Use either the form or links on the side to filter the list of publications. Browse other LAO products using the links at the bottom of the sidebar.
4,628 Publications Found
March 18, 2004 - Presented to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee Number 2.
March 17, 2004 - Presented to Assembly Education Committee on March 17, 2004.
March 17, 2004 - The annual quiz that tests your knowledge of our 1400 page Analysis of the Budget Bill and Perspectives and Issues.
March 15, 2004 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on March 15, 2004.
March 15, 2004 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on March 15, 2004.
March 15, 2004 - Presented to Assembly Special Committee on State Mandates on March 15, 2004.
March 12, 2004 - Presented to the Assembly Committee on State Mandates on March 8, 2004.
March 8, 2004 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on March 8, 2004.
March 4, 2004 - Today, the Medi-Cal Program offers a paradox: aged and disabled beneficiaries who would benefit the most from the improved health care that can come from receiving coordinated care have largely been excluded from Medi-Cal managed care. To improve health care for this group and reduce Medi-Cal expenditures, we recommend shifting an estimated 330,000 aged or disabled persons from the fee-for-service system to Medi-Cal managed care.
February 24, 2004 - Index of Information Technology Issues in the Analysis of the Budget Bill, 2004-05
February 18, 2004 - The Williamson Act allows cities and counties to enter into contracts with landowners to restrict certain property to open space and agricultural uses. In return for these restrictions, the property owners pay reduced property taxes because the land is assessed at a lower-than-maximum level. We recommend that the Legislature provide for the gradual elimination of payments to local governments for the local revenue losses associated with Williamson Act contracts.
February 18, 2004 - The prior administration’s action to increase the VLF and the current administration’s subsequent action to reverse that increase have resulted in a number of issues of concern to the Legislature, including (1) the amount of VLF backfill that local governments did not receive during the current year “gap” period, (2) the amount of the backfill loan to the state from local governments, and (3) the amount of backfill to be provided to local governments experiencing hardship. We review the status of these issues and recommend that the State Controller provide information to the Legislature regarding the status of VLF backfill payments and gap period revenues. Accordingly, we withhold recommendation on the administration’s proposal to provide $51 million in local government hardship funding. We also recommend that the Legislature adopt the administration’s proposal to retain the current vehicle depreciation schedule adopted in conjunction with the 1991 program realignment.
February 18, 2004 - As part of its general plan, every city and county is required to prepare a "housing element" which assesses the conditions of its housing stock and outlines a five-year plan for housing development. This mandate costs much more than the Legislature expected and does not ensure the construction of affordable housing. We recommend that the Legislature eliminate the mandate.
February 18, 2004 - Booking fees are charges imposed on cities, special districts, school districts, colleges, and universities to recover the costs associated with booking persons into the county jail. County authority to impose booking fees gives local agencies incentives to use county booking and detention services wisely and efficiently. Eliminating this incentive likely would result in significant increases to county costs, without any identifiable gain to public safety. We recommend the Legislature maintain county authority to impose booking fees.
February 18, 2004 - The University of California (UC) receives billions of dollars a year from faculty research contracts and grants (primarily with the federal government and private companies and organizations). Included in this revenue is hundreds of millions of dollars that the university charges for the use of facilities for this research. Because UC has the ability to recover these costs, we recommend the construction of new faculty research facilities be funded from this nonstate revenue.