biennial budgeting cover page

Biennial Budgeting

Prepared by

Steven King Jim MacKenzie Chaz Vaughn

PADM 628

Dr. Greg Protasel April 27, 2005

Special thanks to

Diana Pearcy

Director of the Municipality of Anchorage’s Office of Management & Budget

&

Craig Duncan

Finance Director, City & Borough of Juneau

For their assistance & support in the completion of this project

A biennial budget is a document that authorizes a government’s appropriations,

planned expenditures, and anticipated revenues for two consecutive budgetary

years. Two commonly used types of biennial budgets are:

Traditional biennial budget: These budgets include both the spending plan and

the revenue plan for both budgetary years and are approved together.

Rolling biennial budget: These budgets consist of an additional financial plan

that serves as the tentative spending plan for the non-budget development

year. This results in the first year’s appropriations being formally adopted,

whereas the subsequent year’s appropriations are not. This system serves to

allow for a safety net in the case of substantial unforeseen impacts on the

budget prior to the start of the second year; if nothing drastic occurs within that

first year then the budget for the following year is already completed and only

needs to be formally adopted (Guajardo, An Elected Official’s Guide to MULTI-YEAR

BUDGETING, 2000).

The biennial budget has received a lot attention in Washington over the past

decade. Since 1977 more than forty congressional or special committee hearings

have addressed the topic. During the Hearing of the Committee on Rules on

2/16/00 (U.S. House of Representatives, 2000) the proponents of the system argued

the enactment of a biennial budget process could lead to the most significant

government wide fiscal management reforms of the last quarter century. They

claimed that the enormous amount of resources expended by the executive

branch in preparing multiple annual budgets would be diverted to long term

strategic planning and improving the performance of Federal programs.

The fundamental reason stated for adopting a biennial budget was to provide more

time for oversight of agency operations and to give greater lead time for budget

and appropriations decisions. They were also convinced that for those citizens

served by Federal programs, biennial budgeting would provide more predictability

and peace of mind. States, localities and private organizations would become

more efficient in the long term planning and management of their programs if

Federal funding streams were more predictable.

Ultimately the proponents of the new structure concluded that biennial budgeting is

not a panacea for all the ailments of society or the Federal Government. However,

they state that if the process is implemented and managed correctly it can promote

a more effective government and a less chaotic and repetitive budget process.

The opponents of the plan responded by pointing out that in 1940 forty-four states

had biennial budgets and now only twenty-one have them. They claimed that the

states found that by having biennial budgets it led to more supplemental budgets

and less oversight by the legislature. They also doubt that it is a more efficient

system. They claim that states that have adopted the biennial budget still perform

substantial annual reviews to balance their budgets (U.S. House of Representatives,

2000).

The opponents concluded that the act of changing to a biennial budget is a

cosmetic remedy that serves no real purpose beyond disguising the actual

budgetary problems and distracting attention away from the development of

meaningful solutions. They dispute the referenced improvements in oversight by

stating that the core problem with oversight is that nothing is done as a result of it,

not that the timing is off or that a lack of consolidation is inherent in an annual

budget system.

Opponents of the biennial system citing it as a cosmetic solution contend that what

is lacking in governments is a steady, consistent management purpose and some

even go so far as to accuse some stakeholders of wanting to lead the latest wave

in management thinking, without stopping to consider the possibility that the latest

may in fact be flawed or even completely irrelevant.

Laszlo Bockh and Mary Blakeslee (1998-2004) took this line of thinking a step

further when they stated: “There will always be a time constraint and the only

reason anything gets done is that there is an absolute deadline. Behavior in this

respect will not change. Look at what happened when the Federal fiscal year was

moved by three months in 1975, going from a July to June fiscal year to the

current October to September system- it simply made more time available for

evading the issues. And there were subcommittee chairs that did manage to get

all their work done on time. So it is humanly possible to stick to a schedule if you

in fact want to. I suspect that the biennial budget will give Congress one year and

eight months to avoid budget issues as opposed to the current eight months.”

Regardless of how the biennial budget addresses applicable problems, and

barring the cost benefit analysis, all parties agree that it is a difficult task to initiate.

And within the context of the above discussion of biennial budgets on the federal

level a great amount of thought, research, and implementation has occurred on

the state and local levels. The pros and cons of the biennial system, as well as

development, implementation, and maintenance issues tend to remain fairly

consistent across these varying degrees of government (National Advisory Council

on State and Local Budgeting, 1998).

Even in light of the opposition and implementation challenges as referenced

earlier, there is still a great deal of interest on the part of local, state, and federal

public policymakers towards the adoption of biennial budgets.

Their reasons for doing so vary but they generally share in common the desire to

improve financial, budget, and strategic planning practices and processes and to

strengthen the linkage between various management and financial policy and

budget documents. They also hope to cause a reduction in staff time allocated to

budget development by placing a greater emphasis on achieving long-term goals

and objectives. Biennial budgets are adopted in order to address budgetary

concerns that are not being met by an annual budgeting process.

Proponents of the biennial budget contend that some, perhaps many, issues could

be addressed without adopting a new system. However, they are convinced that

the following issues: Improving financial management; Improving long-range and

strategic planning; Improve program monitoring and evaluation; and linking

operating and capital activities and spending, - can be brought to the forefront by

requiring department directors and their budget officers to systematically address

each activity during budget development. In addition they have determined that

the biennial budget process reduces opportunism to increase department, division,

and/or unit budget appropriations from year to year. It also reduces the amount of

staff time dedicated to budget development, which permits the reallocation of staff

to other functions and activities (Guajardo, An Elected Official’s Guide to MULTI-YEAR

BUDGETING, 2000).

Two of the main reasons that opponents discourage the adoption of a biennial

budget are that budgets function in uncertain environments and that new systems

are often difficult and cumbersome to get started. Ongoing economic and

environmental changes present difficulty in forecasting revenues and expenditures

and this difficulty is often compounded depending on the culture, structure, and

operating conditions of some individual divisions, departments, and/or units.

Some of the difficulties in establishing a biennial budget often include:

The need for new legislative acts and resolutions;

The increased difficulty in this could come from the perception of a loss of

oversight and budgetary control for the legislative body.

A fostering of staff turnover due to unbalanced workload (i.e. increased

workload during budget development period).

The budget process would need to include new policies and procedures.

This would almost certainly need to include new timing for oversight and

auditing functions.

Governments considering the adoption of a biennial budget have learned to

counterbalance its potential disadvantages by amending current budgetary

policies and procedures as opposed to rebuilding the entire structure. This process

would include updates to working and budget manuals and the preparation of

budget staff well in advance of implementation.

Government officials would also do well to exam key economic and financial

indicators in assessing local economic environments, which would include an

analysis of existing and potential revenue structures. Once completed a

documentation process should be established to explore and determine key

economic and environmental assumptions.

Next, in order to get the project off the ground effective communication must be

established with key stakeholders. Those with an interest in the procedure must

see the connection between the biennial budget and long term financial and

strategic plans as well as revenue forecasts and financial and budgetary policies.

The development, implementation, and operation of a biennial budget generally

rely upon some basic assumptions about underlying expenditures and revenues.

Four basic expenditure assumptions:

1) Expenditures change over time incrementally.

2) Expenditures are easily controlled and sufficiently manageable.

3) Expenditures are predictable.

4) Significant crisis or extraordinary events are not common.

Four basic revenue structure assumptions:

1) Charges, user fees, and revenues in general are predictable.

2) Local and regional economies are stable.

3) Revenue structure and base are reliable.

4) A general consensus exists concerning revenue projections (Guajardo, An Elected Official’s Guide to MULTI-YEAR BUDGETING, 2000)

With these assumptions considered, addressed, and accounted for

implementation becomes viable. However, in order to successfully implement a

biennial budget with the least amount of difficulties it is necessary to have a

foundation and bridge between the budget and various planning documents. To

successfully establish this environment it is recommended that conditions exhibit

clearly defined multi-year obligations and capital expenditures including long-term

priorities, goals, and objectives as well as strategic and financial planning. In

addition, budgetary controls, policies, and processes (including reporting and

monitoring polices and procedures) should be firmly established along with a

methodology applicable to revenue and expenditure forecasting (Sutberry, Biennial

budgeting in Washington cities and counties: Government finance review, August 1998).

Other key factors, particularly political, administrative, and policy and procedural,

must also be addressed when considering the implementation of a biennial

budget.

The political factors necessary to obtain the support from legislative members as

well as the mayor, city manager, executive director, etc. should be addressed by

the chief financial officer. The key stakeholders should be fully versed on the

need, rationale, and benefits of a biennial budget and it must be ascertained that

they understand the process. As part of assuring a full understanding of the

process it is necessary to include an exploration on who has the authority to adopt

and implement a different budget schedule and whether or not those individuals or

bodies view the transition as a threat to their budgetary oversight authority.

Another important consideration, especially in Anchorage, is whether or not the

biennial budget would coincide with the election cycle.

The administrative factors include determining the impact of the biennial budget on

existing fiscal and budgetary processes, existing programs and services, as well

as the existing monitoring system. The implementation time frame must be

estimated along with the amount of staff resources needed for the process and it

must be determined how to achieve the coordination of all the key stakeholders

and involved staffs. Again, these issues can be best addressed through

information and education.

The policy and procedural issues that should be considered when implementing a

biennial budget include several determinations. Such as:

How will year-end fund balances between operation and capital budget be

reconciled?

How will transfers and reimbursements work?

How will staffing requirements be addressed?

How will budget amendments be carried out?

How will overruns and overspending be addressed (include with this revenue

shortfall policies and procedures)?

How will funding for unanticipated events be addressed?

How will projects be prioritized and incorporated into the budget?

Will fund transfers between budget years be allowed or will unexpended funds

be carried over into the next budget year?

And finally, what will budget cycle review policies and processes include?

The next section of this paper will explore how many of these issues were dealt

with by the city of Auburn, Alabama; it will examine the challenges they faced in

the course of implementing a biennial budget.

Auburn Implementation and Review

In 2000 the city of Auburn, Alabama began the steps necessary to convert from an

annual to a biennial budget for the 2001 - 2002 fiscal year. The following is a

review extracted from Government Finance Review August 2002. Andrea Jackson

who served as Auburn’s financial director during the transition is the author of the

review. Her article documented Auburn’s implementation process, the challenges,

and the results of their conversion. Highlights of that article are presented here for

analysis.

Auburn is a council-manager government with a population of 43,000 and a

general fund budget of $35 million. At the city managers request, the finance

director was asked to look at preparing a biennial budget. The general intent was

to reduce the amount of time staff spent on budget preparation, publication and

review. The city did not have a separate budget office, so the finance office and

various employees from across the city departments were additionally tasked with

the budget process. During certain times of the year this process dominated the

work of the departments and represented a significant expenditure of time and

funds that could be spent in other important areas; the opportunity cost was

becoming too high.

Another objective of the city manager was to orchestrate extended planning and

increased coordination by all the municipal departments. The current process of

annually budgeting and correcting problems during the six-month review allowed

the departments to push problems down the road with the hopes that a windfall or

priority change would satisfy their department requests. This process was

counterproductive to long term planning.

It was hoped that improved long range planning in addition to smoothing budget

fluctuation would also provide the city with the benefit of better bond ratings. In

the 1990’s Auburn’s general fund levels had dropped as a result of multiple capital

improvement projects. By improving general fund levels, enhanced bond ratings

could be obtained. In good faith, the fund balance maintenance was specifically

tied to the development of the biennial budget as a strategic goal of the program.

A decision needed to be made as to the type of biennial budget to adopt and how

to take the first steps. A review of state law and a legal reading was required to

ensure Auburn’s actions would not violate state law. In Alabama the law requires

cities to adopt annual budgets and have annual financial audits. By selecting the

traditional biennial budget Auburn felt it met the intent of the law, which did not

prevent the city from adopting two annual budgets at the same time. The rolling

budget was dismissed as an alternative because, in their opinion, it did not save

as much time as the traditional biennial budget.

The next step was to gain the support of key persons; namely those people

needed in order to make the new process succeed. This process includes

identifying and persuading the key stakeholders, namely the governing body, and

department directors. Since the city manager was obviously already on board, he

first met with department heads, which saw the potential reduction in man-hours

and staff time as a convincing benefit. With departmental head’s support the

intention was proposed to the city council.

Adoption of the new budget system came with assurances to the city council that

they would remain firmly in the budget loop. It was determined that any increases

in spending would still follow city ordinance, which requires council approval, and

that the council would continue to receive monthly budget reports in order to

maintain oversight of the process.

Challenges - An immediate crisis existed in the form of time compression. Since

the council approved of the new budget process in late April, the normal

preliminary work to meet timelines for budget processing was two months behind

schedule. Several products were now needed, but undeveloped. The biennial

compared to the annual timeline is presented in Table 1.

Source: Andrea Jackson “Taking the Plunge: The Conversion to Multi-year Budgeting”

Additional challenges surfaced in three main areas:

1) Estimating personnel needs,

2) Forecasting revenues, and

3) Reviewing departmental budget requests.

Table 1

The first two issues are faced during any type of budget development, but they

were further complicated by the second year of consideration (of course, the

further you forecast into the future the greater the likelihood of error).

Under the annual process the number of employees in each category, permanent,

part-time, and temporary or term was forecasted. This was speculative in many

cases such as the seasonal cycle of temporary employees. An additional manning

forecast issue became apparent when the city manager determined it was

necessary to include the cost of living increases that would be proposed to the

council for the budget window. Prior to this the cost of living increases were not

budgeted for and were added to the budget after approval by the council. This

impacted the general fund balance and was to be corrected by inclusion in the

budget forecasts. As one can imagine this was a difficult process for the human

resources department.

Revenue forecasting also became a challenge. Changes in revenue mix, or

significant reductions to expected revenues, would cause revisions and require

adjustments in spending and or appropriations. Again the extended forecast could

jeopardize accuracy. In Auburn’s case it had extensive revenue databases for the

last fifteen years it used to forecast revenues it termed “conservatively realistic”.

By being conservative in its estimates, the annual budget allowed for a safety

margin. Auburn used this safety approach when it adopted its second year budget

by exaggerating the conservative approach even further. An element that allowed

for corrections and alleviating some of the uncertainty to this approach was that

60% of the city’s revenues were received by midyear. As a result any significant

deviations could be corrected for without having to wait until the end of the year.

The third challenge was in the area of department budget requests. Although the

city followed the same general process it had used before to balance revenues

with spending (while maintaining an acceptable general fund balance) the process

was complicated by the second year. The department heads were giving spending

limits for each year and allowed to make line item changes as long as they did not

exceed their budget amounts. For capital projects that could not be cut or

deferred, the city made provisions to borrow the necessary funds.

Results - Entering the second year of the budget, all department heads and staff

were in agreement that the biennial budget had met expectations. It had reduced

the amount of time staff spent in preparation and allowed those resources to be

spent on other priorities. The first mid-year review had required only minimal

involvement from the City manager, and the Finance department indicating

revenue forecasts were valid. The previously tasked workers and department

heads were not required to participate. At the end of the first year the required

staff reviewed and adopted the second year budget with minimal changes instead

of creating a new budget from scratch. This resulted in a significant resource

savings for the council and city workers.

The requirement to forecast further into the future had forced a shift in paradigm

for the departments. In addition to looking at greater details to make spending

request more accurate, the annual approach of “fix things during the mid-year

review,” had been replaced by consideration of long-term spending impacts. As a

result these impacts were being discussed and changes were being

institutionalized. An example of this is the eventual adoption of a permanent

reserve for the city. Its purpose was to buffer the impacts of revenue calculations

that fell short of expectations and augmenting revenues needed during natural

disaster or economic downturns.

In retrospect, Auburn has viewed its conversion to be an undoubted success. It

had reduced the staff involved in budget preparation and review, enhanced the

security of its fund balance and built a paradigm of long term planning. Auburn,

with the intended results of additional savings of both time and resources, has

since developed several policy and process improvements in order to further

simplify the budget process.

Biennial Budgeting: Perspectives from the State & Local Level

& For the Municipality of Anchorage This next section will examine the implications inherent in applying biennial

budgeting systems to provide a evaluative perspective for the Municipality of

Anchorage. In order for a biennial budget to be successfully implemented it must

represent more than simply a mechanism to save municipal time and resources.

There must be a broad commitment by all the key players of the budget process,

the Mayor, the Assembly, and all the various public entities and departments that

make up the Municipality, to the values and goals of long term fiscal planning. “If

created carefully, biennial budgets can act as a catalyst to move government from

line-item consideration of the budget and instead focus upon increased long term

planning with a reduction of the amount of time spent annually crafting the budget.

However, there is nothing inherent in biennial budgeting that assures that this

transition will take place.” (City & County of San Francisco, Legislative Analyst Report,

File 021309, October 2002)

In reviewing available literature on biennial budgeting, the attempt to establish a

definitive position on whether or not the implementation of such a system is

advantageous or not was inconclusive. Ronald Snell, in his “Annual & Biennial

Budgeting: The Experience of State Governments” report to the National

Conference of State Legislatures draws upon reports made by the 1972 Council of

State Governments and a study by analysts at Texas A&M in 1984 to conclude

that “ a state can develop a good system of executive and legislative fiscal and

program planning and controls under either an annual or biennial budget.” (Snell,

Annual & Biennial Budgeting: The Experience of State Governments, October 2, 2004)

Snell continues, “There is little evidence that either annual or biennial state

budgets hold clear advantages over the other. Evidence from the past is

inconclusive on the question whether biennial budgeting is more conducive to

long-term planning than annual budgeting is. Some evidence indicates that

biennial budgeting is more conducive to program review and evaluation. Biennial

budgeting is likely somewhat to reduce budgeting costs for executive agencies,

but it also is likely to reduce legislators' familiarity with budgets. States with

biennial budgets and biennial legislative sessions do not appear to have given

greater authority over budget revision to governors than other states have.

Forecasting is likely to prove more accurate in annual-budget states than in

biennial-budget states, reducing the need for supplemental appropriations and

special legislative sessions. In the short run, economic conditions largely

determine how efficiently a state budget is enacted and whether it requires

extensive change in the course of administration. In the long run, the political

expectation that state operations budgets will be balanced annually or biennially is

one of the basic controlling elements of state budgeting, far more important than

the length of the budget period or the frequency of legislative sessions. (Snell,

Annual & Biennial Budgeting: The Experience of State Governments, October 2, 2004)

Public officials must work in concert to assure the success of biennial or multi-year

budgetary systems. In 1984 a Texas A&M review opined that: “The success of a

budget cycle seems to depend on the commitment of state officials to good

implementation, rather than on the method itself.” The degree of cooperation

between executive and legislative leadership is key to the success of any

budgeting system. Biennial budgeting has not been demonstrated to increase or

reduce the degree of cooperation. (Municipality of Anchorage Office of Management &

Budget)

If the system itself is not enough to ensure success, how can the case be made for

moving from an annual to biennial budgetary process?

At this point it is important to re-summarize what we know so far regarding the

generally agreed upon conceptual pro & con arguments for biennial budgets.

ADVANTAGES OF BIENNIAL BUDGETING • Better Long-range and Strategic Planning: A biennial budget requires forecasting

expenditures and revenues up to thirty months in advance; thus departments and policymakers are considering longer time horizons for resource and program planning purposes.

• Staff Redeployment Opportunities: The biennial budget offers an opportunity to

redeploy the central budget staff during the first year of the biennial budget to focused program evaluations, capital improvements programming, or policy development. It also frees up departmental staff that would otherwise be working on budget to attend to programmatic issues.

• Policy Emphasis: Although not always an intended result, the policymakers often

move away from a detail, line-item approach to a more policy-oriented budget during a biennial budget process. This often allows more discretion for the management team and focuses the policy makers on results instead of attempting to micromanage the programs.

• Time Redistribution: It is generally agreed that biennial budgeting can save staff

time. Generally, that time is redistributed in that more work goes into the development of the biennial budget and then much less work is required during the mid-biennium review. This also can be true for the policymakers.

(Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Biennial Budgeting for Cities & Counties, February 2000)

DISADVANTAGES OF BIENNIAL BUDGETING Revenue Forecasting Difficulties: In a dynamic economy, accurately forecasting revenues up to thirty months in advance is extremely difficult. Witness the State of Washington revenue forecasts that change, often dramatically, throughout the biennium. In a scenario where the local economy may slow during the two-year cycle, biennial budgets can be a real problem. Many experienced practitioners recommend only budgeting biennially when economic conditions are stable. Additionally, projecting federal and state shared revenues and mandates can be nearly impossible that far in advance. The fact that counties rely more heavily on state and federal revenues than cities might give some insight as to why fewer counties than cities have moved to a biennial budget process. Less Responsiveness: A biennial budget can make it more difficult to adapt to changing economic and/or programmatic conditions. A biennial budget does not typically provide for major program changes during the biennium. However, most Washington cities do not report major problems in this regard. They simply make budget adjustments when necessary. Financial Software Changes: Most often, financial software is not set up to allow biennial budgeting and/or reporting. Sometimes it requires expensive reprogramming.

Workload Stress: The conversion to a biennial budget process can require much more work in the first budget development cycle on the part of central budget staff and department staff. (Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Biennial Budgeting for Cities & Counties, February 2000) Knowing the pros & cons, what steps should policymakers take to begin the

process? Displeasure and impatience with the amount of time spent putting

together annual budgets are sentiments not uncommonly expressed by both the

general public and policymakers. The general public sees the process as

dysfunctional -- executive and legislative branches at all three levels of

government are perceived year after year as constantly competing for supremacy

over short term or stop gap spending measures rather than working together in an

attempt to build comprehensive long term fiscal plans. Mistakes in forecasts or

planning are simply corrected or adjusted by using supplementary spending bills

thereby causing the general public to view the whole process as one tainted by

unaccountability. Public policymakers are equally frustrated with aspects of the

annual budget system as critical time and resources are completely focused for a

large portion of the fiscal year on simply the process of preparing, reviewing,

negotiating, revising, and finalizing. Many wonder if such time might be better

spent on public policy.

While Juneau is the only governmental entity in Alaska to utilize a biennial

budgetary system, there have been attempts to introduce the biennial system at

the state level. In 2001 then-House Representative Lisa Murkowski proposed an

amendment (HJR 2) to the Constitution of the State of Alaska “relating to a

biennial state budget” in an effort to promote efficiency and effectiveness in state

government.” (Sponsor Statement HJR 2, Rep. Lisa Murkowski, March 13, 2001)

Murkowski’s explanation for the amendment was as follows, “As it currently

stands, the state budget process is a tedious annual event. This process involves

hearings, debates, and closeouts with considerable time spent by the various

departments drafting their budgets. Once the agencies have prepared a budget,

they must defend and revise, with little time for actual implementation before they

start all over again preparing for the next year. A biennial budget would allow

agencies to devise their budgets for two fiscal years, giving more time to

implement the budget and allow for advanced planning initiatives. This would

result in cost efficiencies and greater productivity overall. With a biennial budget,

the "off-year" would then be focused on legislative issues and priorities other than

the budget. The off-year length of the session could be significantly reduced from

120 days to just 60 days and be a further cost savings to the state. It should be

noted that HJR 2 does not limit other legislation to just the off year, it would be

business as usual with the exception that the budget would be tackled during the

first year. As a resource state, we recognize that Alaska's annual revenue is a

moving target. HJR 2 responds to this by allowing for a supplemental budget

during the off year as needed, without going through the expense and hassle of a

full budget review.” (Sponsor Statement HJR 2, Rep. Lisa Murkowski, March 13, 2001)

Former Speaker of the House, Gail Phillips (R-Homer) had also introduced a

similar amendment in 1997, but was not successful in bringing the amendment to

a floor vote. Similarly, despite the intriguing argument, the bill ultimately ended up

being referred to the State Affairs, Judiciary, and Finance Committees and there

has not been any significant legislative or executive movement towards

resurrecting the issue since that time.

Conceptually, it is not difficult to understand why the merits of implementing

biennial budgeting continue to be so compelling for many in and outside of the

budget process. Yet, despite these merits, the historical trend seems to be moving

against biennial budgets. “The trend among state governments for the past sixty

years has been to abandon biennial budgeting for annual budgeting. Forty-four

states practiced biennial budgeting in 1940. Twenty-one do so now. There were

several reasons for the shift to annual budgeting, but in general the shift has been

part of the resurgence of state legislative power since the middle of the century. In

the past decade, however, two states have returned to biennial budgeting from

annual budgeting, and no state has shifted from biennial to annual budgeting.” (Snell, Annual & Biennial Budgeting: The Experience of State Governments, October 2,

2004).

Among those twenty-one states that implement some form of biennial budgeting,

only three states, Oregon, North Dakota and Wyoming produce a truly

consolidated two-year budget. Are there commonalties that these states share

that makes biennial budgeting preferable? Although the PEW Foundation’s

Government Performance Project’s Grading the States Project 2005 provides a

means for comparing state government performances in the area of money,

people, infrastructure, and information it is difficult to make conclusive

determinations as while North Dakota (B-) and Wyoming (B) both received high

marks for long term fiscal planning, little debt, Oregon received a “D” in its ability to

manage its finances.

The report said “Oregon’s long-term budgeting perspective is problematic, and the

state has not passed its budget on time in the last decade. The state has also

relied on many revenue and expenditure measures to reach budget balance in

fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Oregon’s tax structure is terribly imbalanced. A lack of

diversification has left the state facing continuous multi-million dollar shortfalls.”

(Government Performance Project’s Grading the States Project 2005) Structural

similarities alone do not seem enough to explain why certain states have turned to

biennial budgeting and others have not.

For a nationwide comparison of states employing annual and biennial budgets,

refer to Table 2.

Table 2

Annual and Biennial Budgeting States (Boldface Indicates the 10 Most Populous States)

Annual Session Annual Budget

(29 States)

Annual Session Biennial Budget

(15 States)

Biennial Session Biennial Budget

(6 States) Alabama Alaska

California Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia

Idaho Illinois Iowa

Kansas Louisiana Maryland

Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi

Missouri New Jersey New Mexico New York Oklahoma

Pennsylvania Rhode Island

South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee

Utah Vermont

West Virginia

Arizona+ Connecticut

Hawaii Indiana

Kentucky Maine

Minnesota Nebraska

New Hampshire North Carolina

Ohio Virginia

Washington Wisconsin Wyoming*

Arkansas Montana Nevada

North Dakota* Oregon* Texas

*Biennial budget states that enact a consolidated two-year budget. Other biennial budgets enact two annual budgets at one time. + In Arizona, biennial budgeting is limited to smaller state agencies. Population estimates are for 2000.

(Snell, Annual & Biennial Budgeting: The Experience of State Governments, October 2, 2004)

Rather than looking at institutional characteristics of the budgeting process, it

appears as if the most important component of successful biennial budgeting is

philosophical. Whalen, in his paper Biennial Budgeting for the Federal

Government: Lessons from the States, writes “Although a rash of missed budget

deadlines increased general interest in biennial budgeting during the 1980s,

proponents of this reform often stress that meeting deadlines with biennial

budgeting will remain difficult. Budgetary decisions are political decisions, which

cannot be made easier by procedural revision. The case for two-year budgeting

does not include the promise of bipartisan fiscal harmony and timely budget

agreements, it centers on the belief that a biennial budget and appropriations cycle

will streamline the process, make federal policies more effective, and promote

economic stability.” (Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons

from the States, 1995, p. 306)

In terms of streamlining the process, the arguments are similar to those stated

earlier in this paper, supporters tout biennial budgeting as it “ relieves participants

of many routine and repetitive activities, allowing them to use their time more

efficiently. They maintain that biennial budgeting would make more time and

resources available for service delivery, agency management, oversight, and long-

range analysis.” (Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons from

the States, 1995, p. 306) Conversely, opponents of biennial budgeting claim that it

“leads to more work at nearly every stage in the budget cycle. They contend that

there would be additional work in the preparation stage due to the extended fiscal

period, that budget agreements would be more difficult to reach because the

biennial process raises the stakes, and that unexpected but inevitable changes

(e.g., war, recession, or natural disaster) would lead to frequent fiscal adjustments

during the budget period. Another concern is that budget work would expand to fill

the time available.” (Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons

from the States, 1995, p. 306)

See Table 3 for findings relating to the success of biennial budgeting systems in

streamlining the budgetary process.

Table 3

DO BIENNIAL BUDGETS STREAMLINE BUDGETING? PREVIOUS STUDIES AND THEIR FINDINGS

STUDIES AND METHODS

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES (SNELL, 1994) Summarized findings of past studies and in house research

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (KIRKMAN, 1987) Surveyed state budget officers and legislators in every state

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (BOWSHER, 1984) Interviewed officials in three large biennial-budgeting states

PUBLIC POLICY RESOURCES LABORATORY (WIGGINS AND HAMM, 1984) Interviewed officials and observers in states moving to annual budgeting between late 1960s and early 1970s; also surveyed agency heads and lobbyists in Texas on possible adoption of annual state budgeting

COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS (COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, 1972) Surveyed officials in 11 states experiencing budget process reform after World War II

Findings Moving to biennial budgeting yields a substantial reduction in budget preparation work; allows

budget staff more time for analyses associated with budget planning; enables public managers and legislators to more closely scrutinize program operations, accomplishments, and problems.

Moving to annual budgeting increased budget preparations workloads and costs; less time for budget execution, consideration of substantive issues, provision of management services, and research into program improvements.

More time devoted to budgeting under an annual system is not seen as necessarily producing better budgets; public officials note that biennial budgets may be considered more "deliberatively."

States with biennial budgets maintain that their system allows public officials more time for management, oversight, and other activities beyond budget preparation and approval.

Evidence is mixed on whether states with biennial budgeting rely more frequently on budget adjustments (i.e., supplemental appropriations and recissions) than those with an annual budget process. One study finds "a slight indication of decreased adjustments" in annual-budgeting states. Most research indicates that no strong pattern emerges here.

Under biennial budgeting, a thorough off-year budget review procedure is reported to have an adverse effect on policy development and administration; however, off-year budget work is still only one-third as time-consuming as annual budgeting.

(Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons from the States, 1995, p. 308)

In terms of the questions of whether or not biennial budgeting improves

policymaking and promotes economic stability, as concluded by the findings in

Table 3, it is still difficult to come to definitive conclusions about the superiority of

implementing two-year budget schedules. “A streamlined budget process cannot

by itself guarantee better government policies. Programs and agencies can only

be improved if members of the executive and legislative branches commit

themselves to making the public sector function more effectively. A participant in

one budgeting study said, ‘If you have no destination, any road will take you

there’.” (Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons from the States,

1995, p. 312)

Opinion is also mixed as to the ability of biennial budgets to promote economic

stability. “Supporters of biennial federal budgeting assert that two-year budgets

promote stability at the macroeconomic level and at the level of specific

individuals, agencies, and corporations. Opponents respond that stability comes

only at the expense of two important features afforded in the present system:

flexibility and congressional control over the budget and the executive branch.

Whether economic priorities and policies can be maintained for two years at a time

leads some to argue that a biennial system will be insufficiently responsive to both

changing circumstances and the public interest.” (Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the

Federal Government: Lessons from the States, 1995, p. 312-313)

Whalen concludes in his analysis that, “fiscal theory does not identify one budget

period as being universally appropriate. Annual budgeting is not inherently

superior to multi-year budgeting. An appropriate budget period can be identified

only after one weights the advantages and disadvantages of alternate

arrangements.” (Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons from

the States, 1995, p. 316) What does appear do be a controlling factor is the

philosophical commitment of all key players in the budget process to the goals of a

biennial budget – long term planning with the goal of ensuring fiscal and economic

stability. Whalen writes “ Biennial budgeting does not make budgeting less difficult.

Even under a biennial system, budgeting remains at the heart of the political

process. Budgets are inherently both a product and a source of political conflict.

Moreover, much more than the budget period determines the effectiveness of

budgeting--relevant factors range from the legislature's committee structure to the

degree to which participants in the process are committed to following established

procedures.” (Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons from the

States, 1995, p. 316)

Given Alaska’s current fiscal situation, and its continued long-term dependence on

revenues from the federal government and the petroleum industry, what are the

prospects for biennial budgeting here? In 1991, the Alaska Division of Legislative

Audit attempted to answer that question in a report prepared for the Legislature’s

Legislative Budget and Audit Committee titled “The Cost of Preparing Alaska’s

Annual Budget and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Biennial Budgeting. “

Under assumptions that subsequent legislative, executive, and judicial

involvement would be receptive to the priorities and level of services budgeted for

under a biennial process for the current biennium; that actual revenues would not

fall significantly below that budgeted for either year in the biennium; that annual

appropriation would occur as required by the Alaska Constitution; and that biennial

budgets would have two years presented in one set of budget documents, not two

complete sets of budget documents, the report concluded by saying that such a

system would not be fiscally viable for Alaska. (Alaska Division of Legislative Audit, A

Special Report On The Cost Of Preparing Alaska's Annual Budget and The Advantages and Disadvantages Of Biennial Budgeting, March 22, 1991)

The reports conclusions were as follows: “A biennial budget is not practical for the State of Alaska because of historical

fluctuations in revenues. Significant revenue fluctuations and annual

appropriation by the Legislature may result in redevelopment of the biennial

budget in the off-budget year. Also, we believe that if the State changes to a

biennial budget preparation, implementation will be costly and the system may be

less responsive to the public.

A large percentage of state revenues is petroleum-related and, as such, involves

a number of uncertainty factors, the most volatile of those being price. Revenue

forecasting becomes increasingly relevant as the supply of oil in Alaska declines.

If actual revenues fall significantly below budgeted expenditures presented in a

biennial budget, the cost-saving benefit of biennial preparation is lost because

legislative, executive, and judicial staff will be required to redevelop the budgets

to recognize reductions.

If legislative personnel desire review of the budget documents in the off-budget

year, which requires executive agency attendance at subcommittee meetings,

presentation time, travel costs, and adjustments to budget documents, cost

savings will not be recognized. Legislative review annually may be necessary in

order to be responsive to the public. Currently, Alaska Statute 37.07.010 requires

the budget system to include procedures for public participation in the

development of an annual budget. Biennial review also may not be perceived by

the public as allowing adequate lobbying or participation.”

(Alaska Division of Legislative Audit, A Special Report On The Cost Of Preparing Alaska's Annual Budget and The Advantages and Disadvantages Of Biennial Budgeting, March 22, 1991)

While conditions on the state level have not changed measurably over the last

fourteen years, there is a very successful example of biennial budgeting on the

local level. The City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ) has employed a biennial budget

system since 1996. As official policy, the budgetary system is defined by the CBJ,

as follows: “A balanced budget will be prepared every other year as a biennial

budget. In the first year of each two-year budget, the Assembly will adopt the first

year’s budget and approves, in concept, the second year’s budget. The

conceptually approved 2nd year budget will be brought back before the Assembly

for adoption in the following year. A balanced budget is one in which proposed

expenditures do not exceed total estimated revenues and reserves.” (Official

Website City & Borough of Juneau)

Juneau public officials have embraced the approach as a positive step towards

long-term fiscal stability. “The City and Borough of Juneau's budget process

requires the City Manager to develop and present to the Assembly a balanced

budget every year. This budgeting process consists of biennial, two-year, budgets

every other year with second year follow-ups. The Assembly adopts the first year

of the biennial budget and approves, in concept, the second year. In the second

year, the City Manager submits the conceptually approved budget, with necessary

revisions, to the Assembly. The biennial budget process helps improve long-term

planning while reducing the amount of time spent in overall budget development.

The Biennial Budget process also helps to minimize second year budget

changes.” (Official Website City & Borough of Juneau) The CBJ Budget Schedule is

shown in Table 4. Table 4

According to Craig Duncan, Finance Director for the CBJ, the system has worked

well “We were able to work through most of the legislative issues. Our Charter

does contain some requirements on how we prepare and present our budget. It

also requires us to adopt the budget annually. So while we do prepare a biennial

budget every other year, we actually adopt the budget annually. Because our

budget process calls for a limited review in the second year of each biennial

budget period, we have not felt it necessary to ask the voters to change the annual

adoption provision.” The biggest technical/practical issue was year-to-year

consistency. Generally the stability of revenues is the biggest issue. After

reviewing our revenue sources, we decided that a biennial budget could work.

However, everyone agreed that it would be necessary to make some second year

adjustments. So far, the process has been working well. While the process does

require extra staff efforts in the first year of each biennial budget period, the

resource savings in the second year more than make up for the extra efforts in the

first year.” (Craig Duncan, Finance Director, City & Borough of Juneau)

Could Juneau’s success be replicated in the Municipality of Anchorage? Available

literature all describes the budgetary process as one that creates great pressures

for budget staff and policymakers. For government officials and public

administrators, the annual process involves literally working on three budgets at

one time. They prepare for the next fiscal year while at the same time

implementing the current-year budget and completing the review process and

paperwork relating to the previous year's budget. Biennial Budgeting provides an

alternative that allows policymakers to enact budget legislation one year and to

oversee and evaluate program results in the next. (California Performance Review

Report, 2004)

Authority for the budget in the Municipality of Anchorage is statutory. In Article XIII

(Finance) of the Anchorage Municipal Charter Section 13.01 the following sections

define the fiscal year. These sections were identified in previous Municipality

research on biennial budget prospects as relevant for review should the

Municipality decide to make the switchover from an annual to biennial system:

Anchorage Municipal Charter, ARTICLE XIII

Section 13.01. Fiscal year The assembly by ordinance may change the fiscal year of the municipality. The assembly by ordinance may change the fiscal year of the school district to the extent permitted by law. A change in fiscal year may not take effect until at least one year after enactment of the change. Section 13.03. Operating & Capital budget At least 90 days before the end of the fiscal year of the municipality the mayor shall submit to the assembly a proposed operating and capital budget for the next fiscal year. The form and content of the budget shall be consistent with the proposed six-year program. The mayor shall submit with the budget an analysis of the fiscal implications of all tax levies and programs. Section 13.04. Budget hearing The assembly shall hold at least two public hearings on the proposed operating and capital budget for the next fiscal year, including one hearing at least 21 days after the budget is submitted to the assembly, and one hearing at least seven but not more than 14 days prior to the adoption of the budget. Section 13.06. Reduction and transfer of appropriations (a) If the mayor determines that revenues will be less than appropriations for a fiscal year, the mayor shall so report to the assembly. The assembly may reduce appropriations, as it deems necessary. No appropriation may be reduced by more than the amount of the then unencumbered balance. (b) Except as to the school budget, the mayor may transfer all or part of any unencumbered balance between categories within an appropriation. The school board may transfer part or all of any unencumbered balance between categories within the appropriation for the school budget. Except as to the school budget, the assembly may transfer part or all of any unencumbered balance from one appropriation to another. (Anchorage Municipal Charter& Municipality of Anchorage Office of Management & Budget)

Earlier Municipality analysis on the potential for biennial budget implementation

concluded the following: ‘the Anchorage Municipal Charter does not appear to

restrict biennial budgeting. The attached document sets out Finance, Article XIII of

the Charter. The boldfaced provisions are marked because they relate to the

timing of events. Most set minimum or "at least" standards, rather than "not

before"-type provisions. One exception is the second assembly budget hearing,

but this sets a required relationship to the adoption of the budget. None of the

Article XIII charter language seems to restrict how far in advance a given fiscal

year's or years' budgets could be adopted. In fact, the only two references to

"annual" in this charter Article are to "annual audit" and "annual inflation". Neither

would require revision.” (Municipality of Anchorage Office of Management & Budget)

Earlier analysis also provided draft language for changes to the Anchorage

Municipal Code in Chapter 6.10 relating to “BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS

GENERALLY.” Code language in section 6.10.030 would be revised to say:

6.10.030 Preparation of budget “The director of the office of management and budget shall present to the mayor the BIENNIAL BUDGET for the ensuing TWO fiscal years. The budget shall be based upon detailed estimates furnished by the agencies of the municipal government according to a classification as nearly uniform as possible. The budget shall present information on recommended appropriations, anticipated expenditures, estimated taxes and other revenues required to support the budget. The proposed BIENNIAL BUDGET submitted to the assembly shall also include, on the reconciliation worksheets, a continuation funding level for each agency, and a total continuation level for the budget comparing the ensuing year's budget to the current year's revised budget. The chief fiscal officer shall provide fiscal input to the preliminary stages of the budget preparation, and again when the office of management and budget consolidates agency requests. The chief fiscal officer shall provide funding certification prior to the mayor's administrative review, and upon assembly adoption the chief fiscal officer is responsible for budget execution and administration and pre-audits and post-audits. Municipal funds and grants which have been appropriated by the assembly to institutions and nonprofit organizations for the benefit and welfare of the public shall be controlled by conditions and regulations as may be imposed by the assembly and shall be subject to independent financial audit under the same procedures as established for municipal funds. The office of management and budget shall perform program evaluation.”

(Municipality of Anchorage Office of Management & Budget)

Other relevant sections would then be amended to reflect “biennial” rather than

“annual” references to the length of the fiscal year. Potential issues, however, do

exist with the differences between budget and mayoral election cycles. In Juneau’s

situation, the problem was not as pronounced as their form of government differs

from the Municipality in the sense that Juneau has a strong city manager system.

Their charter places the responsibility for presenting the budget with the City

Manager and not the Mayor. (Craig Duncan, Finance Director, City & Borough of

Juneau) Therefore a change of Mayors does not pose significant impacts to the

biennial budget system between years as his/her vote represents only 1 of 9

participants in the decision-making process. (Craig Duncan, Finance Director, City &

Borough of Juneau) However, in the case of the Municipality, this issue would have

to be addressed, as biennial budgets tend to give the executive branch of

government more discretion and thereby more authority in fiscal policy. Although

as Snell says “in years when political leadership and economic circumstances are

unchanged, budget processes can be fairly routine, regardless of whether an

annual or a biennial budget is being written,” this would not be true in the case of

the Municipality where Mayors serve three year terms and two enacted biennial

budgets would cover four years. (Snell, Annual & Biennial Budgeting: The Experience of

State Governments, October 2, 2004)

Such a conflict could be avoided if a rolling budget type approach (the budget

contains detailed appropriations & anticipated revenues for two or more budgetary

periods, but each spending plan is approved individually each year) was taken

with flexibility afforded to the second year. (An Elected Officials Guide to MULTI-YEAR

BUDGETING, 2000, p.17) Since the end of the first year for biennial budgets generally

involve a mid-point review, a new administration would be allowed discretion in

revising or changing particular aspects of the budget. Details regarding the extent

of such discretion could be determined and debated by the Municipality and the

Assembly with final recommendations to be made available for public comment

prior to execution and implementation of such revisions.

Currently, the Municipality has nine staff members in its Office of Management &

Budget, and they spend approximately nine months every year on preparing the

annual operating and capital budgets. (Municipality of Anchorage Office of Management

& Budget) Additionally, every municipal department has an individual with budget

responsibility, and it is estimated that individual spends at least two months of the

work year on budget preparation. (Municipality of Anchorage Office of Management &

Budget) A rolling biennial budget system could provide the opportunity to save staff

time and allow for multiple reviews, which would be a step towards more long-term

fiscal efficiency as opposed to the annual system, which in the case of the

Municipality only allows for review and action at the approval and 1st quarter

budget phase. (Municipality of Anchorage, Office of Management & Budget) If a rolling

biennial system was adopted, non-binding two-year spending plans could be

submitted while maintaining the option to continue to appropriate funds annually.

Building and achieving truly substantive long-term fiscal goals is difficult given the

context of the annual budget system. As noted earlier in this report many

governmental entities spend the majority of their fiscal year attempting to simply

manage three budgets at one time (those of the past, present and future fiscal

years). Under such pressures, it is almost impossible to build a lasting long-term

fiscal plan. Rolling biennial budgets would help to alleviate some of that pressure

and it would also offer flexibility in dealing with election cycles as potential new

administrations would have discretion to make changes to the non-binding year of

the budget. Another factor for consideration in winning support for such a change

would be the ability to demonstrate revenue source stability. The more volatile and

uncertain the sources of municipal revenues, the more difficult it becomes to build

a stable long term fiscal plan. Such a discussion would also have to be a part of

the overall evaluation process.

In addition, there would be some technical challenges to make the switchover to a

biennial budget system. The Municipality’s current computer system is twenty

years old and would have to be upgraded to handle the change. Discussion

regarding the issue of system upgrade is currently underway to at least make the

system more user-friendly and efficient. Additionally, there would have to be

amendments to Anchorage’s Municipal Charter. Any change to these provisions

would require a vote of the people because that is the only way to amend the

Charter. One way to adapt a biennial budget could be implemented through an

amendment to the Charter (which always requires a vote of the

people). (Municipality of Anchorage, Municipal Attorney’s Office)

However, that is not the only option for making such a change. “Amending the

Charter is not the only way to get to the same result in practical terms. For

example, the Assembly could enact an ordinance directing the mayor to submit a

biennial budget (and to do so every other year thereafter) it could then approve

either only the first year or both years. At the end of the first year there would

likely be certain revisions or amendments to the second year budget and those

could be considered in an abbreviated process. Thus, there would be an approval

(or simply a reapproval in actuality) for the budget’s second year. Such an

approach would be essentially two-year budgeting and would still be compliant

with the Charter. In this case, no amendments to the Charter would be required

and therefore a vote of the people would not be required.” (Municipality of

Anchorage, Municipal Attorney’s Office)

Whatever the form, the Government Finance Officer’s Association says that there

are four overriding principles that should guide budget development and

implementation: Principle I – Establish Broad Goals To Guide Government Decision Making A government should have broad goals that provide overall direction for the government and serve as a basis for decision-making. Principle II – Develop Approaches to Achieve Goals A government should have specific policies, plans, programs, and management strategies to define how it will achieve its long-term goals. Principle III – Develop a Budget with Approaches to Achieve Goals A financial plan and budget that moves toward achievement of goals, within the constraints of available resources, should be prepared and adopted. Principle IV – Evaluate Performance and Make Adjustments Program and financial performance should be continually evaluated, and adjustments made, to encourage progress toward achieving goals.

(Official Website of Government Finance Officer’s Association)

These principles establish what should, ideally be the conceptual foundation for

every budget at every level of government – a long-term plan with tools and a

mechanism developed and in place to achieve the goals of that long term plan.

However, governments do not last very long if they base their decisions on

idealistic conceptions. There must be a balanced mix of theory tempered by

practice. Poor fiscal policies will not be rescued by the introduction of biennial

budget systems. However, they can help to improve financial management

practices in local government. The list below outlines the steps necessary to

successfully executing a biennial budget.

Keys to Successfully Implementing Biennial Budgets: Amending existing financial & budgeting policies & procedures

Assessing the local economic environment by examining key economic and fiscal indicators

Conducting an analysis of the existing revenue structure

Updating the budget manual to reflect the changes in the budget processes

Documenting and specifying underlying economic assumptions

Effectively communicating the need for a multi-year budget with key stakeholders

Establishing a budget review process for ensuring compliance with budget polices, processes,

and targets

Linking the multi-year budget with the strategic plan, long-range financial plan and revenue forecast, and financial and budgetary policies

Preparing the budget staff in advance regarding the implementation of the multi-year budget

(Guajardo, An Elected Official’s Guide to MULTI-YEAR BUDGETING, 2000, p.18)

Conclusion Biennial budgets are not, as mentioned earlier, panaceas for all the problems and

challenges of the budget planning and implementation process. Biennial budgets

are not substitutes for good planning, and neither will they provide a cover for poor

planning. Biennial Budgets can, however, with proper commitment, link operating

and capital planning and spending activities, and improve long range and strategic

planning to create fiscal policies that are more efficient and more effectively

monitored and evaluated.

References Anchorage Municipal Charter http://www.municode.com/services/mcsgateway.asp?sid=31&pid=13397 Alaska Division of Legislative Audit, A Special Report On The Cost Of Preparing Alaska's Annual Budget and The Advantages and Disadvantages Of Biennial Budgeting, March 22, 1991 Biennial budgeting’s implications. Retrieved 3/22/05 www.budgetanalyst.com/Biennial.htm Bockh, L. & Blakeslee, M. (1998-2004). Budget analyst: Federal agency money matters: California Performance Review Report, 2004 http://cpr.ca.gov/ City & County of San Francisco, Legislative Analyst Report, File 021309, October 2002 Government Performance Project’s Grading the States Project 2005 http://results.gpponline.org/ Guajardo, S.A. (2000). An elected official’s guide to multi-year budgeting. Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada. U.S. House of Representatives (2000). Hearing of the Committee on Rules: February 16,2000. Retrieved 3/17/05 www.house.gov/rules/rules_tran09.htm. Jackson, Andrea, “Taking the Plunge: The Conversion to Multi-year Budgeting,” Government Finance Review (August, 2002): 24-27 National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (1998). Recommended budget practices: A framework for improved state and local government budgeting. Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officers Association. Municipality of Anchorage, Office of Management & Budget Municipality of Anchorage, Office of the Municipal Attorney Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Biennial Budgeting for Cities & Counties, February 2000 Murkowski. L, Office of Representative, Sponsor Statement HJR 2, March 13, 2001 Official Website of Government Finance Officer’s Association http://www.gfoa.org/ Official Website City & Borough of Juneau www.juneau.org Sutberry, T. (1998). Biennial budgeting in Washington cities and counties: Government finance review, August 46-47. Snell. R, Annual & Biennial Budgeting: The Experience of State Governments, October 2, 2004 Whalen, Biennial Budgeting for the Federal Government: Lessons from the States, 1995

http://www.municode.com/services/mcsgateway.asp?sid=31&pid=13397

http://cpr.ca.gov/

http://results.gpponline.org/

http://www.gfoa.org/

biennial budgeting cover page

Documents