capitoladvisors

1www.capitoladvisors.org

2

Workshops sponsored by:

www.capitoladvisors.org


Themes and Thoughts• Revenue debate determined everything• Governor gives up very little…again• Triggers return…upside rather than downside• Last minute developments result in most important

issues for K-12 (STRS & Reserve Issues)

• Spending each new K-12 dollar for multiple purposes

• Key issues acknowledged for January proposal


Overall Budget• Total GF spending of $107.9 billion• Includes plan to address $74 billion in STRS liabilities• Continues focus on addressing state’s debt• Places revised Rainy Day Fund and Prop 98 reserve on

November ballot• Expands Child Care and Preschool for low-income families• Expands Medi-Cal by $2.4 billion over 2012-13 to cover

increased enrollment• Addresses climate change by allocating $832 million in Cap and

Trade proceeds• Invests more than $100 million in additional emergency drought

relief

Gov Wins on Revenue Assumptions

www.capitoladvisors.org 5

Administration Revenue ForecastGeneral Fund and Education Protection Account Revenues and Transfers (In Millions)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Personal Income Tax $64,484 $66,522 $70,238 $74,444 $78,082 $82,029

Sales and Use Tax $20,482 $22,759 $23,823 $25,686 $26,267 $26,775

Corporation Tax $7,783 $8,107 $8,910 $9,644 $10,034 $10,292

Subtotal “Big Three” Taxes $92,749 $97,388 $102,971 $109,774 $114,383 $119,096

Insurance Tax $2,221 $2,287 $2,382 $2,499 $2,584 $2,672

Other Revenues 4,432 2,510 $1,741 $2,076 $1,202 $1,837

Totals $99,402 $102,185 $107,094 $115,473 $118,169 $123,605

Difference from LAO Forecast $45 -$542 -$2,099 -$330 -$1,479 -$865

Governor vs. Legislature• Governor rejected higher revenue assumption• Legislature hip to Governor’s approach, but

the Governor held all the cards and prevailed• Legislature scrambled to find funding for Pre-

K, Common Core, STRS, mandates, career pathways, etc.

• Result was Revenue Triggers, Reversions and less in deferral buy-downs


State General Fund Revenues(Billions of Dollars)


2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 $95.0

$105.0

$115.0

$125.0

Jan. Budget

May Revision/2014-15 Budget Act

May LAO

Plan for Paying Down the Wall of DebtAs of end of 2010-11 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15T 2017-18

K-14 Inter-Year Deferrals $10.4 $6.1 $1.0 $0.0T $0.0 Economic Recovery Bonds $7.1 $3.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Loans from Special Funds $5.1 $3.9 $3.1 $3.1 $0.0 Prior year mandate claims $4.3 $6.7 $6.2 $5.4 $0.0 Prop 98 Settle-up $3.0 $2.4 $1.8 $1.8 $0.0 Borrowing from Local Gov $1.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Deferred Medi-cal costs $1.2 $1.8 $2.2 $2.2 $0.0

Deferral of state payroll costs $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.0

Deferred CalPERS payments $0.5 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.0

Borrowing from transportation funds $0.4 $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0

Total $34.7 $26.2 $15.6 $13.8T $0.0 (all amounts shown in billions) T = with revenue triggers


California’s Long-Term Liabilities


• Liabilities being addressed ($220.5 billion)– Retirement - $123.6 billion– Infrastructure - $85.3 billion– Budgetary - $11.6 billion

• Not yet being addressed ($122.4 billion)– Retirement - $94.2 billion– Budgetary - $28.2 billion

10

K-12 EDUCATION BUDGET Budget Act 2014-15

www.capitoladvisors.org


2014-15 Budget Act: K-12 Overview• Provides Prop 98 funding at $60.9 billion• Provides $450 million for K-14 mandate backlog• Provides $4.75 billion for LCFF implementation• Provides $256 million increase for Pre-Kindergarten• Provides for potential restriction of school district

reserves (tied to passage of Budget Reserve proposition in November 2014)

• Includes reforms to Independent Study• Provides $250 million for CTE pathways grants

Proposition 98• Test 1 Year for 2014-15

– Lower revenue numbers yield smaller Prop 98 guarantee– Lower year-on-year growth yields less Maintenance Factor

repayment– Recognition of increased revenue likely in January proposal –

creating one-time spending opportunities beyond ongoing 2015-16 priorities

• $4.4 billion of prior year Prop 98 settle-up used for the deferral buy-downs

• $991 million in redirected on-going funds plus $113 million in reappropriated reversions used for the Legislature’s shopping list


Prop 98 Changes Over Time


2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 $50.0

$55.0

$60.0

$65.0

2013-14 Budget Act

2014-15 Budget Act

May LAO

K-14 Deferral Buy Down• $5.2 billion of the remaining $6.2 billion in K-14 inter-

year deferrals eliminated in budget [$5.2 billion=$4.7 billion (K-12) + $530 million (CCC)]

• Paid with one-time funds from 2012-13 and 2013-14, and on-going funds from 2014-15

• Reduction of $991 million [$897 million (K-12) and $94 million (CCC)] from May Revision used to fund Legislative priorities

• Higher 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 revenues than projected in budget will trigger buy-down of the remaining deferrals


Inter-Year (Cross-Year) K-12 Deferrals

Funds Used for Buy-down 2013-14 Budget Act

Proposed in 2014-15 May Revision

2014-15 Budget ActTotal

2012-13 $3,655 $1,295 $4,950

2013-14 $242 $2,781 $3,023

2014-15 $1,496 $1,496$ 599 $ 599

Total Buy Down Since June 2013 $3,897

$5,571$4,675

$9,469$8,572

Remaining Deferrals $ 897(all amounts in millions and rounded)


LCFF Entitlement Target• Entitlement Target = Base Grant + GSAs

+ Supplemental Grant + Concentration Grant + Add-ons

• Base Grant per ADA (with .85% COLA)K-3 = $7,011 7-8 = $7,3284-6 = $7,116 9-12 = $8,491

• GSAs – 10.4% ($729) for K-3 and 2.6% ($221) for 9-12


LCFF in One Chart

Base Grant (adjusted for .85%

COLA)

Supplemental Grant

Concentration Grant

K-3 GSA

9-12 GSA

Trans. Add-on

Entitlement TargetTIIG Add-on

2012-13Revenue

Limit

2012-13“Included”

Categoricals

2012-13 Trans2012-13 TIIG

12% of 2013-14 gap

2014-15 Funding


2013-14 Funding

29.56% of 2014-15 gap

Stand-Alone CategoricalsProposed for Ongoing Funding (no COLA)

• After School Education and Safety Program ($547 million)

• State Preschool ($509 million)• Child Nutrition – Breakfast Startup ($1 million)• County Office of Education Fiscal Oversight

($5.3 million)• California School Information Services ($5.5

million)• K-12 Internet Access ($8.3 million)• State Testing Program ($126.8 million)• California Partnership Academies ($21.4 million)• Agricultural Education Incentive Program ($4.1

million)• Specialized Secondary Programs ($4.9 million)

Proposed for Ongoing Funding (includes .85% COLA)

• Special Education ($3.3 billion) • Foster Youth Programs ($15.2 million)• American Indian Education Centers and Early

Childhood Education Programs ($4.6 million)• Child Nutrition ($155.4 million)

Proposed for One-time Funding • Adults in Correctional Facilities ($16.9 million)• Emergency Repair Program ($188.5 million)


K-3 GSA• As a condition of receipt of funds – each school with K-3 enrollment must

transition to school site K-3 average class enrollment of 24:1• Transition each year to close gap between last year’s school site K-3

average class enrollment and 24:1, in proportion to LCFF gap closure (12% in 2013-14; 29.56% in 2014-15)

• Can locally negotiate alternative ratios and/or alternative transition• Not waivable by State Board of Education• In the audit guide for 2014-15: http://

eaap.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-15-Guide-for-Annual-Audits-of-K-12-LEAs-and-State-Complicance-Reporting.pdf– Verifies average, active and maximum average enrollment counts– Checks enrollments in both prior and audit year– Instructs auditors to disallow K-3 GSA funds received if a finding is made


http://eaap.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-15-Guide-for-Annual-Audits-of-K-12-LEAs-and-State-Complicance-Reporting.pdf




LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Grants

• General Requirement in Statute– At full LCFF implementation, base grants pay for core

program and supplemental/concentration grants are for increased or improved services for EL, low-income and foster youth

• Specific Spending Rules in SBE Regulation– Proportionality– Seven Step Calculation– Set 2013-14 base year spending and calculate

proportional increases in spending or results for EL, low-income and foster youth for each subsequent year


LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Grants• Districts over 55% unduplicated count or schools

with over 40% unduplicated count may use funds on district/school-wide basis, but must:– Identify in the LCAP services provided on a

district/school-wide basis – Describe how those services are directed toward

meeting LCAP goals for unduplicated pupils• Districts or schools with lower unduplicated counts

may still use funds on a district/school-wide basis, but in addition must:– Describe how district/school-wide services are the “most

effective” use of these funds to meet LCAP goals for unduplicated pupils


Rainy Day Fund• Rainy Day Fund has two components:

– Budget Stabilization Account (BSA)– Public School System Stabilization Account (Prop 98

Reserve)• Two types of transfers may be made from the

General Fund (GF) to the Rainy Day Fund:– Revenue from personal income tax on capital gains that

exceeds 8% of total GF revenues for that fiscal year (Peak Revenue Transfer)

– 1.5% of GF revenues for each fiscal year (1.5% Transfer)


Transfers Into the Rainy Day FundIf a Peak Revenue Transfer is made, then:• A portion of that transfer would have otherwise gone directly to K-14 as a Prop

98 allocation• That “lost” Prop 98 funding goes to the Prop 98 Reserve only if:

– Existing Prop 98 Maintenance Factor is paid off (est. 5 – 6 years)– Prop 98 Guarantee is calculated under Test 1 (1988, 2011, 2012, 2014)– Remaining Prop 98 allocations cover prior year Prop 98 allocations, adjusted for growth

and COLA• If conditions are not met, then “lost” funding flows back into Prop 98• Any transfers to the Prop 98 Reserve:

– Are deemed to be expenditures toward meeting the Prop 98 Guarantee– That exceed 10% of full Guarantee, flow back into Prop 98

• The remainder of the Peak Revenue Transfer goes into the BSA until it reaches 10% of GF revenues (if the BSA exceeds that 10% cap, these transfers are diverted to be spent on state infrastructure)


Transfers Into the Rainy Day FundWhen the annual 1.5% transfer is made, then:• Half goes to discharge state debt obligations

(e.g., deferrals, budgetary loans, prior year mandate claims, unfunded pension liabilities) through 2029-30 and is optional thereafter

• Half is transferred to BSA until it reaches 10% of GF revenues (if the BSA exceeds that cap, these transfers are spent on state infrastructure)


Transfers Out of the Rainy Day Fund• Transfers must be made out of the Prop 98 Reserve

in any year in which Prop 98 allocations are less than the prior year Guarantee, adjusted for growth and COLA

• Transfers, up to 50% of the balance, may be made out of either part of the Rainy Day Fund, if a Budget Emergency is declared: – If conditions of disaster or extreme peril exist– If General Fund revenues are less than each of the three

prior fiscal years, adjusting for population growth and COLA


Local Budget Reserve Restrictions• Transparency - Commencing with the adopted or revised 2015-

16 budget each district with reserves in excess of the minimum level recommended by the SBE shall review and discuss in public hearing:– The recommended minimum reserve– The level of excess reserves identified in the budget– A statement of reasons substantiating the excess reserves

• The Cap – In a year following a transfer into the Prop 98 Reserve, no district adopted or revised budget shall contain reserves in excess of:– Three times the recommended minimum in districts with ADA greater than

400,000– Two times the recommended minimum in all other districts


Local Budget Reserves

SBE minimum recommended reserves for FY 2014-15:• The greater of 5% or $64,000 for districts with 0 to

300 ADA• The greater of 4% or $64,000 for districts with 301

to 1,000 ADA• 3% for districts with 1,001 to 30,000 ADA• 2% for districts with 30,001 to 400,000 ADA• 1% for districts with 400,001 and over ADA


Local Budget Reserve Restrictions• The County Superintendent may grant an exemption from

the Cap for two consecutive years out of three under “extraordinary fiscal circumstances”, but the district must:– Provide documentation that substantiates the circumstances– Identify the funds associated with those circumstances– Document that no other funds are available for that purpose

• When is the Cap triggered?– Only if ACA 1 is approved by the voters– Only after current Prop 98 Maintenance Factor is paid off– Only in a Prop 98 Test 1 year– Only if you do not have an exemption from your COE

• Make sure to read the fine print28www.capitoladvisors.org


CalSTRS• Eliminates the CalSTRS unfunded liability ($74.4

billion*) over the next 32 years• Does so by increasing contributions from:

– The State (total $20 billion)– CalSTRS school employees (total $8 billion)– School employers (total $47 billion)

• The 1990 CalSTRS funding plan, and vested rights• 63% of funding burden on school employers

– Actual impact will differ across districts– No additional funding for this purpose (see LCFF)

Governor’s CalSTRS ProposalFuture Changes in Contribution Rates


2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 2021–220.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00% 19.10%

6.33%

10.25%

9.21%

Employers State Employees (hired before 1/1/13)Employees (hired on/after 1/1/13)


STRS: State and Employer ContributionsState Contributions(Dollars in Millions)

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21Current Law Rate 3.29% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52%Proposed Increase 0.16 1.37 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.81New Rate 3.45% 4.89% 6.33% 6.33% 6.33% 6.33% 6.33%

School Employer Contributions(Dollars in Millions)

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21Current Law Rate 8.25% 8.25% 8.25% 8.25% 8.25% 8.25% 8.25%Proposed Increase .63% 2.48 4.33 6.18 8.03 9.88 10.85New Rate 8.88% 10.73% 12.58% 14.43% 16.28% 18.13% 19.1%


STRS: Employee ContributionEmployees Hired Prior to January 1, 2013(Dollars in Millions)


Employees Hired On/After January 1, 2013(Dollars in Millions)



Vergara Decision• Challenge by students to laws protecting California

teachers• On June 10, 2014, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge

ruled EC 44929.21 (Probationary Period), EC 44932-44948.5 (Dismissal Statutes), and EC 44955 (Layoff) are unconstitutional

• Court reasoned that the above-referenced statutes, “impose a real and appreciable impact on students’ fundamental right to equality and…they impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students”


Vergara Decision• EC 44929.21 – Court found, “both students and teachers are

unfairly, unnecessarily, and for no legally cognizable reason, disadvantaged by the current Permanent Employment Statute”

• Dismissal Statutes – Court found, “…the current system required by the Dismissal Statutes [is] so complex, time consuming, and expensive as to make an effective, efficient, yet fair dismissal of grossly ineffective teachers illusory”

• Layoff Statutes – Court found a disproportionate impact on poor and minority students

• Decision Not Final – Parties will appeal. Challenged statutes still in effect for the near future


AB 215 - Changes to Existing Process• Effective January 1, 2015 for cases initiated on this date and

thereafter• Charges may be served at any time of the year, except for charges of

Unsatisfactory Performance. Eliminates May 15 – September 15 “Blackout Period”

• Evidence of designated sex offenses/child abuse older than 4 years may be used

• Interim Appeals Process before ALJ when employee is suspended without pay pending termination

• Hearing must commence within 6 months/completed within 7 months of receipt of demand for hearing eliminates the standard “Continuance Process”


AB 215 - Changes to Existing Process• Parties can mutually agree to hold hearing before ALJ instead

of three member panel• Panel members must have three years of experience in the

last ten “in the discipline of the employee”• Panel cannot reduce recommended discipline to a lesser

penalty• In lieu of written discovery, parties shall make “disclosures”

under strict deadlines• Use of depositions significantly limited. (Maximum of 7 hours

per employee / total of 5 witnesses, including the employee)


AB 215 - Changes to Existing Process• For cases based solely on “Egregious Misconduct”• “Egregious Misconduct” defined: “immoral conduct” as

described in EC 44010 (designated sex offenses), 44011 (designated drug offenses), Penal Code Sections 11165.2 (child neglect)-11165.6 (physical abuse of child)

• Allows for “immediate suspension without pay”• Hearing Before ALJ only, not panel• Hearing must commence within 60 days of demand for hearing• Only 30 days to conduct discovery• “Use it or lose it?”


Mandates/Common Core• Provides $450 million to all school districts, county offices of

education, and charter schools to pay down K-14 mandates backlog– $400.5 million for K-12– $49.5 million for Community Colleges

• All LEAs receive funds regardless of mandate claims• Intent is for K-12 schools to use “discretionary” resources to

support Common Core implementation• Could also be used to address STRS rate increases… or

anything else…• Further evidence that claiming for mandates is fruitless• Mandate Block Grant compliance is different, simpler


Mandate Block Grant• Adds six additional mandates into the block grant:

– Parental involvement– Williams– Developer fees– Charter schools– Uniform complaint– Public contracts

• Budget appropriates $218.2 million for the block grant• No change to COE and school district rates

– School Districts - $28 per K-8 ADA and $56 per 9-12 ADA– COEs - additional $1 per countywide ADA– Charter Schools - $14 per K-8 ADA and $42 per 9-12 ADA


Connectivity (K-12 HSN)• $26.7 million (one-time Prop 98 funding) to

K-12 High Speed Network to provide technical assistance grants to LEAs in need of enhancements to hardware or internet connectivity in order to implement the Common Core assessments in 2015– K-12 HSN run out of the Imperial County Office

of Education (in partnership with Butte and Mendocino COEs)


Early Childhood Education Reform$256 million investment in early learning • $70 million for 7,500 new full-year, full-day slots (part-day preschool and wrap-around

services), beginning on June 15, 2015 another 4,000 slots• $50 million for Early Learning Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Block Grant

to support local preschool providers’ efforts to implement quality rating and improvement systems. Grants allocated based on the number of California State Preschool Program (CSPP) slots within the county or region

• $17 million to restore 1,500 slots for ages 0-5 child care programs• $25 million for local planning councils to use for professional development• $10 million to establish the Child Care Facilities Revolving Fund for purchasing, renovating

or repairing preschool facilities• $69 million to increase the Standard Reimbursement Rate five percent and the Regional

Market Rate by an average of nine percent • $15 million to eliminate existing CSPP part-day family fee


Early Childhood Education Reform• Beginning July 1, 2015, requires TK teachers to be

credentialed, and by August 1, 2020 have a minimum of 24 Early Childhood Education and/or Child Development units, or comparable professional experience

• Allows providers to keep an additional 10% in reserves to be used for professional development for instructional staff

• Sets income eligibility limits at 70 percent of the state median income in use for the 2007-08 fiscal year


Independent Study ReformReforms relax a number of burdensome requirements:• Allows LEAs to locally negotiate alternative pupil/teacher ratios• Permits written agreements to be maintained on file

electronically• Teachers no longer required to sign and date pupil work

products for the purposes of apportionment• Beginning in 2015-16, allows LEAs, under certain conditions,

to claim ADA for “course completion” rather than assignment completion

• Allows LEAs to offer year-long master agreements (rather than the current semester limitation)

CTE/ROCPs• Issues remain unresolved • Agricultural Incentive Grants, Supplemental

Secondary Grants, and California Partnership Academies remain stand-alone categoricals, but receive no COLA

• Prohibition on redirection of ROCP JPA funds and MOE requirement on ROCP expenditures remain for 2014-15

• One-time Career Pathways Grant funding• New $250 million (2014-15) funding to be awarded• $250 million appropriated in 2013-14 has been awarded, see

http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r17/ccpt14result.asp





CTE/ROCPs• Supplemental Report Language

– Dept of Finance shall report to the Legislature regarding recommendations for the appropriate future treatment of funding for any former categorical education programs…

– including but not limited to Regional Occupational Centers and Programs…

– shall address (1) maintenance of effort requirements, (2) the future treatment of funding within the Local Control Funding Formula, (3) compliance with state law and regulation, (4) funding structures and policy changes to minimize disruption of, and assure continuity and quality of, critical services to students and school employees

• Expect more discussion


Adult Education• Issues remain unresolved• MOE requirement on Adult Education expenditures

remains for 2014-15• Governor says he will have Adult Ed proposal in January

One-year moratorium on Workforce Investment Act charter schools

• 2013-14 budget provided $25 million for two-year planning grants to regional consortia of community colleges and school districts

• Plans to be completed in 2015• Would include county jails (through categorical program)


BTSA• Remains incorporated into the LCFF• Requires Alameda County Superintendent of Schools to withhold

$581,540 from Newark Unified School District LCFF funding, and allocate those funds to four school districts in Alameda County

• Supplemental Report Language – Dept. of Finance shall report to the Legislature regarding recommendations

for the appropriate future treatment of funding for any former categorical programs…

– including but not limited to … Beginning Teacher Support and Assistance… – shall address (1) maintenance of effort requirements, (2) the future

treatment of funding within the Local Control Funding Formula, (3) compliance with state law and regulation, (4) funding structures and policy changes to minimize disruption of, and assure continuity and quality of, critical services to students and school employees


Child Nutrition• Reimbursement rate reductions due to funding deficiency

– May and June 2013-14, but possibly restored– 2014-15 reductions possible later in the year

• COLA increases meals reimbursement rate from $.2229 to $.2248• NSLP Special Assistance Alternatives - Provision 2 and 3,

Community Eligibility– Authorizes LCFF school-wide counts once every four years or when

required by federal law, but requires accounting for newly enrolled and for disenrolled students

– May use 2014-15 count in place of 2013-14 to calculate LCFF rolling average unduplicated count

– Current year LCFF undercounts not resolved



State School Facilities Bond• Transfers $211 million from existing bond authority from the CTE, Seismic,

High Performance and Overcrowded Relief Grant Programs to the New Construction and Modernization Programs

• Dedicates $188.1 million of one-time Prop 98 General Fund to pay down part of the remaining $459.5 million obligation for the Emergency Repair Program (part of the Williams settlement)

• Politics of 2014 School Bond– Need is demonstrated – Governor’s concerns– Politics of election year - Water Bond linkage– Ballot timelines– Polling– AB 2235 (Buchanan/Hagman) likely vehicle

• New construction, modernization, charter schools, higher education• Bond size in discussion


Proposition 39 – Energy Efficiency• Budget Act allocates $279 million in 2014-15

– contains reduction of $9 million from 2013-14 level– Diverts $28 million from grants to revolving loan fund

• Low number of LEA applications minimizes impact of downward adjustments

• Advocacy focused on:– 10-week turnaround by CEC is too long– Only $30 million of $381 million in 2013-14 funds released by

CDE– Funding beyond first five years


Proposition 39 – Energy Efficiency• California Energy Commission (CEC)

Launched New Prop 39 Website – http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition

39/indes.html• Prop 39 Fact Sheet• Listing of approved energy expenditure plans• Frequently asked questions (searchable)• Energy expenditure plan handbook• Energy savings calculator

http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/indes.html

http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/indes.html


Proposition 39 – Energy Efficiency• Two approaches for districts are emerging:

– Turn-key model– Consulting model

• Prop 39 definition of “sole source”– Resolved by RFP or competitive process– Does NOT require bidding or RFP for every separate component of

the project• Energy expenditure plan and application submittal• Project implementation• Measurement and verification• Project tracking and reporting• Education law firms are helping to validate processes


Politics of 2014• Governor’s race all-but decided• Torlakson faces stiff opposition but is favored to

win• Controller race – Betty Yee squeaks through to run-

off – it’s hers to lose• 2/3rds Dem control of Assembly and Senate is

major focus of parties• New Assembly Minority Leader, Kristin Olsen (R-

Modesto) will join new Assembly Speaker and Senate Pro Tem

Budget Related Legislation• Budget Act of 2014 - SB 852• Budget Trailer Bills

– Education Omnibus - SB 858– LCFF - SB 859– Higher Education - SB 860– STRS - SB 864– School Facilities - SB 869

• Rainy Day Fund - ACA 154www.capitoladvisors.org


Thank You• We will send you this PowerPoint• Please feel free to use this content• Questions? Please contact Rachel Scott at

[email protected] or (916) 557-9745• Please let us know what you think

mailto:[email protected]

capitoladvisors

Documents

revenue assumptionswww

revenue triggerswww

education budget budget

use tax

corporation tax

insurance tax

strs reserve issuesspending

org11provides prop