FY13 Budget and Caseload Update Fiscal Committee September 9, 2013

FY13 Budget Review 2 The Governor has filed in the FY13 closeout supplemental budget a PAC of $85K for the to support the Springfield relocation expenses. The $8.5M PAC for has already been passed into law. The funds will be moved into the FY once the Comptroller closes the FY13 books.

Historical Reversion Rate 3 FY13 PAC is assumed in reversion rate expenses in FY10 & FY11 are consolidated into

FY13 Budget Review without Caseload 4 The Governor has filed in the FY13 closeout supplemental budget a PAC of $85K for the to support the Springfield relocation expenses.

FY13 Budget Expenditure Review Why are there Unexpended Funds in the non-caseload accounts? $92K: Much of the reversion (not including the Springfield costs that may be PAC’d in FY14) were staff related. Originally, ANF did not approve backfills we represented on the FY13 Spending Plan. Though ANF relented on most positions, hiring was delayed, thus producing savings compared with our original projections $114K: Primary source of reversion was that the contractor could not produce all the planned statewide materials prior to the close of the fiscal year $185K: There were some savings in the non grant object classes. The legislature loaded $18K into the CC object class based on FY11 spending (contractor that helped write the RTTELC application). The bulk of the reversions, however, were related to the PP grant object class $26K: All grant funds were awarded, but one recipient (Mass Society for Prevention) did not expend their full grant award $252K: Reversions were spread out through the HH (consultants), JJ (translation and training), and PP (grants) object classes. Examples are: The FCC Systems Assessment Consultant project budgeted for $50K in HH, but actually only did not materialize; and grantees not spending $88K of the total grant amounts awarded by EEC in FY13. 5

FY13 Caseload Overview Summary As of August

FY13 Caseload by Account 7