on-State-Programs-111622.pdf

Review of The Orange County Recovery Plan as Proposed August 22, 1995

The pool consisted of funds from Orange County as well as approximately 240 other local agencies, including school districts, cities, and special districts. A significant share of the pool consisted of proceeds of debt issuances by the County and other agencies, some of which were made for the purpose of investing in the pool.
https://lao.ca.gov/1995/090195_orange_county/orange.html

Overview of the 1996-97 Governor's Budget

About one-half of this difference is due to the Governor's revenue proposals and a variety of other administrative assumptions, regarding such factors as transfers from special funds and revenue accruals.
https://lao.ca.gov/1996/011896_bud_overview/pb11896.html

Overview of the 1997-98 May Revision

The May Revision proposes to return $100 million of the approximately $3.4 billion in property taxes that were transferred from counties, cities, and special districts to schools as part of previous budget agreements.
https://lao.ca.gov/1997/051997_may_revision/pb051997_may_revision.html

^[PDF] An LAO Report Sheltering the Homeless: Alternatives to the Armories

Both the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County contributed significant funding. In addition, other local cities agreed to pay a share of costs based on the number of their residents using the facility.
https://lao.ca.gov/1997/120397_homeless/120397_armory.pdf