Lingle Offers DLNR Modest Gains; Actual ’04 Expenses Are Under Budget

Want to know how much of the taxpayer’s dollar goes to fuel the state’s Natural Areas Reserves System? Maybe you’re interested in the state’s level of support for commercial versus recreational fishing, the development of forest products, or maintenance and expansion of hiking trails.

In past years, it was an easy matter to look up the amount that was allocated to each of these programs (and more) in the state’s budget and compare it against past years to see if the state was increasing or holding back re sources devoted to these activities.

No more. The latest budget for fiscal years 2005-06 and beyond has eliminated no fewer than seven line accounts for the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Instead of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife having four separate accounts, for example, there is now simply one budget for the division. And similarly for the divisions of Aquatic Resources, State Parks, and Engineering. In total, the number of accounts within the DLNR has shrunk to 11, with no division now having more than one account.

Georgina Kawamura, director of the Department of Budget and Finance, said that the decision to consolidate was made by her and Peter Young, head of the DLNR. She said that the new approach “simplified” the budget, making it easier for the public to understand. “Simplification is good, isn’t it?” she asked. In any case, she added, the various line accounts that were consolidated in the budget documents were still being individually tracked at the departmental level. Doesn’t that mean, then, Kawamura was asked, that the only people who are being kept in the dark about the budget details for the various programs are members of the public?

Kawamura said that the consolidation decision “isn’t set in concrete.” She promised to look into ways the public could obtain more detailed information on various programs that have now been aggregated into division-wide accounts.

Kawamura said also that the “clumping” of accounts had been done across the board statewide, not just at the DLNR. Yet of the 252 separate accounts found in the fiscal 2005 budget, there was a net loss of just nine in the 2006 budget, seven of them coming from the DLNR. No other department lost more than one account through consolidation (one agency – Department of Accounting and General Services – actually gained a new account). The multi-volume budget message is available as .pdf files on the web page of the Department of Budget and Finance: [url=http://www.hawaii.gov/budget,]www.hawaii.gov/budget,[/url] for those who want to check out what Governor Lingle describes as a new, “user-friendly” budget.

In addition to the shrinking number of DLNR accounts, the budget documents prepared this year for some line accounts (but not all) appear to include items that were not included in past years. To know how actual expenses for, say, the Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement in fiscal 2003-2004 stacked up against budgeted operating expenses, you need to factor out a substantial equipment purchase, which has been included in total operating expenses for fiscal 2004. The 2004 budget for DOCARE was $6,841,579; its actual spending for the year is given as $7,239,436, which includes $717,885 in equipment costs. Kawamura said that it is not uncommon for departments to use their operating funds to purchase equipment. In this case, however, as in several others, the equipment seems to have been purchased with funds other than those authorized in the operating budget.

All in all, without someone from the DLNR fiscal office to guide one through the accounts, it is nearly impossible to know whether a program has been scheduled for an increase, a cut, or no change.

The bottom line? It is impossible to make unequivocal assertions, but when totals from fiscal 2004-2005 are compared to those proposed for fiscal 2005-2006, it appears as though the governor has proposed an increase of about $2.6 million for the Department of Land and Natural Resources: from $73,115,475 (per Act 41 of the 2004 Legislature) in operating funds for the current fiscal year (ending June 30) to $76,771,167 for fiscal 2005-2006.

(A caveat: Lingle’s budget documents given to the Legislature last month contain contradictory figures for total budget amounts. For example, on page 1024, the 2005 operating budget is given as $72,598,476; by the next page, it has increased to $74,398,726. If you add up the figures for the 2005 operating budget provided for each separate DLNR account, you get yet a third total: $74,048,406. The budget of $73,115,475 passed in Act 41 was adjusted in August for collective bargaining and spending restrictions; the revised total came to $72,598,476, which matches the figure on page 1024. Totals for the governor’s proposed DLNR operating budget also vary. On page 1025, the figure given is $76,771,167, but a page earlier, it was pegged at $76,867,167. If you add up individual accounts, the total confirms the $76,771,167 figure.)

Personnel
In her budget message, Lingle says the environment remains, as she described it last year, one of five “critical areas set out for highest priority.” Last year, this “critical area” took a hit, with the DLNR losing 67 permanent and 12.5 temporary positions. This year, Gover nor Lingle’s budget for fiscal 2005-2006 proposes restoring 21 of those positions: six to DOCARE (for a net loss of six since 2004); eight to the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (net loss of five since 2004); and three to Division of State Parks (net loss of 18). And the department’s administrative staff, which lost three positions in fiscal 2004-2005, is proposed for a gain of two this year, as is Engineering.

DOFAW, which lost 12 positions in last year’s bloodbath, will see no change in the proposed budget; it will remain with a total authorized permanent staff of 143 positions, although the budget proposes hiring of 6.5 temporary workers for “forestry management and products development” and “forest and outdoor recreation.” There is no increase in personnel proposed for the strapped Natural Area Reserves staff. The Land Division, which lost five, is not proposed for any offsetting gain, either.

Unspent Resources
The Department of Land and Natural Resources is generally thought to be underfunded, with its annual budget falling short, year after year, of what is needed to keep the state’s natural resources in good working order. Yet what the DLNR has been given it has failed to spend.

The budget documents prepared for the Legislature by the Lingle administration show actual spending for fiscal year 2003-2004. A comparison of what was allocated that year versus what was actually spent discloses a gap of approximately $11 million. Most of this is accounted for by the perennial, unjustified optimism of the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, which anticipates revenues to the Boating Special Fund far in excess of actual collections. Yet if DOBOR is dropped out of the picture, the difference between the budgetary ceiling authorized by Act 200 of the 2003 Legislature and actual expenditures comes to roughly $4 million, or about 7 percent.

A comparison of DLNR expenditures for fiscal 2002-2003 (the last year of the Cayetano administration) to expenditures for fiscal 2003- 2004 (first full year of the Lingle administra­tion) shows that spending actually decreased by about three-quarters of a million dollars (from $60,952,000 in 2003 to $60,230,905 in 2004).

Fun Facts
As noted above, the budget documents are not always consistent, but the budget trivia below are drawn from page 20 of the governor’s budget message, laying out the proposed op­erating budget for fiscal 2006: