Committee debates cash vs. bonded accounting and adds five‑year look‑back reporting to 10‑year capital plan
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Members discussed how the capital bill should present cash and bonded appropriations, aligned the bill with CDAC bonding guidance, and added language requiring a five‑year look‑back table (appropriated vs. expended, by funding type and project phase) to the 10‑year capital program plan submitted to the legislature.
The committee took up policy language that governs how the capital budget is presented to the legislature and how cash vs. bonded appropriations are treated. Members agreed to align the bill with the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee (CDAC) recommendation for bond authorization and to add reporting requirements that require agencies to provide a five‑year retrospective showing amounts appropriated and expended by funding type and project phase.
Why it matters: committee members said the legislature needs clearer, consistently formatted information (tables/charts) about prior appropriations and spending patterns across projects so they can assess whether funds were used as intended and to track leftover balances that may be reallocated.
Key committee actions and language changes The committee kept the authorization language consistent with CDAC recommendations (the bill’s authorization totals align with CDAC guidance) and agreed to insert a new reporting requirement that expands the required materials accompanying the governor’s 10‑year state capital program plan. The new subsection calls for a concise chart that covers the five fiscal years preceding the request and shows, for each project, aggregate amounts appropriated and expended, categorized by funding source (cash, bond) and project phase (planning, design, bid, construction).
Members discussed scheduling and timing: the bill currently referenced a December 15 deadline for administration reporting; the administration had asked to shift that timing to align with the governor’s annual budget presentation (“the third Tuesday” of the session). The committee accepted the logic of aligning reporting with the governor’s budget presentation and directed staff to mirror that date in the draft.
Next steps Staff will add the five‑year look‑back table requirement language into the form‑of‑capital‑budget section and align the reporting deadline with the governor’s budget presentation; they will also work with agency administration staff on the template so the administration can provide the requested charts.
Ending Committee members said they would revisit formatting and placement of the table if necessary, but they directed staff to keep the reporting requirement in the bill so the legislature receives consistent, project‑level funding histories alongside the 10‑year plan.