Legislative branch budget for FY26 rises about $2.1 million, JLMC packet cites benefits and internal service fee increases

Scott Moore, legislative finance manager at the Joint Fiscal Office, presented the legislative branch proposed budget for fiscal year 2026, saying, “I bring to you today the legislative budget for fiscal year '26.” The packet posted online shows a FY25 appropriation of $22,427,405 and a FY26 recommendation of $24,544,703 — a roughly $2.1 million (about 9.4%) increase he attributed primarily to higher benefit rates and internal service fund charges.

The packet and discussion matter because the legislative branch budget covers not only legislators' pay but support functions including legislative operations, legislative IT, human resources, legislative council, and the sergeant at arms. Moore said the JLMC reviewed the packet in December and “approved what was in the packet,” while noting subsequent updates to internal service fund charges and benefit rates added roughly $518,000 to the total after the JLMC meeting.

Moore summarized driving factors behind the increase: higher employer payroll-related costs, a reported increase in health benefit rates (discussed in the packet as “about 14%” to a stated “14 to 40%” range), and increased retirement and payroll tax rates (“it went from 0.033 to 0.044,” as recorded in the presentation). He said roughly 90% of the overall increase is personnel-related and stressed that the FY26 proposal included no net new full‑time employees across the branch.

The packet proposes targeted staffing and scheduling changes rather than new hires. Moore described a prior conversion from two part‑time session positions to one full‑time year‑round position; the FY26 proposal changes that to “one full time 9 month” position, which he said reduces the fiscal ask compared with a full calendar year. He also identified specific limited‑service or session positions under consideration in IT and HR (a session‑only user support specialist and a limited‑service HR associate) and noted the capitol police complement is largely filled aside from one vacancy recorded as session‑only.

Moore described use of reversions (unspent prior appropriations) to offset the FY26 increase, identifying about $121,000 in reversions available from earlier appropriations and one‑time items such as a prior sergeant of arms appropriation and an unspent CFO school expense. He described the process as reclaiming funds “that are 2 years old and older.”

Senator Brownlee characterized the JLMC motion as accepting the packet subject to later adjustments for updated fees and benefits, saying, “this is the motion that we, proposed at JLMC.” Moore noted notifications of revised internal service fund expenses and benefit rates arrived in mid‑ to late December and increased the recommended appropriation after that JLMC approval.

Questions from committee members focused on specific line items and the drivers of increases: whether legislative expense reimbursements (daily room and meal allowances) were the primary factor; staffing within the sergeant at arms and capitol police; and the scope of ADS/IT charges passed through to the branch. Moore explained that ADS (administrative/IT services) charges are billed through IT and that the committee has limited control over those statewide rate changes.

Action recorded in the packet: the JLMC met Dec. 11 and approved the packet presented to them; Moore later incorporated updated internal service and benefit rates to show a $518,000 increase over what had been presented to JLMC. The packet includes line‑by‑line detail for every legislative branch cost center and invites committee follow‑up on specific items.

What happens next: the packet and updated numbers will feed into the larger statewide budget process. Moore closed by offering to walk through individual line items if members want more detail and the committee moved to adjourn after questions were answered.

Ending: The discussion left the FY26 recommended legislative branch appropriation at $24,544,703 in the packet presented, with staff noting the figure reflects post‑JLMC adjustments for benefit and internal service fees and with available reversions partially offsetting the increase.