[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6383886,"mediaKeyId","2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859","parentId",2123316,"title","Recommendations on broad employee pay adjustments debated at length and then withdrawn for redrafting","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",3384530,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859&start=3384&end=3384","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859/thumbnail_3384530.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6383886/Idaho/Recommendations-on-broad-employee-pay-adjustments-debated-at-length-and-then-withdrawn-for-redrafting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383886-7da473c84945bb2b5eceb04e0473e4fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177461&Signature=lWA4TLIDtjLVXpwIr6jG73jNQiVLwFS9YJwWTXtD8mQnvl4GAx~kJbmY-5b8J12WLpkildwiYxhUc5TjMz4ra-m7UVuf3att4VT-TQ0ySvxf8WphsPNXC6QAYoOo9hU3k0GmvJp7AJczLE6Tz1jRK10EDMLzfqy8AzPKvfyMcDsOGR7CPyCUAHR-98wSvC2zwnbdTLwFGBEhwFsnKCs~aDG0dE0HVDDrUaxjyPGzn6txa7G-KHYa7pSUcjBkb2DDczwzeuhSi6wZZXu5z2NqFXbl73wFpRI6uARx-QejAszgfp7l7xdlO5HityuWu4Ph8xSfWG8bTlwHjI5utvVPKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Idaho House of Representatives","date","2025-01-16T00:00:00Z","article","Committee members engaged in an extended debate over proposed FY2026 changes to employee compensation that would affect permanent state employees, troopers, nurses and IT/engineering positions. Two main approaches were discussed: (1) a CEC-based package that included a $1.55-per-hour across-the-board increase for permanent employees (with additional targeted increases for troopers, nurses and market-based adjustments for IT/engineering positions) and (2) a substitute that proposed a $1.55-per-hour or 4% (whichever is higher) ongoing increase by merit and targeted market adjustments.

Representative Furness moved the CEC-based package (later amended during the session to explicitly include nonclassified IT/engineering staff and to correct numeric totals). Senator Cook offered a substitute motion seeking a $1.55-per-hour or 4% (whichever is higher) merit-based ongoing increase plus targeted market and specialty pay adjustments. Committee members debated philosophical differences (equal dollar increase vs. merit- or percentage-based increases), turnover at both high and low ends of the workforce, and implications for competing with private-sector pay.

During the floor of this meeting the committee experienced packet and wording issues: the original motions required numerical corrections and non-classified IT inclusion that staff needed time to format correctly. At the request of motion sponsors and with no objection from the committee, both the substitute motion and Representative Furness’s original motion were withdrawn to permit staff to correct the draft language and numbers; the committee adjourned without adopting a change to employee compensation and will revisit the matter in a subsequent session.

Speakers on both sides cited turnover statistics, market pressures for hard-to-fill specialties, and the need to balance fiscal prudence with recruitment and retention. Staff told members they would provide corrected text and updated tallies before the committee resumes consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Appropriations Meeting January 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers debated competing approaches to general employee pay adjustments, including a dollar-per-hour across-the-board option and a percent/merit alternative; competing motions were filed and later withdrawn to allow staff time to correct and reformat proposals.","taxTitle","Appropriations, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Idaho","taxId",54706,"location","Idaho","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383890,"Committee approves contract inflation and statewide cost-allocation adjustments",507,2976910,3484525,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859&start=2976&end=3484","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859/thumbnail_2976910.jpg","/articles/6383890/Idaho/Committee-approves-contract-inflation-and-statewide-cost-allocation-adjustments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383890-49b8f94b237c1ea1a8bf30125e43cc92/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177461&Signature=WbquF02glIiR~8ubucuob6QtySfWWBASB9Z7aRZcAkEPv-r5ZrGfETI5iaaSV1cXu84icFUGtU6oDoOp2wtr8Yqp7cQOfcLBLifhCXUOsxBse2DiDn5I8Ny5k1SgdDaBPX75jLUaS932K~Chq65Wo9YWAs0n5HgJI9IwlZjLFJc4kUODxCj~btmlCAF58ua6-T0qVJaqKcYS-OEwkXXQlyNMk9xszyNKruZ5zLVRaH7UALUW19t3W1p-keOlmVJ6ygITrOSEMZvMcZ18dTQnRh1Ix~E3HZxWqtnnvy2iOkQ1JisFklrwMxpsomfXbawQlFyTwgizhW5lY1Dqrnxrvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee approved two routine, statewide budget adjustments: contract inflation increases and a set of statewide cost-allocation changes.

Analysts described contract inflation as payments for ongoing increases in contracts (for example, lease inflators). The committee approved the governor’s request covering $3,356,400 in total contract inflation increases, with funding split across the general fund, dedicated funds and federal funds as listed in the committee packet. Representative Miller moved the contract-inflation recommendation and the motion was seconded and passed with a combined committee vote recorded as 20 ayes, 0 nays.

Committee staff then presented statewide cost-allocation adjustments — incremental changes in agency budgets to pay for services provided by other state agencies. The packet included a $2,800,000 reduction for the Attorney General, an increase for legislative audit billings, a $1,948,000 reduction for risk management, a $6,800,000 increase for the state controller, and a $3,235,500 increase for the Office of Information Technology Services, among others. The committee adopted the governor’s recommended statewide cost-allocation adjustments by voice and recorded roll call; the combined tally was 20 ayes, 0 nays.

Committee staff noted the agency-level detail for these adjustments is available in the packet (pages 19–26). Both motions will be included in agency maintenance budgets going forward.","The committee approved the governor’s recommendations for contract inflation increases and for statewide cost-allocation adjustments affecting multiple agencies; both motions passed with recorded majorities from both House and Senate delegations on JFAC.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383893,"Committee splits on health-insurance rate choice; neither CEC nor governor proposal wins bicameral support",1672,1537365,3210090,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859&start=1537&end=3210","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859/thumbnail_1537365.jpg","/articles/6383893/Idaho/Committee-splits-on-health-insurance-rate-choice-neither-CEC-nor-governor-proposal-wins-bicameral-support","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383893-22fbb70857cae4de0ef110d2e44ebc98/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177461&Signature=F8RXPOgMh9YUrPK5HJbiD0k84nTyPBfvtoCKcRD0XzVT4eRjgyIeruA6WXhUkbgmWK1OFxHUNvFJvLqOjCbSw3U5mPrBU3S4SOaFQALcEhaFKRm84UA9PS0M88K~OtavNhq1GYV74XjeWw543FPxFzS1F~nFhGD86WvvUvZApvlcz~KbL8vg1zjekqh~efAO1HW6vkgh9ncunswtwzWBNokhWtfvJOJGSkZ57v2y9L5yv3cOszbIbq~brV6eeN0tRKCbNaaHSWifye8z4Z6OZoxtlKic~KIb9otOdP3kqSVD5JewHV82ms8~n5cS-3-oRL46TxGNZTAoEKVMcGZlOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee analysts presented two competing recommendations to set the FY2026 health insurance base for eligible full-time positions and other variable benefit charges: the Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee (CEC) recommended a base of $13,960 per eligible FTE; the governor recommended $14,300 per eligible FTE.

Representative Miller moved to adopt the governor’s recommendation of $14,300 per eligible FTE (total FY2026 increase described as $56,315,200 across general, dedicated and federal funds); Representative Furness offered a substitute motion to adopt the CEC recommendation of $13,960 per eligible FTE (total $40,261,200). The committee debated actuarial reserve levels, risk exposure and the trade-offs of reserve size versus premium increases.

Keith Bybee summarized Milliman actuarial projections: under the CEC recommendation, the health-plan contingency reserve would fall to approximately $51,600,000, effectively the statutory minimum of 10% of plan costs; the total projected plan cost in FY2026 is approximately $482,000,000. Bybee said the governor’s recommendation would leave about an additional $10,000,000 cushion above that minimum (a Milliman projection later cited in committee placed the governor scenario fund balance about $61,400,000, a roughly $19,000,000 decrease from current levels).

Laurie Wolf, administrator for the Division of Financial Management, and Faith Knowlton, administrator for the Division of Insurance and Internal Support (Department of Administration), told the committee that falling below the 10% contingency could expose the state to a risk charge assessed by the insurer; Knowlton said the amount of any risk charge “would be dependent upon how much we fall below the 10% contingency reserve.”

The substitute motion to adopt the CEC figure of $13,960 failed on a combined tally (reported as 9 ayes, 11 nays). The original motion to adopt the governor’s $14,300 figure then failed to secure the required majority from both bodies of the committee (the Senate did not register a majority for that motion), leaving no adopted change to the health insurance base at this meeting.

Committee members repeatedly returned to two facts: the current reserve balance (members quoted approximately $80.49 million), the actuarial projections for plan cost and reserves, and the contractual obligation that the plan maintain at least a 10% contingency. No change was adopted; staff will return with further information for a future meeting.","Committee members debated two competing statewide health insurance recommendations — the CEC-recommended $13,960 per eligible FTE and the governor-recommended $14,300 — and votes in committee did not produce a bicameral majority for either option.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383899,"Committee adopts FY2025 revenue projection; FY2026 revenue projection remains undecided after split votes",916,511935,1428710,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859&start=511&end=1428","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859/thumbnail_511935.jpg","/articles/6383899/Idaho/Committee-adopts-FY2025-revenue-projection-FY2026-revenue-projection-remains-undecided-after-split-votes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383899-2a5248daea803cdea361abe8477666c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177461&Signature=jGIO~XgZLoN9NtiBTYXmSruAAe6nsrTd2FJevGRK4wZdKGJ7NyOsDbgj6yFYZLUZzpd9xrWr7qzaHGspS5UeUHj39wYdYtMi3r04WhR3lS~9Ggqh72CYAMR3nKZPSx~kRDPZ50HB1u0GS-gnEFOckPvXmuezQRkYMu2nbront9uwn5btUP8NC9uyTuhWTGlU7nEn3wBEToYYrVkHRrtx6frzvMOvY5r3oV4j84Q1yaSAGWrUBz38j43AnVm83WcTdh1bGx4TtYPNZaqgTRxJlKdGf1QK5CclEVus~7nBgApfoakcmUPe0wGWDhx-z-fehC4AOm4AidLlZoXPu6zGUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to adopt the Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee’s recommended general fund revenue projection of $5,990,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, a motion moved by Senator Woodward and seconded in committee.

Keith Bybee, Division Manager of the Budget Policy Analysis Division, explained the two numbers before the committee: the ERAC recommendation for FY2025 at $5,990,000,000 and the governor’s recommended FY2025 figure of $5,947,000,000. Senator Woodward moved to use the ERAC number for setting state agency budgets; the committee recorded a combined total of 20 ayes, 0 nays (majority from both the House and Senate), and the motion passed.

The committee then turned to the FY2026 general fund revenue projection. Representative Penske moved that the committee adopt the Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee’s recommended FY2026 figure of $6,400,000,000. Senator Woodward offered a substitute motion recommending a $6,330,000,000 projection. The substitute motion passed in one chamber but did not secure the required majority in both chambers when votes were tallied across the House and Senate; committee staff reported a grand total of 8 ayes and 12 nays on the substitute. The committee then voted on the original $6.4 billion motion; the motion garnered a combined 14 ayes and 6 nays but failed to achieve a majority in both houses, so no FY2026 revenue projection was adopted and the vote on that decision was postponed for a future committee session.

Committee leadership reminded members that the committee’s operating practice is to send proposals to the floors only when a majority of both the House and the Senate on JFAC have endorsed a plan, and staff said the revenue selection for FY2026 will be revisited at another meeting.","The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee adopted the Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee’s FY2025 general fund revenue projection but failed to secure a bicameral majority on competing FY2026 projections, postponing a final FY2026 choice.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_46":117,"_48":118,"_50":119,"_52":120,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":121,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":122,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383906,"Legislative staff detail three technical corrections to FY2025 appropriations",333,71705,404860,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859&start=71&end=404","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123316-8c0f5f4cea0f50f47e6e29d476c80859/thumbnail_71705.jpg","/articles/6383906/Idaho/Legislative-staff-detail-three-technical-corrections-to-FY2025-appropriations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383906-d66f779bd490ee5cb82577c55aa041f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177461&Signature=gOpAclONnbxkICpjptqVc2n4JKYJE6qglsTlblQ~qY89aKbRaXxThQqpLMDo7zNQecPmkakpTMmD~UoUVtddd98l7w9YQuTF6ajKiabrfQj2Va6rMWXxb~vzmjnh3EQ6stMWTcUtSa7Z6Prfh-t7grXVdMz6gyFvsqICmiAE-tPKQYbW1VtCNeKuDIfSsxvR1ymaa~l7B88qqePBgfBlkr8173tCuv-jwOTrsBAuA9u45mLM2gKUgqty7-ebDu~ub5Vaxgry8OovSGiYd0-O1FIXJMpDVAxQ-fG7Ey5e8o5OjucVko0tOZ~gO9gciJZHKdWkOIdaVL0cV3bPnXQMkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Janet Jessup, a budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services, told the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee that legislative staff had identified three technical corrections to fiscal year 2025 appropriations that the committee will be asked to vote on at a subsequent meeting.

Jessup said the first correction moves monies that were reappropriated into the Commerce program into a newly created broadband program so broadband spending can be tracked there. “We’re taking the money out of one program and placing it in the other so that those broadband costs can continue to be tracked,” Jessup said.

The second correction addresses a drafting error that prevented a $2,000,000 transfer to the CAFO Improvement Fund from occurring as intended. Jessup said the bill language referred to the Department of Environmental Quality general fund bucket rather than specifying the intended transfer to the CAFO fund, which meant the transfer to CAFO was not made; the proposed correction would “make the agency whole and replace those DEQ general fund monies that were transferred to the CAFO fund,” she said.

The third set of corrections affects two programs in the Department of Health and Welfare: the substance-abuse treatment and prevention program and the physical health services program. Jessup said monies budgeted as trustee and benefit payments (T&B) were actually third-party contract payments and therefore should be classified as operating expenditures. Because the Health and Welfare bill included language restricting transfers out of trustee and benefit payments, the legislature must move those appropriations; Jessup said the actions move the dollars from T&B into operating expenditures and are net zero.

Committee members asked clarifying questions and were told the yellow correction packet on members’ desks (FY2025 corrections) contained the details; staff said the items would be voted on “tomorrow” (the next legislative day). Chair Groh thanked staff for their work reviewing large volumes of budget material and noted the corrections were technical in nature.

The corrections were presented for committee review; no formal vote on the corrections occurred during the recorded portion of this meeting.","Legislative analysts outlined three technical corrections affecting the Department of Commerce, the Department of Environmental Quality and two programs in the Department of Health and Welfare; committee members were briefed and told the corrections will be voted on later.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Recommendations on broad employee pay adjustments debated at length and then withdrawn for redrafting

Committee approves contract inflation and statewide cost-allocation adjustments

Committee splits on health-insurance rate choice; neither CEC nor governor proposal wins bicameral support

Committee adopts FY2025 revenue projection; FY2026 revenue projection remains undecided after split votes

Legislative staff detail three technical corrections to FY2025 appropriations