SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS QUESTION: 1. How much of the $5,000,000 appropriated in FY 1985 for interest on short-term borrowings was actually spent for such interest? AMSWER: 1. The cost of the District's short-term borrowings is charged to two different accounts: the agency, Short-Term Borrowings, and the revenue source, interest earnings. In FY 1985, the total cost of short-term borrowings was $9,081,668. Of this amount, $3,750,000, the revised appropriation for Short-Term Borrowings, was charged to expenditures for that agency. The remainder, $5,331,668, was charged to revenue--that is, revenue was reduced by this amount. QUESTION: 2. How much of the $3,750,000 appropriated in FY 1986 for interest on short-term borrowings was actually spent for such interest? ANSWER: 2. As in FY 1985, the total cost of short-term borrowings was split between Short-Term Borrowings and revenue from interest earnings. Of the total $8,368,314 cost, $3,750,000 was charged to expenditures and $4,618,314 was charged to revenue as a reduction. QUESTION: 3. Provide for the record the gross and net proceeds from any short-term funds the city borrowed in FY 1986 and the interest rate. Please show the information for each borrowing. ANSWER: 3. The sale of the FY 1986 tax revenue anticipation notes yielded $150 million. There was no reduction for a discount or the various fees. The fees were billed and paid for separately. - 2 QUESTION: 4. Provide for the record a list of the fees and charges paid and the firm to whom these fees and charges were paid for FY 1985 and FY 1986 similar to information provided on page 2574, part 2, of the FY 1986 hearings. WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1987. LANGUAGE CHANGES WITNESS WILHELMINA MARSHALL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE BUDGET Mr. DIXON. Ms. Marshall, you are here today to discuss language changes in the appropriations bill. Normally we discuss these changes on the last day, but you may as well come forward. HEARING ON 911 EMERGENCY SYSTEM Let me add that based on recent publicity on the operation of the 911 emergency telephone system, we would like to call back the 911 system officials. And I want to be clear as to who we are having back. The 911 system is run by the Police Department. Ms. MARSHALL. The Police Department. Mr. DIXON. So it would be that particular person in the Police Department. In other words, we don't want the Police Chief, although he is certainly welcome to appear. But we want the division manager, whoever that may be, to come up and be prepared to testify on the incident that was reported in The Washington Post this morning. I recognize that the incident may have happened prior to all of the attention being focused on 911 and that the Department may have already been able to correct the problem, but the Committee wants to assure itself that the problem has been corrected. Ms. MARSHALL. I will arrange the hearing. (CLERK'S NOTE.-See pp. 3539-3554 for testimony on the 911 emergency system.) HEARING WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE Mr. DIXON. And you also arranged to have the Public Defender here? Ms. MARSHALL. Yes, I have Mr. Dixon. Mr. DIXON. And they will be here and testify after we hear the Education budget? Ms. MARSHALL. Yes, on next Tuesday. Mr. DIXON. And depending on the Mayor's announcement, I guess we may want to have him back. Ms. MARSHALL. You mean on the supplemental? Mr. DIXON. Yes, the supplemental. LANGUAGE CHANGES Let's take up the language changes, and we will place your prepared statement in the record at this point. [The prepared statement follows:] |