Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Long Bill Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JBC staff present long‑bill amendment packet that would add $1.2 million in general fund
Summary
Joint Budget Committee staff told members a packet of technical and flagged amendments to the long bill would increase general fund obligations by about $1.2 million and include a mix of technical fixes, project appropriations and several flagged items that staff said merit committee discussion.
Emily Pope, JBC staff, told the Joint Budget Committee on April 12 that staff had prepared a packet of recommended amendments to the long bill that would increase general fund obligations by about $1,200,000.
"So you should all have a memo that we have all pulled together for you, with some recommendations for amendments to consider to the long bill for the conference committee report. In total, those recommendations include an increase of $1,200,000 general fund," Pope said.
Pope said most of the changes were technical corrections to reflect updated fund sources, drafting fixes or corrections staff discovered after the bill was introduced. She also said a smaller group of items are larger, substantive changes staff flagged for committee attention because they include larger dollar amounts or policy choices.
The packet included technical adjustments that are net zero in total funds, corrections to line‑item drafting, and a small number of increases that require committee direction. Pope said staff had prepared memos for the larger items and that analysts who authored the memos were available to brief the committee.
Craig Harper, JBC staff, later summarized that the Senate and House took largely similar actions on many amendments but that a handful of senate amendments required decisions in conference because they moved funds between capital and operating or added new policy direction.
Committee members asked for more details on several flagged items and for staff to bring department analysts forward when the committee takes formal conference‑committee action. Pope said staff would prepare the materials and that the committee would vote on the set of technical corrections collectively at the end of the JBC’s work.
The packet the committee discussed covered: technical drafting corrections; cash‑fund appropriations where the Capital Development Committee or departments had since approved projects; reallocations within higher education and human services line items; and a short list of larger requests that staff recommended the committee discuss separately.
Committee direction: staff were asked to prepare conference‑committee language for the technical items and to brief the committee on the flagged larger requests before the committee adopts final conference instructions.
