SCA 10 — A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 12 of Article IV thereof, and by amending Section 20 of, and adding Section 21 to, Article XVI thereof, relating to state finance.
Last action — Died on file.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing provisions of the California Constitution require the Governor to submit to the Legislature, within the first 10 days of each calendar year, a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues. In addition, the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from passing, and the Governor from signing, a Budget Bill that would appropriate from the General Fund a total amount that, when combined with all appropriations from the General Fund for that fiscal year made as of the date of the Budget Bill's passage, and the amount of any General Fund moneys transferred to a reserve account, exceeds estimated General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The estimate of General Fund revenues is required to be set forth in the Budget Bill. This measure would require the Governor, in his or her proposed budget, to identify estimated total state resources available to meet recommended state expenditures and, further, to identify the amount of those resources that are anticipated to be one-time resources. The measure would prohibit passage of a Budget Bill that appropriates an amount that, when combined with prior appropriations and transfers to the reserve account, exceeds the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year. The measure would require the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances to be set forth in the Budget Bill. Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the Budget Stabilization Account in the General Fund and currently require the Controller, no later than September 30 of each year, to transfer from the General Fund to the account a sum equal to 3% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year. This transfer of moneys is not required, unless otherwise directed by the Legislature by statute, in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the account would exceed 5% of the General Fund revenues estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, or $8,000,000,000, whichever is greater. This transfer of moneys also may be suspended or reduced for a fiscal year as specified by an executive order issued by the Governor no later than June 1 of the preceding fiscal year. Of the moneys transferred to the account in each fiscal year, 50%, up to an aggregate amount of $5,000,000,000 for all fiscal years, is deposited in the Deficit Recovery Bond Retirement Sinking Fund Subaccount and continuously appropriated to the Treasurer for the purpose of retiring state deficit recovery bonds. All other moneys transferred to the account in a fiscal year are not deposited in the sinking fund subaccount and may, by statute, be transferred back to the General Fund. This measure would rename this account the Budget Stabilization Fund. This measure would also provide that the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund is not required in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the fund would exceed 10% of the General Fund revenues estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, and would delete the alternative $8,000,000,000 limit on the fund. This measure would provide that, apart from a transfer made for the purpose of responding to an emergency declared by the Governor, as defined, or a loan to meet General Fund cash requirements which would be repaid within a fiscal year, the total amount that may be transferred from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the General Fund for any fiscal year shall not exceed the lesser of the shortfall amount for the current fiscal year, as defined, or 50% of the balance of the Budget Stabilization Fund, depending upon specified criteria. In addition, this measure would create in the General Fund the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account and would direct the Controller to transfer, on October 1 of each year beginning in 2013, from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year, except that this transfer would not be made in a fiscal year for which the Governor issues an executive order to suspend or reduce the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund. The measure would permit appropriations to be made from the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account only for capital outlay purposes or to retire bonded indebtedness of the state. This measure would require the Director of Finance, on or before May 29 of each year beginning in 2014, to report to the Legislature and the Governor (1) an estimate of the amount of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year for the current fiscal year, (2) the revenue forecast amount, as defined, for the current fiscal year, and (3) an estimate of specified General Fund obligations for the public schools. The measure would provide that if, pursuant to a formula based on those figures, there are unanticipated revenues in the current fiscal year, beginning in the 2013–14 fiscal year, those revenues may be used only for specified purposes, and in a specified order of priority.
Bill Text
- Amended 10/06/10 - Amended Senate Current pdf October 06, 2010
- Amended 08/17/09 - Amended Senate pdf August 17, 2009
- Introduced 01/26/09 - Introduced pdf January 26, 2009
- SCA10 View text html
Action History
-
Died on file.
-
Joint Rule 10.5 suspended. (Page 5222.)
-
Senate Rule 29.3 suspended. (Page 5222.)
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
Read third time. Amended. To second reading.
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
From inactive file to second reading file.
-
Placed on inactive file on request of Senator Ducheny.
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
(Received by Desk on August 28 pursuant to Joint Rule 61(a)(11).)
-
From committee: Be adopted. (Ayes 8. Noes 5. Page 2079.)
-
(Suspense - vote only.)
-
Set for hearing August 27.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
From committee: Be adopted, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 1319.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing June 16.
-
To Com. on E., R. & C.A.
-
From print. May be acted upon on or after February 26.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Ashburn · Primary
- Gatto · Cosponsor
- Roger W. Niello · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Ashburn
Co-sponsors (2)
- Gatto
- Niello, Roger W. Republican
Not signed on (119)
119 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 119 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 62% | 38% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Nay |
| Runner | — | Nay |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Nay |
| Cox | — | Nay |
| Denham | — | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 60% | 40% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Nay |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SCA 10 do?
- Existing provisions of the California Constitution require the Governor to submit to the Legislature, within the first 10 days of each calendar year, a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues. In addition, the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from passing, and the Governor from signing, a Budget Bill that would appropriate from the General Fund a total amount that, when combined with all appropriations from the General Fund for that fiscal year made as of the date of the Budget Bill's passage, and the amount of any General Fund moneys transferred to a reserve account, exceeds estimated General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The estimate of General Fund revenues is required to be set forth in the Budget Bill. This measure would require the Governor, in his or her proposed budget, to identify estimated total state resources available to meet recommended state expenditures and, further, to identify the amount of those resources that are anticipated to be one-time resources. The measure would prohibit passage of a Budget Bill that appropriates an amount that, when combined with prior appropriations and transfers to the reserve account, exceeds the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year. The measure would require the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances to be set forth in the Budget Bill. Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the Budget Stabilization Account in the General Fund and currently require the Controller, no later than September 30 of each year, to transfer from the General Fund to the account a sum equal to 3% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year. This transfer of moneys is not required, unless otherwise directed by the Legislature by statute, in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the account would exceed 5% of the General Fund revenues estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, or $8,000,000,000, whichever is greater. This transfer of moneys also may be suspended or reduced for a fiscal year as specified by an executive order issued by the Governor no later than June 1 of the preceding fiscal year. Of the moneys transferred to the account in each fiscal year, 50%, up to an aggregate amount of $5,000,000,000 for all fiscal years, is deposited in the Deficit Recovery Bond Retirement Sinking Fund Subaccount and continuously appropriated to the Treasurer for the purpose of retiring state deficit recovery bonds. All other moneys transferred to the account in a fiscal year are not deposited in the sinking fund subaccount and may, by statute, be transferred back to the General Fund. This measure would rename this account the Budget Stabilization Fund. This measure would also provide that the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund is not required in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the fund would exceed 10% of the General Fund revenues estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, and would delete the alternative $8,000,000,000 limit on the fund. This measure would provide that, apart from a transfer made for the purpose of responding to an emergency declared by the Governor, as defined, or a loan to meet General Fund cash requirements which would be repaid within a fiscal year, the total amount that may be transferred from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the General Fund for any fiscal year shall not exceed the lesser of the shortfall amount for the current fiscal year, as defined, or 50% of the balance of the Budget Stabilization Fund, depending upon specified criteria. In addition, this measure would create in the General Fund the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account and would direct the Controller to transfer, on October 1 of each year beginning in 2013, from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year, except that this transfer would not be made in a fiscal year for which the Governor issues an executive order to suspend or reduce the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund. The measure would permit appropriations to be made from the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account only for capital outlay purposes or to retire bonded indebtedness of the state. This measure would require the Director of Finance, on or before May 29 of each year beginning in 2014, to report to the Legislature and the Governor (1) an estimate of the amount of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year for the current fiscal year, (2) the revenue forecast amount, as defined, for the current fiscal year, and (3) an estimate of specified General Fund obligations for the public schools. The measure would provide that if, pursuant to a formula based on those figures, there are unanticipated revenues in the current fiscal year, beginning in the 2013–14 fiscal year, those revenues may be used only for specified purposes, and in a specified order of priority.
- Who sponsors SCA 10?
- SCA 10 is sponsored by Ashburn, Gatto, and Niello, Roger W. (Republican).
- What is the current status of SCA 10?
- This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SCA 10?
- Track SCA 10 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SCA 10
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SCA 10
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →