GOVERNOR PROPOSES KEEPING BOTH GREEN HILL SCHOOL AND NASELLE YOUTH CAMP OPEN

Gov. Chris Gregoire has weighed in on the House and Senate budget proposals and now asks that Green Hill School and Naselle Youth Camp stay open.

In a seven-page critique of the two legislative budget plans sent April 10, the governor through her budget director said DSHS has identified an alternative to closing either Green Hill or Naselle.

But the $7.3 million would come from closing four unspecified Juvenile Rehabilitation community facilities, eliminating two cottages from unspecified institutions and moving the basic training camp to another JRA institution. Savings would also come from administrative, support and contracted services.

So this is mostly good news, but we need to find out which group homes and which cottages.

The governor also weighed in on parks closures and the Washington Management Service.

On Parks, the governor appears to oppose the House amendment prohibiting parks closures because of the "opt out" funding plan. She said even with the $28 million raised by that plan, the House budget makes a net cut of $12.3 million. So, she wants the Parks Commission to have the power to close parks "that are no longer consistent with its mission."

On WMS, she also appears to oppose the House plan to cut WMS by 8 percent in each of the next two years. She wants agencies to have more discretion on where to make all cuts.

DOWNLOAD MEMO HERE

Green Hill School. The House budget and the Governor’s budget both proposed closure of Naselle Youth Camp. The Senate’s proposed closure of Green Hill School on July 1, 2010, was predicated on an estimated savings of $14 million. The timeframe for closing Green Hill is not feasible, and capital funding of $7 million is insufficient compared to the estimated need of $19 million this biennium (or a total of $31 million over the next four years). DSHS has identified an alternative to closing either Green Hill School or Naselle. This proposal would save $7.3 million by closing four state community facilities, eliminating two cottages from institutions, and moving the basic training camp to another Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration institution. This alternative also assumes additional reductions in administrative, support and contracted services.

Park Closures. The House budget assumes $28 million of new revenue from the “opt-out” vehicle license renewal plan and reduces state general funds by this same amount. In addition to this $28 million reduction in general fund dollars, the House also reduces the Parks budget by $12.3 million. However, an amendment was passed in committee that directed no park closures during the 2009-11 Biennium. It is unknown how the Commission would not be forced to close parks, given the net general fund reduction of $12.3 million in the House budget. The Governor believes the Commission should be given the latitude to close parks that are no longer consistent with its mission.

Administrative Reductions. While the Senate budget includes over $260 million (Near General Fund) in non-specific agency and administrative reductions, the House budget elevates this total to $322 million. This higher reduction is unachievable as an administration-only cut.

Although administrative reductions and efficiencies are undeniably necessary in this budget, it would be misleading to the public to imply that across-the-board cuts at this level will affect only administrative overhead and not direct services. We believe that the House administrative reduction should be smaller, and that there should be an explicit statement that the cuts in these budgets will affect both administration and services.

The House also assumes that there will be an overall reduction in Washington Management Service and Exempt Management Service positions of 8 percent statewide during FY 2010 and an additional 8 percent during FY 2011 to eliminate at least 800 of these positions. Rather than dictating how agencies will achieve their savings, we need to provide agencies management tools and flexibility to implement the degree of change this budget will require.

We recommend that language be added to Section 912 of the Senate budget to make it clear that both administrative and program service reductions are expected. Additionally, we urge your passage of existing legislative proposals that allow emergency rule-making when necessary to implement budget reductions.