Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bgs Fiscal Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel reviews expanding BGS authority to shift capital funds across projects
Summary
Committee members debated language that would let the State Buildings & General Services (BGS) shift unexpended capital balances between projects to keep active work moving, and asked legislative counsel to clarify statutory limits and approval thresholds under Title 29.
The House Corrections & Institutions Committee debated language in the capital bill that would give the commissioner of Buildings & General Services more flexibility to transfer unexpended project balances across projects and, potentially, across sections of the biennial capital bill.
Deputy Commissioner Emily Cassiki told the committee that "DGS is supportive of this language," and explained the department's goal is to avoid stalled projects by reallocating funds to projects ready to move. She described scenarios in which a project allocated to one agency is delayed while another BGS‑managed project is ready to proceed, saying flexibility would help "keep projects moving." (Emily Cassiki, Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services.)
Legislative counsel walked members through Title 29, section 152, noting subdivision 19 permits transfers "between projects that are authorized within the same section" of a biennial capital construction act. Subdivision 20 provides a pathway to move unexpended balances between projects in different capital construction acts but requires approval of the Secretary of Administration for amounts under the statutory threshold and Emergency Board approval above it. John (Legislative counsel) told members that the statute distinguishes intra‑section transfers (routine) from inter‑act transfers (approval required).
Members asked how practice has evolved; committee participants said BGS has historically focused use of transfer authority within section two and that making explicit language for other sections could reduce confusion. Several members pressed staff to draft clear statutory language and to confirm whether routine management already permits some movement within sections.
No formal vote was recorded during the discussion. Members directed legislative staff to confer with the Office of Legislative Counsel and return with clarified draft language that makes the committee's intent explicit and that preserves required approvals for larger transfers.
The committee also asked staff to note emergency approval thresholds: transfers between different acts may require Secretary of Administration approval for transfers up to the stated threshold and Emergency Board sign‑off for larger sums. The committee will review a revised draft later in the markup process.
