^[PDF] Overview of Adult Education

Adult Education Block Grant Created in 2015-16 6L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T ’ S O F F I C E March 10, 2016  Funding Provided to Regional Consortia in Two Parts in 2015-16  Hold harmless funding. – Up to $375 million for school districts and county offi ces of education that operated adult education programs in 2012-13 and subsequently became members of regional consortia.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2016/Adult-Education-031016.pdf

^[PDF] Overview of Federal Funding for K-12 and Early Childhood Education

Federal government allocates funding directly to local entities, including school districts, county offi ces of education, and nonprofi t organizations.  Provide child care and preschool programs to low-income families.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2017/K12-and-ECE-Funding-Overview-022817.pdf

Overview of Proposition 218 "The Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative"

School and community college districts, state agencies, cities and counties, and other public agencies would have increased costs to pay their share of assessments. The amount of t his costs is not known, but could total over $10 million initially, and increasing amounts in the future.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/proposition218_handout.html

^[PDF] Overview of Proposition 218 “The Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative”

These local increased costs are unknown, but could exceed $10 million initially, and lesser amounts annually after that. 3 School and community college districts, state agencies, cities and counties, and other public agencies would have increased costs to pay their share of assessments.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/proposition218_handout.pdf

^[PDF] Department of Fish and Game: Funding Issues

Department of Fish and Game’s Funding Sources General Fund (13%) Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF) (33%) Various Other Special Fundsb (10%) Federal Funds (22%) Fines, Penalties and Taxes (3%) Regulatory Fees (5%) Fishing and Hunting Licenses (90%) FGPF Revenue Sources a Includes Environmental License Plate Fund and Public Resources Account. b Includes Oil Spill Prevention
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/resources/2005/DFG_Funding_Issues_041105.pdf

^[PDF] Options for Funding Water-Related Activities

Impose charge based on potential contaminant such as chemicals (for example, on pesticides).  Water Use Tax. Impose tax on consumers based on amount of water used. Revenues could be allocated by state or maintained at local level where generated.  Broad Special Tax.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/resources/2016/Options-Funding-Water-Related-Activities-030816.pdf

^[PDF] Overview of Mental Health Services and Funding for Foster Children

L E G I S L AT I V E A N A LY S T ’ S O F F I C E 2 (Continued) Multiple State and County Entities Responsible for Ensuring Appropriate Care for Foster Children. These include:  County Welfare Departments.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/socservices/2018/Mental-Health-Services-Overview.pdf

^[PDF] Overview of Transportation Funding

Local funding sources include local sales taxes, transit fares, development impact fees, and property taxes.  About one-fourth of the state’s transportation funding comes from the federal government.  The remaining one-fourth of funding comes from various state revenue sources—primarily excise taxes on gasoline.  In addition to the funds
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2015/Overview-of-Transportation-Funding041615.pdf

^[PDF] The Bay-Delta: A Key to Solving California's Water Problem

., September is a major month for tax collec- tions, as it includes quarterly estimated pay- ments from both individuals and corporations as well as a variety of other key payments. Collections for this period should provide the first significant indication of how the underlying trend in revenues during 1996-97 compares to that assumed in the 1996 Budget Act.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1996/update_california_9-1996.pdf

^[PDF] AB32: Analysis of Two Studies by Varshney and Associates

.  The V&T also used the IMPLAN model to make estimates of the impacts of the SP on employment, labor income, and tax receipts. This analysis pre- dicted, for example, that the three scenarios would result in job losses of about 430,000, 900,000, and 1.1 million, respectively.  The V&T’s estimate that the SP would cost California’s small businesses an average of $50,000
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2010/rsrc/ab32_econ_review/ab32_econ_review_030910.pdf