FINAL BILL REPORT
ESHB 2836
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. |
PARTIAL VETO
C 36 L 10 E1
Synopsis as Enacted
Brief Description: Concerning the capital budget.
Sponsors: House Committee on Capital Budget (originally sponsored by Representatives Dunshee and White; by request of Governor Gregoire).
House Committee on Capital Budget
Senate Committee on Ways & Means
Background:
Washington operates on a biennial budget cycle. The Legislature authorizes expenditures for capital needs in the state omnibus capital appropriations act (capital budget), for a two-year period and authorizes bond sales through passage of a bond bill associated with the capital budget to fund a portion of these expenditures. The current capital budget covers the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011.
Summary:
The Supplemental Capital Budget appropriations in the amount of $433 million are made for the 2009-11 biennium. (See Substitute House Bill 2836 budget summary document.)
Votes on Final Passage:
First Special Session
House | 59 | 36 | |
Senate | 33 | 13 | (Senate amended) |
House | 61 | 36 | (House concurred) |
Effective: | May 4, 2010 |
Partial Veto Summary: The Governor vetoed three sections of the capital budget bill. A reduction in design funding for the Bates Technical College - Mohler Communications Technology Center - was vetoed in the Community and Technical College System section. Two sections giving direction to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) were also vetoed. One of the provisos directs OFM to require preliminary energy audits on projects included in agency budget requests for renovations or improvements. The second section eliminates OFM’s authority to transfer funds from one capital project to another within the same state agency, prohibits allotments for contingencies above the amount required for completion of a project and proposed alternates if agencies cannot document a programmatic need and an operational budget savings, and prohibits allotments for equipment costs or project scope beyond the funded project.