Transcript: Press conference Q&A with CA Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos on the May revision of the 2013-2014 budget

Partial transcript of the press conference Q&A with Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos on the May revision of the FY 2013-14 California state budget. The briefing was held on May 14, 2013:

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
All right, so I want to walk through a couple of numbers and then answer any of your questions.

So many questions about revenues. Revenues are up by $1.3 billion over a three-year period. Of that, about $500 million is associated with cap and trade revenues being loaned to the general fund. So, as the governor said, the difference in the big three revenues that are affecting our Prop 98 are about $800 million…of those revenues.

So this year, revenues are up by $2.8 billion – 2012-13 we’re up by $2.8 billion. 2013-’14 we’re down by $1.3 billion…

So $2.8 billion up in 2012-13. $1.3 billion down in 2013-14. If we adjusted for the cap and trade, then it would be about $1.8 billion down for what is happening with our big three revenues.

As the governor said, there’s a difference between cash and what that translates into the revenues. There’s a couple of things going on.

As you know, we’ve ended the month of April at about $4.5 billion higher in cash. How does $4.5 become $2.8? One is that a portion of those revenues are actually attributable to prior years or to next year. So when you look at cash versus accrual, that accounts for about $400 million of the difference. So some of those dollars are being booked in either of the bookends of the 2012-13 budget.

The second issue is that when we’ve looked at our cash patterns, in January we built our revenue cash patterns based on what it had been historically. There have been a lot of changes that have been made in the last couple of years that affect the timing of revenues. When we’ve taken a closer look in what our pattern was last year, which we think is a more realistic pattern, we see less money coming in in May and June than we initially anticipated at governor’s budget. So we anticipated that revenues based on just timing are going to be about $700 million lower. That’s moving into next year.

And the last piece is the issue that governor’s raised relative to the economic forecast and what’s going on with wages. So our personal income forecast is substantially lower than it was at governor’s budget based on the changes in federal policy as well as what we’ve been seeing going on with wages. So we see the unemployment is coming down but the hours worked by those employees is actually lower than in the latest report and previously have been. That’s bringing down our wage forecast, which is having an impact on our revenue forecast. So we’re looking at receipts that are going to be lowered by a couple hundred million dollars between now through July 1st based on the wage changes.

Question:
So if that’s true, where are you getting the $2.6 billion in the one-time fund that you propose to go to schools for Common Core and for debt paid back?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
…The guarantee’s up by $2.9 billion this year. So there’s lots of different parts that are changing…

Question:
This year being the current fiscal year?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Current fiscal year.

So a $2.8 billion increase in general fund revenues, $2.9 billion in the Prop 98 guarantee. Part of what’s going on with when we’re looking at what’s happening in terms of the use of those additional resources, we’re paying more deferrals this year; [but] we’re paying less deferrals next year.

The Prop 98 guarantee is a little less than $1 billion – it’s $941 million down next year. So looking at the guarantee over a two-year period when we’re looking at what’s going on, there’s $1 billion in additional dollars for Common Core and we’re paying roughly $758 million – additional dollars for deferrals. So because you have an increase in the guarantee this year of $2.9 and we’re roughly a billion down next year.

So part of it is a change in when we’re receiving revenue is when schools are going to receive those additional funds and a commensurate change in the pattern of proposed funding for education.

Question:
So the additional money you have to pay to schools under Prop 98 is basically you’re giving it to them as a one-time money for Common Core and deferral paydown?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yeah, but remember that when you pay down the deferrals in one year, the following year’s extra money and it’s providing us additional room to be able to pay for programs.

Question:
What we’re trying to get to here is there’s been a lot of publicity about $4.5 and now you say it’s more like $3 – that money’s going to schools basically.

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
More than the amount of money that’s coming in is going to schools. The Prop 98 guarantee is going up by 103% over the increase in revenues.

Question:
The Common Core billion is in the 98 guarantee?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Correct.

Question:
So is it extra under the guarantee or are you earmarking part of the guarantee for Common Core?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s part of the – the guarantee just drives what’s the total amount of the general fund revenues that we have to provide. The governor’s asked us to provide a spending plan for how to do that. So this is part of how he proposes to use the higher dollars from the guarantee…It’s within the guarantee, providing one-time resources for Common Core implementation.

Question:
…There’s $2.9 billion more in the first six months of this year than you guys thought, right?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yeah. $2.8.

Question:
$2.8.

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
So there’s $2.9 billion increase in the Prop 98 guarantee this year.

Question:
For 2012-13?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Correct. Next year, because the revenues are lower, we began to use lower by another $900 million.

Question:
So it’s not down over projections. It’s down $1.3 over the 2012-13 revenues, right? The general fund gets smaller?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
The general fund gets smaller, yes. And the revenues that actually count towards 98 are down by $180.

Question:
$4.5 billion extra in revenues this year but that’s translating for this coming fiscal year into $2.8…but the schools are getting $2.9…

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
…Yes. The only piece that I would add is that schools are getting $2.9 more this year but they’re getting $941 [million] less next year. So the net change is when we look at those two numbers.

Question:
That makes up for the extra money over the $2.8?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yeah.

Question:
…In January, you were at $97 billion for the general fund. Now you’re down to $96. What is the real simple reason?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Property tax revenues are up. So when there’s higher property tax revenues both from the elimination of the redevelopment agencies as well as the forecast being up, then our general fund expenditures for Prop 98 are going down and then the Prop 98 guarantee is down a little bit, and those are the main changes. There’s other areas of spending that are up. But the single largest factor is the property tax forecast being higher and how that affects the budget in terms of our spending in schools and community colleges.

Question:
…You said $1.3 billion down – that’s compared to what?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Compared to January.

Question:
…Is there any additional money for schools in 2011-2012 because of Prop 30?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Well, that was already reflected in the governor’s budget. So it was already 2011-12. The revenues in 2011-12 were changing a little bit.

Question:
[Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s still down in a year-over-year basis because of the acceleration of capital gains and other income from 2012-13. That was already reflected in the governor’s budget and it’s increased in the May revision. So we’re seeing more dollars being accelerated from one year to the next.

Question:
So the reason it’s $2.8 and not $4.5 because somebody didn’t calculate the different fiscal years?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Some of it is being counted in different fiscal years – 2011-12 and 2013-14. Some of it is because our January estimate of the amount of cash that we were going to be receiving this year overstated the amount of cash that was going to come in in May and June. So we’re up but there are other pieces coming down.

And then the other piece is because our economic forecast, and particularly our wage forecast, is down, so we see revenues being a little down.

Question:
…But is the money being counted in different fiscal years is now also going to schools?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
And that is part of the reason why, again, the guarantee’s is now dropping by a higher amount in 2013-14 and the big changes are 2013-14 and the 2012-13. There’s only a $200 million change in 2011-12 in terms of this piece.

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
So a couple of big changes on 98…

So basically, the adult education proposal – the governor proposed to restructure adult education and shift responsibility for some of that to community colleges but allow community colleges to contract with K-12 districts. Lots of concerns were raised about unintended consequences so the May revision basically delays the adult education proposed change and restructures the way it would work. Basically, for the next two years, there’d be planning grants for regional consortia of community colleges and K-12 districts to work on how to best meet needs for adult education. And then it provides for $500 million that would be available to existing programs and new programs; 75% would have to go to existing programs to expand adult education. Not spending those $300 million and instead spending $270 provides some more additional resources to do more growth and local control funding.

Question:
[Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
…So the net change for the wall of debt is $258 million.

…There’s one piece that we wanted to show you…about how the concentration formula works. There’s been a misunderstanding for how generally the formula works. So this is our stab at trying to make it simple. [Laughter] So we’ll see if it works.

…Today, the formula for how district funding is calculated is really complicated. Going forward, basically there’d be three sets of calculations. You establish what the base grant is and this is what the average grant would be for a state-wide high school district. Then you look at what is a district’s concentration – how many low-income students, English language learners, foster youths a district is serving. And you can see that the bulk of the additional dollars that are coming for those kids are coming from the supplemental grants and are available to all kids, whatever district they’re being educated in. And we picked 50.8% because that’s the state-wide average of students that would do well in that. The concentration grant is up to 17.5% and it’s scalable…You can see that the bulk of the money that they’re getting is coming for as part of the supplemental grant. That’s 35%. So the difference between a district that’s at 45% versus 55% that’s coming from the concentration factor it’s really quite small. Because the concentration factor is for the difference between 50% and 58% and it’s up to a total cap of 17.5%. So it makes a big difference as the governor said for the districts that have really high concentrations like the districts that have 78% or 80% or 100%. But the difference between somebody at 47% or somebody at 52%, it’s quite negligible. And the bulk of the additional resources that are being provided to kids based on their needs comes in the form of the supplemental grant.

Question:
So the CDE did some modeling, can you address sort of the discrepancy? Because they suggest that under current law, there’s a whole lot of more losers than…

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
The underlying challenge – when you look at – CDE – the challenge is how you construct what is current law? There is not – and CDE basically what they did was they said assume that there’s more dollars to spend next year than the budget is actually producing and compare next year’s formula as if it was fully implemented to a model that restores revenue limits and restores categoricals. They ignored the effect of the COLA that would be provided under the formula and assumes something that’s not the governor’s proposal. The effect of that is that the numbers provided under the governor’s proposal are too low because they’re not showing the COLA [cost of living adjustments] effect and they’re assuming full implementation next year, and it has the distorted effect in showing what happens to districts. So when you look at a district like Oakland and you ignores what happens under the COLAs, you’re not showing a true characterization of what the governor’s proposal is.

The governor’s not proposing to implement next year. It’s begin implementation next year with full implementation happening within 7 years. And the governor’s proposal includes COLA and continues to adjust all the bases. So that’s the fundamental difference…

Nick Schweizer, California Department of Finance’s Program Budget Manager on Education:
…People have been inflating the concentration grants, making it seem like it’s a much larger part than it is. There have also been sort of thinking that, you know, once you hit this magic threshold of 50%, all of a sudden you’d get much more money. It’s not like that. A school district that is at 40% gets more money than a school district at 39% just as a district that has 50% gets a little bit more money than districts that is at 49%… [Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
So the May revision reflects a loan of $500 billion from cap and trade revenues that is available as a loan to the general fund in the same way in which special fund loans have been done for an extended period of time, hence the answer to your question fo $258 versus $758.

Question:
Is that different from the January?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s different from the January budget…but it’s the same level of benefit to the general fund from a budgetary standpoint. It was because this was deemed a better and more prudent approach to take for the May revision at this point in time and to work a little longer on exactly what expenditures we’d be looking at proposing from cap and trade going forward.

Question:
You mentioned a couple of times that wages are down. Is that because more people are going from full-time to part-time work?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
The biggest changes that are driving our forecast as the governor mentioned are the changes in national economy and changes in California economy based on the different federal policy than what was anticipated in the governor’s budget.

In January, we were anticipating that there was something else that was going to be worked out that did not have the payroll tax go back into effect, that did not have sequestration. That is downgrading the forecast and changing the rate of recovery.

When we look at near-term wages, part of what we’re seeing is unemployment is coming down but the number of hours worked is also coming down so we’re seeing wages growing at a slower rate based on these different factors.

Question:
Why are hours decreasing? Do you think that has anything to do with the Affordable Care Act?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
I think we’re looking at this as this is basically what we’re seeing coming up now based on the changes in consumer confidence, the rate of where we are in the recovery – people are being – we’re see a lot of corporations sit on substantial amounts of cash and taking a while and being cautious about where to invest it. The continued questions about what’s going on in Asia and some of our trading partners and the extent to which the Chinese economy is slowing down and what might be going on with Japan and South Korea. There’s questions about what’s going on there and what’s going on in Europe. And there’s overall, you know, a weak recovery that is atypical for coming out of a recession and folks are being cautious with what they’re doing with their dollars and the rate that which they’re investing.

Question:
Could you generally say what schools do with these deferral payments? It’s not like it’s a windfall for them. How are they absorbing this?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Generally, schools are borrowing in the open market to maintain a higher level of program than we’re funding at any particular point in time. But we have had some school districts who have limited market access and have not been able to borrow to the full effect and they’ve had to make some reductions. Paying down the deferrals not only helps us make sure that today’s money is available to pay for today’s programs but it also reduces the borrowing costs for school districts and it helps them be able to spend more money on a classroom.

Question:
The $240 billion – is that distributed the same way as the larger pot of money.

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yes.

Question:
On the enterprise zone stuff, economic development, it looks like you’re picking the new jobs hiring credit – California Competes fund – are you supplanting the existing enterprise zone hiring credit with that? Or how that’s going to work?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
We basically have a different structure that we think is going to be more effective…in increasing economic growth. One of the big differences is that we look at how do we California on the whole benefit and how do we get more activity in our state period, not looking at a program that a lot of what it does is move an activity from point A to point B in our state. So one of the biggest pieces is something you’ve seen from the governor before which is an interest in making manufacturing less expensive in California by providing an exclusion of the sales tax from the state sales tax for manufacturing in our state. So we think that that is a more effective expenditure than enterprise zones.

And the other piece that we do is basically create a state fund that would be available to administered by GoBiz that could be used for to provide a tax credit to individual employers who are coming to California and tie it to real outcomes and real jobs in our state.

Question:
So does that mean you’re not going to have the enterprise zones continue in their current form?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
We would restructure those two programs to do what we think is – are activities that are more effective, that are more consistent with what the theory of enterprise zones and hiring credit was and not with the reality that we’ve seen from both of those programs.

Question:
[Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s revenue neutral.

Question:
What would the sales tax exemption…[inaudible]?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s roughly 4% of the cost of buying manufacturing equipment.

Question:
…The generous and bold Medi-Cal spending?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
…In terms of the plan for implementation of health care reform, as the governor mentioned it’s really the state-based expansion for how we would move forward. So it would be the Medicaid program that would be expanded to cover adults who don’t have eligible children, who are low-income. The scope of benefits would include all of the benefits that are provided to Medicaid enrollees today. Long-term care would be provided subject to an asset test.

There are a number of expansions that are happening that reduce the number of uninsured as well as the extent to which counties would have care that uninsured individuals present with that is not compensated.

So we have simplification, as the governor mentioned. That’s going to increase the number of people who are currently eligible but don’t have coverage for the whole scope of the year. We have expansion to folks who are not eligible today. When we expand the program to serve people who are not eligible today, we also have an expansion in our limited scope or emergency services program that provides services for –

And the reason why I’m telling you all of this is because much has been discussed about how many uninsured remain. And one of the key questions is not only how many people remain uninsured but how many people remain uninsured that don’t have a fund source for their costs. Right? Because when we look at the remaining uninsured number, that for example could include undocumented individuals. When we think about what happens with their costs, people who are not qualified immigrants are eligible for emergency services so there’s going to be a federal fund source coming with that. People who don’t necessarily enroll in the program there’s presumptive eligibility at the provider level. So there are lots of mechanisms to make sure that even when somebody is not enrolled in the program in the way in which we traditionally think about it, there’s going to be opportunities to access federal funds and access our funds to pay for the care of those individuals.

Question:
So even though they’re uninsured, they’d get care but in a less expensive way?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
There’s a fund source to pay for their care, and their episode of needing care may be covered. When we think about our Medi-Cal program and we think about 8 million people enrolled, over the course of the year, that’s 9.5 million. So we have people coming into the program when they need care and leaving the program at other points in time. More of them will stay. But that means that when thinking about what’s happening from a county standpoint, we have to think about what costs are they going to be left with that’s not going to have fund source. And looking at the number of people who are enrolled at any one point in time is only one of the data points that one needs to consider.

So the state would expand the Medicaid program. The state would take on the responsibilities. Then the question arises why would the state continue to provide $1.5 billion to assist counties with the responsibility that they will now not be having since the state will be paying for that coverage. So we look at basically shifting those resources from health care programs to human services programs as that not only has the benefit of helping make health care reform more affordable and sustainable for the state but it also have the effect of more clearly delineating the responsibilities for health and human services programs between the state and the counties in a way that we think will make more sense and be better from a human services standpoint.

The budget provides a specific mechanism for how to capture savings. So one of the concerns that has come up from the counties, which is a very valid concern that we agree with, is that we know generally what the theory is but who is going to sign up, when are they going to? So we basically comparing what’s happening with today – with total costs for uninsured and for Medi-Cal, how does that compare to total revenues, we’d capture those savings and those savings are the ones that are re-directed. So to a county that is providing a significant amount of outpatient services to people who will remain uninsured and for whom there won’t be a fund source, those dollars they basically get to keep.

Question:
…That mechanism that you’re talking about, is that built on the existing health plan infrastructure? [inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s not exactly – it’s not the same thing. We basically would be looking at the savings increase overtime and it starts at $300 million and it goes up to $900 million and then it goes up to $1.3 billion. And we have an estimate the savings that will be re-directed will be based on the reality of what’s occurring. We basically would be using those dollars for human services programs. We think that because the mechanism takes into account remaining costs for the uninsured for which there isn’t a fund source, we’re making sure the dollars remain.

Another key element would be making sure that we maintain stability in the patient population that’s being served by safety net providers that are public safety net providers so that we can make sure there’s continued support for county clinics and county hospitals.

Question:
[inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
…We are basically all the dollars would remain local revenues that are transitioning from local health dollars to local human services dollars.

Question:
Do you have a list of programs that you’d like to see?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
CalWorks and CalWorks-linked child care are the two main programs. And then depending on what happens on the dollars, then we would have food stamps administration as the other piece where the counties would assume greater responsibility.

Question:
[Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
We would continue to have state policy and state directions. So grants, eligibility levels, all of those things would continue to be state policies but counties administer the programs today, counties would continue to administer the program, and the program would be funded locally.

Question:
That was the bold and generous thing? What you just said?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
The bold and generous thing is to expand coverage to millions of people and do it in a manner that includes comprehensive benefits like the ones we provide today.

Question:
[Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
We maintain the current scope of benefits which does not include adult dental.

Question:
Managed care tax…why the switch from the gross premium to the sales?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Basically as part of trying to work with the federal government to get approval to coordinated care initiative and achieve a necessary level of savings, we were able to get to an agreement that provides more revenues to the state from this different tax rate. So the tax continues to be the same – it’s the managed care organization. It works in the same way. Just happening at a different rate so instead of being 2.3…

Question:
[Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
The biggest change is that English language learners will count for purposes of funds from instead of being 5 years to 7 years. The other changes are do a three-year averaging of the data to avoid spikes and auditing of the data. And concerns have been raised about what would happen with our – it’s the folks who are doing training programs and career technical education like programs. Basically there’s a concern about folks who were directly funded who were going to lose their funding and there’s a hold harmless consistent with many of the hold harmless that are built into the formula for two years. So those are the big changes there.

The significant changes on the local control funding formula come in the form of strengthening accountability and there are stronger accountability mechanisms built into the May revision to ensure that the dollars are being spent in a manner that is for the primary benefit of the students to make sure that the dollars are being used to improve the outcomes that those students experience and also that there’s an appropriate role for county superintendents as well as for the state in oversight to ensure that the goals that are intended are accomplished.

Question:
The topline increase in Medi-Cal spending?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
The increase in Medi-Cal spending is $500 million above the governor’s budget.

Question:
Above January?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yes. And that’s a couple of different things. We have had a delay in court action on the appeal regarding rate reductions. So that’s a significant chunk of it. We also have disapproval for a reduction that was included in last year’s budget to change the way in which we compensate some public hospitals.

Question:
Public hospitals?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yeah, it’s not the traditional public hospitals. They’re called non-designated public hospitals.

Question:
…employee pensions. Is that something new in the May revise or is that an existing?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s something here that’s new in the May revision and it’s based on the recent action to change the moving policies relative assets-losses.

Question:
Do you have a number on that?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s about $300 general fund.

Question:
$300 million a year?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yeah, it’s about what, 6 total funds?

Question:
Can we get the total dollar amount that will be spent in the coming fiscal year? And how much of that is an increase?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
In terms of PERS?

Question:
Yeah.

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
This increase is not happening until a few years out. The first year it’s going be phased in is 2015-16. So our contributions are going up but it’s kind of modest until we get to this moving changes, which are in 2015-16.

Question:
On the cap and trade loan…to repay that?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Yes, the dollars have to be re-paid immediately upon determination that the program needs the resources for its expenditure plan.

Question:
So does that add to the wall of debt?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It would add to the wall of debt and the deferrals reduce the the wall of debt so the net change on the wall of debt is $258 million.

Question:
…About the corrections piece and moving longer term offenders from the counties back to jail. Do you see this being revenue-neutral?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It would be revenue-neutral and population-neutral. It’s really a question of which offenders are housed in which setting.

So counties have raised concerns, particularly our sheriff colleagues have raised concerns about the suitability of handling long-term offenders in jail. So this would provide an opportunity for if the county wants to have longer-term offenders come to corrections, then we would have shorter-term offenders go to jail. And it would be population neutral and revenue-neutral swap of people; it’s just a change of who is in what institution.

Question:
What count do you see? I mean, is this in the hundreds, in the thousands?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It depends on…it’s the total number of people who are in jail who are there for longer than 5 years is about 1,000. So it depends on how many of those counties decide that they would rather have them be in the state and then we would have a like number of people moving in the other direction. So it depends but the outer-bound is about 1,000.

Question:
[Inaudible]

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
The prisons have people that are – they were at one time long-term offenders but they are at basically at the release time. So you always have people coming in and out of prison. The other population is you have people who by the time they’ve come to prison, they’ve served a substantial amount of time locally and so they only have a short sentence left in the state. So those are the two categories of shorter-term offenders.

Question:
So federal officials won’t be looking at this and say, “Hey, they’re increasing the prison population.” Because I think some of them see CDCR…

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
It’s population neutral in light of the three-judge panel and in light of our fiscal conditions. So we’re trying to provide counties an option, provide counties some relief but do it in a way that is consistent with where we are on the three-judge panel and where we are on our budget.

Question:
Were there any particular types of offenders who you have in mind for spending in excess of 5 years in county jail?

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Whatever offenders are spending in excess of 5 years that the county wants to send to us.

Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance:
Our estimate is that you will experience the release slower and similarly the savings will be transferred consistent with the reality of the savings being experienced. So we only have half a year of health care reform in this coming year and we anticipate that enrollment will happen over time so the relief will be phased in overtime.

###

Learn More:

2 Comments on “Transcript: Press conference Q&A with CA Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos on the May revision of the 2013-2014 budget

  1. Pingback: Spotlight: California State Budget 2013-14 | What The Folly?!

  2. Pingback: Transcript: Press conference Q&A with CA Gov. Jerry Brown on the May revision of the 2013-2014 budget | What The Folly?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.