Staff
Chas Alamo
(916) 319-8357
Personal Income Tax, Employment, and Labor Law
Ann Hollingshead
(916) 319-8305
State Budget and Federal Funding
Nick Schroeder
(916) 319-8314
Public Employment, CalPERS, Elections, Veterans Affairs
Angela Short
(916) 319-8309
Child Welfare, Child Support, Community Services and Development, Community Care Licensing, CalSTRS
Jared Sippel
(916) 319-8335
Emergency Services and Business Regulation
Seth Kerstein
(916) 319-8365
Sales and Excise Taxes and Demographics


Publications

Other Government Areas

To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.



Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 2

August 22, 2014 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 2 (Attorneys). Bargaining Unit 2 is represented by California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 10

May 29, 2014 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 10 (Scientists). Bargaining Unit 10 is represented by the California Association of Professional Scientists. If adopted, the MOU would modestly increase state costs beginning in 2014-15.


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 13

May 19, 2014 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 13 (Stationary Engineers). Bargaining Unit 13 is represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers. If adopted, the MOU would modestly increase state costs beginning in 2014-15.


Report

Addressing California's Key Liabilities

May 7, 2014 - This report categorizes and provides information about $340 billion in California's key retirement, infrastructure, and budgetary liabilities. In addition, this report provides a framework for the Legislature to consider in prioritizing repayment of these liabilities and makes recommendations on which liabilities to pay down first and how the state could address such costs in the future. In general, we suggest that the Legislature prioritize actions to pay down those liabilities (1) with relatively high interest rates or (2) that result in benefits for groups or entities other than the state government. Due to its massive unfunded liability and relatively high growth rate, we recommend that the Legislature make a full funding plan for the California State Teachers' Retirement System a top priority in addressing the state's key liabilities.


Report

The 2014-15 Budget: State Worker Salary, Health Benefit, and Pension Costs

March 4, 2014 - The Governor's budget proposes $24 billion to pay salary and benefit costs for state workers in 2014-15, up from an estimated $23.5 billion in the current year. The increased costs reflect pay increases for most state workers, rising health and pension benefit costs, and a net increase in the number of state workers. In this report, we provide an overview of the state workforce, current collective bargaining agreements, and state employee compensation costs in 2014-15. We also discuss historical trends of state employee compensation costs and state worker take-home pay. We find that over the last two decades, after adjusting for inflation and state worker cost for health and retirement benefits, state worker take-home pay has remained largely flat while state costs per employee have grown significantly. In addition, assuming the number of state workers does not decline significantly, we expect the state's employee compensation costs to increase for the foreseeable future.


Handout

Funding CalSTRS

February 19, 2014 - This presentation to the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee describes the likely over-$5 billion annual cost of a plan to fully retire CalSTRS' unfunded liabilities over the next 30 years. The state and school districts likely will bear the majority of these costs. The presentation discusses options the state's leaders may have in developing the plan to address this huge funding problem over the long term.


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 9

September 4, 2013 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 9. Bargaining Unit 9 is represented by the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG).


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 6

September 4, 2013 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 6. Bargaining Unit 6 is represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA).


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 7

September 3, 2013 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 7. Bargaining Unit 7 is represented by the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA). If adopted, the MOU would modestly increase state costs in 2013-14 with increasing costs in 2014-15 and 2015-16.


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 12

August 29, 2013 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 12. Bargaining Unit 12 is represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). If adopted, the MOU would modestly increase state costs in 2013-14. Depending on decisions made by the Department of Finance, state costs could increase further (1) in 2014-15 to provide a one-time payment of $1,200 to employees and (2) in 2015-16 to provide an ongoing 3 percent or 3.25 percent general salary increase.


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Units 16 and 19

August 23, 2013 - We reviewed the proposed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) for Bargaining Unit 16 and Bargaining Unit 19. Bargaining Unit 16 is represented by the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD). Bargaining Unit 19 is represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). If adopted, the MOUs would modestly increase state costs in 2013-14. Depending on decisions made by the Department of Finance, a general salary increase for all affected employees could increase state costs beginning in 2014-15 and thereafter.


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 18

August 2, 2013 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 18. These employees are represented by the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. If adopted, the MOU would modestly increase state costs in 2013-14. Depending on decisions made by the Department of Finance, a general salary increase for all Unit 18 employees could increase state costs beginning in 2014-15 and thereafter.


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Units: 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 (SEIU Local 1000)

June 21, 2013 - We reviewed the proposed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) for Bargaining Units 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21. These employees are represented by Service Employees International Union, Local 1000. If adopted, the MOUs would modestly increase state costs in 2013-14. Depending on decisions made by the Department of Finance, a general salary increase for all affected employees could increase state costs beginning in 2014-15 and thereafter.


Handout

Addressing CalSTRS' Long-Term Funding Needs

March 20, 2013 - Last year, the Legislature asked CalSTRS to submit a report detailing at least three options for addressing the unfunded liabilities of the pension system's Defined Benefit (DB) Program, which are now estimated by system actuaries to total about $70 billion. This handout for the Legislature's Public Employment and Retirement Committees (1) describes the risks of waiting to address CalSTRS' unfunded liabilities, (2) compares CalSTRS' unfunded liabilities to California's other long-term liabilities, (3) and examines possible sources for additional funding. We recommend that the Legislature adopt a plan that aims to fully fund CalSTRS' unfunded liabilities in about 30 years. A companion video further explains our findings and recommendations.


Report

After Furloughs: State Workers' Leave Balances

March 14, 2013 - Over the past five budget years, furloughs reduced state employee compensation costs by about $5 billion in exchange for giving state employees additional time off. This report examines whether state employees took this additional time off—or whether, after accounting for changes in use of vacation and other time, they worked about as many days as they did before. We find that (1) state workers used most of their furlough days, but decreased their use of vacation and annual leave days, and (2) state leave liabilities and payments to separating employees are now at historic levels.