BILL ANALYSIS �
SB
15
Page
1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 15 (Feuer)
As Amended September 2, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE : Vote not relevant
BUDGET 21-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Blumenfield, Nielsen, Alejo, Bill | | |
| |Berryhill, | | |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Cedillo, Chesbro, | | |
| |Feuer, | | |
| |Gordon, Harkey, Huffman, Jeffries, | | |
| |Logue, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, | | |
| |Nestande, Swanson, Valadao, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
|-----+------------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Jones | | |
| | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes various changes to the information that is
required to be submitted by the Governor to the Legislature as
part of the budget process. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Governor's budget documents to provide estimates for
anticipated revenues and expenditures for the three fiscal
years succeeding the budget year as part of documents that
accompany the January 10th proposal, the May Revision, and the
final budget summary upon enactment of the Budget Bill. If
available, this estimate should be compared to the projection
from the four previous fiscal years.
2)Stipulates that the Governor submit legislative language needed
to implement budget provisions and the five-year
infrastructure plan when the budget is submitted on or before
January 10th.
EXISTING LAW : Article IV, Section 12 of California's
Constitution requires the Governor to submit a balanced budget
SB
15
Page
2
to the Legislature by January 10th of each year. Government
Code Section 13308 requires the submission of the budget trailer
bill language by February 1st of each year.
FISCAL EFFECT : Small absorbable one-time cost associated with
the University of California economic study.
COMMENTS : This bill intends to increase awareness of the
state's long-term economic conditions. The author's office
indicates the goal is to increase information about the budget
but not place new requirements onto the Legislature. This bill
provides the necessary information to make these estimates an
important part of the future budget deliberations.
This bill builds upon currently available long-term budget
forecasts to incorporate the discussion of the state's long-term
fiscal direction at several milestones in the budget process.
The bill would require formalize the use of these projections in
a manner consist with the use of this information in the 2011-12
budget process. In the current budget process, the following
long-term forecasts are available:
1)Historically, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) has
provided a five-year budget forecast every November. This
forecast has been helpful in understanding the fiscal
direction toward which the state is heading, and has proved
critical in budget decisions during the budget discussions in
the months that follow. This information is provided on the
Legislative Analyst's Web site at:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx?type=2&PubTypeID=5 .
2)Typically, the Department of Finance (DOF) provides the
Legislature detailed multi-year budget forecasts at the time
of the January 10 proposal, as well as at the May Revision.
This information for the 2011-12 enacted budget can be found
on Finance's Web site:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/reports_and_periodicals/documents/MY%20at
%202011%20BA%20(WebVersion).pdf . This information is also
provided to the following offices:
a) The Legislative Analyst;
b) The Democratic and Republican Leadership Offices; and,
SB
15
Page
3
c) The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Budget Committees.
1)Governor Brown has made multi-year forecasts a centerpiece of
his budget proposals, and has explicitly provided multi-year
information in all the public supporting documents along with
this budget proposals, including on page 3 of the Budget
Summary, page 5 of the May Revision, and page 5 of the budget
signing/veto document.
This bill also requires that, if possible, these long-term
projections are compared to past long-term projections. This
provides needed context to ensure that long-term forecasts are
used for understanding the general direction of the state.
Out-year estimates have historically not proven particularly
accurate due to the dynamic nature of California's economy and
the observable correlation of state revenue with the national
business cycle and financial market performance. Therefore,
while it is important to understand the direction the state is
headed, relying too heavily on the specific figures can lead
to troubling results.
a) For example, in the 2006 Fiscal Outlook, the LAO
projected General Fund revenues of $128 billion for
2011-12. Currently in 2011-12, projections have been
updated to be just $87.3 billion, resulting in the
long-term forecast having been off by over $40 billion,
roughly 46% of our actual amount of General Funds for the
year; and,
b) For a more recent example, in the six months since the
Governor's January 2011 forecast, revenue forecasts have
increased by a total of $11.8 billion over the current and
budget years.
While Government Code Section 13102 requires the Governor to
make an annual submission of a five-year infrastructure plan
to the Legislature, the previous Administration stopped
complying with this requirement in 2008 and no new plan has
been received since that time. The DOF reports that the
current Administration intends to comply with this requirement
and instructions have been sent to departments to begin
gathering the necessary information to allow submission of
SB
15
Page
4
this plan for 2012.
Analysis Prepared by : Christian Griffith / BUDGET / (916)
319-2099 FN:
0002664