| A:
Result - Achieve long-term fiscal stability in the State of Alaska. |
| |
Target #1: Balance expenditures with revenue within a five-year period
Status #1: In FY2008, 100% of recurring expenditures were paid for with current year revenues
Percent of Expenditures Paid for by Revenues
| Fiscal Year |
YTD Total |
| FY 2010 |
100% (projected)
|
| FY 2009 |
100% (projected)
|
| FY 2008 |
100%
|
| FY 2007 |
100%
|
| FY 2006 |
100%
|
| FY 2005 |
99.1%
|
| FY 2004 |
96.8%
|
| FY 2003 |
82%
|
| FY 2002 |
64.8%
|
Analysis of results and challenges: Depending upon the average fiscal-year-to-date oil price per barrel by spring 2009, the possibility exists that we may have to reduce or delay expenditures, reduce savings deposits, and/or access reserve funds such as the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund or Statutory Budget Reserve Fund to cover an unanticipated revenue shortfall.
|
| A1:
Strategy - Reduce reliance on Constitutional Budget Reserve in order to balance budget |
| |
Target #1: No greater than a $400 million draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve annually
Status #1: There was no general fund shortfall that required the use of the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund in FY2008
Amount Drawn From the Constitutional Budget Reserve (in millions)
| Fiscal Year |
YTD Total |
| FY 2010 |
$0.0 (projected)
|
| FY 2009 |
$0.0 (projected)
|
| FY 2008 |
$0.0
|
| FY 2007 |
$0.0
|
| FY 2006 |
$0.0
|
| FY 2005 |
$34.9
|
| FY 2004 |
$10.8
|
| FY 2003 |
$498.1
|
| FY 2002 |
$884.3
|
Analysis of results and challenges: Depending upon the average fiscal-year-to-date oil price per barrel by spring 2009, the possibility exists that we may have to reduce or delay expenditures, reduce savings deposits, and/or access reserve funds such as the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund or Statutory Budget Reserve Fund to cover an unanticipated revenue shortfall.
|
| |
Target #2: Reduce percentage of general fund budget funded from the Constitutional Budget Reserve from FY2003 level of 20%
Status #2: There were no general fund shortfalls in FY2008 that required the use of the Constitutional Budget Reserve
Budget Percentage Funded from Constitutional Budget Reserve
| Fiscal Year |
YTD Total |
| FY 2010 |
0% (projected)
|
| FY 2009 |
0% (projected)
|
| FY 2008 |
0%
|
| FY 2007 |
0%
|
| FY 2006 |
0%
|
| FY 2005 |
.01%
|
| FY 2004 |
.5%
|
| FY 2003 |
20%
|
Analysis of results and challenges: Depending upon the average fiscal-year-to-date oil price per barrel by spring 2009, the possibility exists that we may have to reduce or delay expenditures, reduce savings deposits, and/or access reserve funds such as the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund or Statutory Budget Reserve Fund to cover an unanticipated revenue shortfall.
|
| |
Target #3: Maintain $1 billion Constitutional Budget Reserve balance
Status #3: $6.6 billion Constitutional Budget Reserve FY2009 beginning balance, a 229% increase over FY2004
Methodology: Data available on the Department of Administration, Division of Finance's website. The amounts reflected here are the result of the following calculation from the Division of Finance document: "beginning balance" less "subfund balances appropriated back" less "direct appropriations: Treasury operations".
|
Beginning Balance of the Constitutional Budget Reserve (in millions)
| Fiscal Year |
YTD Total |
| FY 2009 |
$6,596.8
|
| FY 2008 |
$2,598.5
|
| FY 2007 |
$2,266.9
|
| FY 2006 |
$2,150.0
|
| FY 2005 |
$2,060.3
|
| FY 2004 |
$2,004.7
|
| FY 2003 |
$2,336.1
|
| FY 2002 |
$3,008.0
|
|
| A2:
Strategy - Fund initiatives that over time will provide increased revenue to the State |
| |
Target #1: Increase revenue from new initiatives funded during the fiscal year
Status #1: Over time the approval of the TransCanada license under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) will provide new revenue to the state
Amount of Projected Revenue Increases due to New Initiatives (in millions)
| Fiscal Year |
YTD Total |
| FY 2009 |
Long-term impact $315.1
|
| FY 2008 |
$1,600.0
|
| FY 2007 |
$1,270.0
|
| FY 2006 |
$276.1
|
| FY 2005 |
$175.4
|
| FY 2004 |
$70.1
|
Analysis of results and challenges: The statement "long-term impact" for FY09 relates to the approval of the license to TransCanada under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (HB 3001 now Ch. 3, 4SSLA 2008). The $315.1 reflects the proceeds from the general obligation bonds (Ch. 30, SLA 2008) that were approved by voters in the November 2008 general election.
The amount for FY08 reflects the estimated $1.6 billion in new revenue from implementation of oil and gas tax amendments made in HB 2001.
The amount for FY07 reflects $1.1 billion from implementation of the petroleum production tax that was effective April 1, 2006 and $170 million from tobacco bond refinancing.
The amount for FY06 reflects $191.1 million, a full year of the ELF adjustment, and $85 million in Alaska Student Loan Corporation bond proceeds.
The amount for FY05 reflects $55.4 million due to the partial year implementation of the economic limit factor (ELF) adjustment, $45 million in Alaska Housing Finance Corporation bond proceeds, and $75 million in Alaska Student Loan Corporation bond proceeds.
The amount for FY04 reflects several fee and license increases.
|
| A3:
Strategy - Maintain the State's excellent credit rating |
| |
Target #1: Maintain Aa2, AA+, or AA credit rating
Status #1: Aa2, AA+, and AA credit rating
State of Alaska's Credit Rating Moody's/Standard & Poor's/Fitch
| Fiscal Year |
Rating by Entity |
Outlook by Entity |
| FY 2010 |
Aa2/AA+/AA (projected)
|
Stable/Stable/Stable (projected)
|
| FY 2009 |
Aa2/AA+/AA
|
Stable/Stable/Stable
|
| FY 2008 |
Aa2/AA/AA
|
Stable/Stable/Stable
|
| FY 2007 |
Aa2/AA/AA
|
Stable/Stable/Stable
|
| FY 2006 |
Aa2/AA/AA
|
Stable/Stable/Stable
|
| FY 2005 |
Aa2/AA/AA
|
Stable/Stable/Stable
|
| FY 2004 |
Aa2/AA/AA
|
Negative/Stable/Stable
|
| FY 2003 |
Aa2/AA/AA
|
Negative/Stable/Stable
|
Analysis of results and challenges: Alaska currently has the second and third most positive credit ratings. Standard & Poor's upgraded Alaska's credit rating from AA to AA+ on March 27, 2008.
The range of outlooks run from Positive, Stable, Negative, Credit Watch. A "Credit Watch" outlook is indicative of an upcoming rating decrease. The impact of a one step rating change is an interest rate change of 10-50 basis points (or 0.1% to 0.5%).
It is unlikely that Alaska's credit rating will improve to the highest level for several reasons: lack of a comprehensive fiscal plan, narrow revenue base (oil production), and debt repayment capacity. The fact, however, of the existence of the Permanent Fund makes Alaska unique in the credit markets.
|
| B:
Result - Departments show improvement towards their performance targets. |
| |
Target #1: 90% of departmental performance measures are showing annual progress towards achieving desired end results.
Status #1: 70% of agencies show progress towards achieving desired results in 2008
Analysis of results and challenges: The 2009 percentage is a projected percentage.
During 2008, OMB implemented improvements that enhance the performance framework to provide a better understanding and presentation on what of value is brought to the public by each agency, and what the status is on moving towards accomplishing that value. The public can now view one page summaries of statewide performance indicators, and of agency desired end results with the associated target status. A methodolgy field was also added to the data presentations and will allow for easier comparability with national, state or other data sets.
In addition, OMB conducted statewide trainings to increase the agencies' capacity to link their strategies and end results to the budget. Over 400 employees, representing all state agencies, attended the trainings. This was a significant increase over prior years' attendance of 100 to 200 employees.
|
| B1:
Strategy - Improve the agencies' capacity to link activities to end results |
| |
Target #1: 98% of agencies have a strategic framework that indicates whether results are being achieved and report, at a minumum, on those measures annually
Status #1: Target is achieved in 2008
Analysis of results and challenges: The 2009 percentage is a projected percentage.
During 2008, OMB implemented improvements that enhance the performance framework to provide a better understanding and presentation on what of value is brought to the public by each agency, and what the status is on moving towards accomplishing that value. The public can now view one page summaries of statewide performance indicators, and of agency desired end results with the associated target status. A methodolgy field was also added to the data presentations and will allow for easier comparability with national, state or other data sets.
In addition, OMB conducted statewide trainings to increase the agencies' capacity to link their strategies and end results to the budget. Over 400 employees, representing all state agencies, attended the trainings. This was a significant increase over prior years' attendance of 100 to 200 employees.
|
|