2008 supplemental budget

The 2008 supplemental conference budget was released for public view today. Lawmakers will have until tomorrow to wade through the 407 pages to understand the spending increases they are being asked to approve. It took me a couple of hours, but I just finished reading through the proposed spending plan and found a couple of things worth noting.

I-960's finger prints are all over the supplemental budget. Last year's voter-approved initiative requiring legislative approval of all fee increases first makes an appearance in Section 127 (12) which requires the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to track its cost to implement the requirements of I-960 and report the results to the Legislature by November 1.

Section 127 (15) then instructs OFM to "conduct a review and analysis of all fees for which the legislature has delegated to state agencies and institutions of higher education the ability to establish and determine the amount, either upon initial establishment or subsequent increases . . . The objective of the review and analysis is to document the level of fees paid over the past five years, the cost of those programs over that same time period, and, to the extent available, the effectiveness of the activity in meeting its performance targets." The report is due by October 1.

The budget then authorizes agency fee increases in Sections 218 (23), 222 (1), 302 (4), 309 (1), 401 (1), 602 and 603. These are in addition to the fees being increased in HB 3381. Though not a fee increase, Section 222 (54) authorizes spending $130,000 from the General Fund to supplement a reduction in revenue from midwifery licensure fees.

Along with I-960, I-900 (performance audit authority for State Auditor) also makes an appearance in the budget. Section 139 (5) directs the Department of General Administration to report by August 31 its progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Motor Pool performance audit. A similar requirement is placed on OSPI in Section 501 (2)(b)(ii) concerning the performance audit of the state's Educational Service Districts.

In a troubling development, Section 502 (13) assumes passage of SB 6450, which the State Auditor strongly objects to.

Though there are plenty of other spending decisions worth highlighting the final one I'll point out is the attention paid to the state's paid family leave program:

Section 227 (11)
$6,218,000 of the family leave insurance account--state appropriation is provided solely for implementation of the family leave insurance program.

(a) The amount provided in this subsection assumes that, in developing the information technology systems to support the payment of benefits, the department will incorporate the claim filing and benefit payment efficiencies recommended by the joint legislative task force on family leave insurance in Part III of its final report dated January 23, 2008, including:

(i) Eliminating the option for awarding attorney fees and costs for administrative hearings;

(ii) Authorizing claims for benefits to be filed in the six-week period beginning on the first day of the calendar week in which the individual is on family leave;

(iii) Not requiring claimants to verify the birth of a child or the placement of a child for adoption;

(iv) Including an attestation from the claimant that written notice has been provided to the employer of the intention to take family leave; and

(v) Not deducting and withholding federal income taxes from benefit payments.

(b) In addition, the department shall incorporate the following claim filing and benefit payment efficiencies:

(i) Define "qualifying year" to mean the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters or, if eligibility is not established, the last four completed calendar immediately preceding the first day of the application year;

(ii) Allow individuals to file a claim for benefits in the six-week period beginning on the first day of the calendar year in which the individual is on family leave; and

(iii) After an initial family leave insurance benefit is paid, subsequent payments must be made biweekly, rather than semimonthly, thereafter.

Who needs to pass a paid family leave funding bill when you can design the payments via the budget?