October 13, 2016 1 Join int r remarks o of Associa iatio ion o - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

October 13, 2016 1

 Join int r remarks o of Associa iatio ion o of Countie ies, M Munic icip ipal L l League, Legislative ve F Finance C Committe ttee, a and the D Departm tment t of Finance a and A Admin inis istra ratio ion  Framing the Issu Issues  Cou ounty a and M Munici cipal S Surve vey R Results ts  Stat ate Age Agency P y Persp spectives  Admin inis istra rativ ive C Changes U Underw rway  Recommended L Legislative C Chan ange ges 2

 We e are re all re ll respon ponsible le to e to ensure re capita pital ou l outla tlay fundin ding g cr creat eates a a hi high h “retur urn o on n inv nvestment” to: to: ◦ Improve health and safety; ◦ Improve quality of life; ◦ Create and retain jobs; and ◦ Provide other critical government services. 3

 Over er th the e nex ext t fi five e yea ears, th the e Sta tate te ant antic icipates is issui uing $1. $1.8 billi illion in in bonds to f fund und st stat ate an and l local c cap apital outlay. ay.  New M Mexico F o Finance A Auth thor ority ty a antici cipate tes i issuing another er $0.8 billi illion in in bonds.  Ab Abse sent significa cant t improve vements ts t the entire re c capit ital outla lay syst system w will: Continue to frustrate State and local stakeholders; o Continue to provide clear consistent guidelines; o Continue to underfund projects; and o Continue to negatively impact infrastructure needs. o  Project ct f funding ing will ill only nly b be suf uffic icient if it it is is direc ected ted a at t prio riorit itized, f fully lly-fu funded, a , and re read ady-to to-go p o projects ts. 4

Th The cu curre rrent t proce rocess allow allows for or hundreds of of million millions of of bon ond proc roceeds to to sit it id idle le, , unab able to to be e ex expen ended to cr creat eate infrastructure econ conomi mic c activ activity ity. 5

 IC ICIP IP – each f fall ll lo local l entit ities ide identif ify t their ir c capit pital l prio priorit ritie ies.  Legis isla lativ ive S Sessio ion – Gov overnor or alloc ocate tes 1/3 of of c capacity ty to a to a ha hand ndful of state a agency f facilit ility pro projects. . Legis islature re receives o over 5 r 5,0 ,000 capita tal outl outlay r reque uests f from om loc ocal enti ntiti ties a and nd non non-pr profit its. .  Capit pital bill bill authoriz izing a abo bout 1 1,0 ,000 pro projects, le , less Go Govern rnor v r vetoes, , is is enacted. d.  Bond I d Issuance – Each of the ro roughly ly 1 1,0 ,000 pro project re recipie ipients re return rns a bond ond que uestionnaire to to the the S SBOF to to dete termine w whe hether b bond onds can n be be is issued f d for r each pro project.  Loc ocal g grant ntees a and nd sta tate te a agency g granto ntors e ente nter I Inte ntergov overnmental Grant nt A Agreements ( (IGA) s setti tting s scop ope of of wor ork a and nd te terms ms e each mus h must t fol ollow ow thr throu ough the the l life of of the the p proj oject. t. 6

Loc ocal gra rante tees proc rocure re thi third-party goods s an and se services an and request st stat ate  gra ranto tor approv roval of of a Noti otice of of Obligation (N (NOO) ) to to enc encumber r a porti ortion on of of projec roject’s bud udget et. Onl nly after ter sta tate te gra rant ntor r approv roval of of an n NOO, loc ocal enti entities enter enter thi third rd-  party rty contr ontracts to to rec recei eive good oods and nd serv ervices. Loc ocal gra rante tees sub ubmit rei reimbursement req reques uests to to sta tate te gra rant ntors rs.  Sta tate e gra rant ntors rs rev review ew rei reimburs rsement req reque uests, req reque uest t any ny nec necessary ry  corre orrections, then then forw orward rd to to SBOF F to to dra raw dow own n bond ond proc roceed eeds. SBOF tra transfers bond ond proc rocee eeds to to sta tate te gra rant ntor r agen encies.  Sta tate e gra rant ntor r agen ency rei reimburses loc ocal gra rantee ee.  Loc ocal gra rante tee pays ys vend endor ors.  7

 DFA A alone one hous houses es sev ever eral d disti tinct of offices es tha that t ea each h play a criti tical rol ole i e in n admini nistering c capita tal outl outlay: ◦ Local al Govern rnment Div ivis isio ion – enters gran rant ag agre reements, re revie iews re reim imbursement re requests, train rains lo locals als on ICIP, ad admin inis isters Trib ribal al Infrastr tructu ture Fund (Other er g grantor a agen enci cies i incl clude D e DOT, T, ALTS TSD, I , IAD, O , OSE, E, NMED ED, et , etc.) c.). ◦ Stat ate Boar ard of Fin inan ance - bon bond d issue uer a and d pr proc ocessor of of reimbu bursement requests ts. ◦ Fin inan ancial C ial Contro rol D l Div ivis isio ion – generat rates paym ayments an and contro rols stat atewid ide ac accountin ing. ◦ Cap apit ital O al Outlay lay Bureau au – ex execu ecutive reco ecommen endations on pro roje ject fund unding ng. ◦ Admin inistrat ativ ive Servic ices Div ivis isio ion – coordin inat ates p paym ayment in inform rmat ation an and ac accountin ing entrie ries t to the general le al ledger in in SH SHARE. 8

 DFA DFA ensures ac accountability for tax axpay payer do dollar ars by by en enforcing g gra rant a agreem reements, t , the e antid idonatio ion c cla lause, , proc ocurement s t sta tandards, I IRS bon ond restr tricti tions, a and oth other la laws a and polic licie ies.  If you ou hear th that t som ometh thing i is “s “stu tuck a at t DFA,” ” th that c t can mea mean a ma many dif iffere erent t thin ings. Pleas ase e call S ll Step ephanie ie Schardin C Cla lark rke o e or r Ric ick L k Lopez ez so that DFA can assis ist in in findi ding a a sol oluti tion.  Res esea earching thes ese is e issues es often en uncovers a a comm mmunication brea reakdown s somew mewhere bet etwee een a lo local l admin ministrator and a a stat ate ag agency. 9

 The entire tire c capita pital ou l outla tlay proc process is is extre tremely cumb mbers rsome ome: ◦ There are no written guidelines for necessary documentation on reimbursements; and ◦ A “Helpful Hints" section would be useful for officials or new staff who are not familiar with the process considering turnover may occur every two years.  Unforesee een heal ealth an and saf afet ety issues es ( (i.e. e. ar arsen enic) encountered du durin ring th the proc process shou ould be be ta take ken in into to con onsideratio ion re rega gardi rding th the time timeframe for or com omple letio ion of of th the proje project. 10

 The aw awar ard p process t s tak akes t too l long f from t the p point o of issu ssuance of the b bonds t to executing a a gr gran ant agr agreement: ◦ It can take as long as 9 to 12 months to receive an executed grant agreement.  Duplication o of in information in in the f form rms u used b by vario rious agen encies es - for e r exa xample: ◦ DFA/LGD ICIP Form due Sept 1; ◦ Legislative Capital Outlay Request Form due prior to mid point of session; ◦ Executive Capital Outlay Survey/Questionnaire Form due before the bill is signed; and ◦ State Board of Finance Questionnaire Form (Information needed prior to issuance of the bonds). 11

 Al All the f forms e s esse ssentially r y require t the sam same t typ ype of information, but in in dif ifferent f form rmats. R Require a a univers rsal f form rm t to be used by y al all st stat ate age agencies. s.  The s e schedu edule f e for local g governmen ents t to compl mplet ete t e the projec ect shou ould b begin u upon on th the r receipt o t of f execu cute ted c capital o outl tlay gr gran ant agr agreement.  Written g guidelines o or a checklist st f for completing n necessar ssary y documentatio ion w would ld b be extremely ly h help lpful f l for local l go governments. Guidelines may r ay reduce t the time sp spent b by y st stat ate age agencies an and l local go governments c s clar arifying d dead adlines. s. 12

 Ca Capi pital outl outlay p proc oces ess i is ver ery cum umber ersome: e: ◦ Lengthy amount of time to go through all the processes; ◦ Lack of clear guidelines and consistency; ◦ Delays in receiving funds and in obtaining information once the grant is awarded; and ◦ Problems with identified fiscal agents.  Ma Many p projec ojects ts d do o not not rec ecei eive a e adeq equa uate te fund unding: ◦ Small awards for large projects; and ◦ Inability to fully fund projects.  Ap Approp opriations m made e to to nonp nonprofit or or quasi-gov over ernmen ental agenc encies es: ◦ County named as fiscal agent without consent and/or knowledge of a project; and ◦ Other anti-donation issues. 13