Proceedings of the fifth mountain lion workshop: 27

20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP
117. Also, some existing funds already used for purposes
compatible with Proposition 117 could be counted toward
fulfilling Proposition 117 requirements, but there were limits
on the extent to which this substitution could be done (§
2796(a)5,6). In later tables I will call this substitution
"overlap." The legislature could, at their discretion, use
general funds to satisfy most of the requirements, but there
were limitations on this use, also.
The proposition specified that the Controller shall
transfer 10 percent annually from the Unallocated Account in
the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund (Tobacco
Tax, Proposition 99) for use according to Proposition 117 (§
2795(a)). It also specified that no additional allocation from
that account shall be made for any natural resource or
environmental program (§ 2795(b)). In the 1990-91
Governor's proposed budget, 10 percent of the Unallocated
Account in the Tobacco Tax fund would have been about
$18,000,000 (personal communication, Don Rascon,
Department of Finance, April 9, 1990).
No other accounts were required to supply funds to
Proposition 117, but several others were mentioned as
possible sources of funds. These were: 1) Public Resources
Account in the Tobacco Tax Fund; 2) the California
Environmental License Plate Fund; 3) the Endangered and
Rare Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species Conservation and
Enhancement Account in the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund; 4) the Wildlife Restoration Fund; 5) the General Fund.
Proposition 117 placed restrictions on the use of
funds from some accounts. 1) Funds from the Public
Resources Account of the Tobacco Tax Fund were authorized
only to the extent authorized by the Tobacco Tax and Health
Protection Act of 1988 (§ 2796(a)1); 2) Except for the
Endangered and Rare... Account of the Fish and Game
Preservation Fund mentioned above, other expenditures from
the Fish and Game Preservation Fund could not be accounted
as expenditures for Proposition 117 (§ 2796(b)); 3) Transfers
of federal, local, or private funds, or transfers from the State
Coastal Conservancy Fund pursuant to § 31011 of the Public
Resources Code could not be accounted toward Proposition
117 funds. These restrictions prevent many of the Department
of Fish and Game and State Coastal Conservancy funds from
contributing.
Except for withdrawals from the Unallocated
Account of the Tobacco Tax, the sources of funds for
Proposition 117 were left to a process of negotiation each year
between agency representatives and legislators. In 1990, I
presumed that both agencies and legislators would try to find
as many "compatible" expenditures as possible, so as to
impact the budget as little as possible. Beyond that, political
and fiscal expediency would govern, and it was not possible
to predict how much would come from which funds.
1990 Predictions of Fiscal Impact
I have included below a list of agencies scheduled in
1990 to receive money from the accounts targeted by
Proposition 117 or that may have lost money to Proposition
117 (Tables 1-3). Some agencies get funds from accounts
according to bond issue specifications or laws requiring the
allocation. These funds would not have been affected by
Proposition 117, and are not included below. The tabulation
includes the name of the agency, the amount of potential
annual income from Proposition 117, and the proposed 1990-
91 budget as provided by the Finance Department. The
proposed budget represents the amount of agency budget
potentially at-risk for redistribution by Proposition 117.
Finally, the last column includes the agency's opinion as to the
amount of their budget that would qualify for Proposition 117
goals without redistribution. This represents the amount that
could be counted toward Proposition 117 without
redistribution of funds.
In interpreting the information in these lists it is
important to remember that Proposition 117 would require
only $30,000,000 annually, less the amount (about
$18,000,000) from the Unallocated Account of the Tobacco
Tax, resulting in a potential impact of about $12,000,000 on
the "at-risk" budget items. At the discretion of the legislature,
General Fund money could be used instead of these special
funds, except the Unallocated Account of the Tobacco Tax.
Also, if the legislature or the people desire to qualify a bond
issue for a future election, the bond issue could substitute for
these special funds, with the exception of the Unallocated
Account of the Tobacco Tax.
I had no comprehensive list of projects funded by the
Tobacco Tax Funds. However, the Department of Fish and
Game receives funds from the Public Resources Account that
would be at risk from Proposition 117. As one example, part
of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Program of the
North American Waterfowl Plan was funded in 1989-90 from
the Public Resources Account of the Tobacco Tax Fund.
Actual Sources and Expenditures
The Unallocated Account, Tobacco Tax, supplied
$77,773,000 during the past six years (Wildlife Conservation
Board 1996), or an average of $12,962,167 per year. This is
almost $5,000 per year less than estimated in 1990. The
difference may be attributed to declining revenues from the
excise tax on tobacco products. The Public Resources