Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bgs Transfer Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Corrections & Institutions committee resists broadening BGS authority to move capital funds across sections
Summary
Committee members debated and ultimately moved to keep current statutory limits on Buildings & General Services (BGS) transfers rather than allow cross‑section reallocations, citing risks to project specificity and oversight; chair offered a motion to leave the language unchanged and members agreed informally.
The Corrections & Institutions committee debated a request to let the Department of Buildings & General Services move appropriated capital funds across different sections of the capital bill, but members said the current statutory limits should remain.
The Chair opened the review on March 24, saying staff had worked with the legislative council and joint fiscal office on language for the capital bill. A staff member summarized the proposal as a request to allow BGS to transfer funds across sections that currently are limited to intra‑section transfers only.
"As you know, multiple sections appropriate funds to BGS," the staff member said, and proponents urged broader flexibility so BGS could assign work regardless of which section originally funded it. Supporters argued the change would reduce steps and bureaucracy when projects overlap agency lines.
Opponents pushed back that broad cross‑section authority would undermine the committee’s and Legislature’s ability to target funds to specific projects. One committee member warned it could "treat one section as basically having the aggregate of two sections" and questioned whether the Legislature would retain meaningful control over allocations.
The committee reviewed existing statutory thresholds cited by staff. Under the statutes discussed, transfers of unexpected project balances between projects authorized in different capital construction acts require approval of the secretary of administration when the balance does not exceed $200,000 and additional approval of the emergency board when it exceeds $200,000. Members noted that separate provisions already allow intra‑section transfers and that emergency board or secretary approval is an existing check on larger moves.
After extended discussion about checks and balances and how often administrative approvals are granted, the Chair proposed a motion "to keep it the way it is." Members voiced support and the group agreed informally to retain current limits rather than add broad new authority for BGS.
The committee also noted practical follow‑up: staff will confirm statutory language and thresholds in Title 28 and Title 32 and capture any narrowly targeted language the committee wants (for example, allowing limited transfers among a small set of specified line items). No formal roll‑call vote was recorded during this session; members voiced assent during the meeting.
What happens next: staff will draft the capital bill language for the committee’s preview, reflecting the decision to preserve current transfer limits and any narrowly defined exceptions the committee requests. The committee scheduled a capital bill preview for 8:30 a.m. the following day.
