The Appropriations - Government Operations Division paused final action on Senate Bill 2013 during its meeting after staff described how the budget would temporarily add back last biennium’s pooled FTE dollars, restore proposed salary and benefits increases, then perform a second-step recalculation to recapture vacancy savings.

Adam, a budget staff member, told the committee that the package being discussed restores roughly $969,000 that had previously been moved into a centralized pool and breaks that amount back into agency budgets so a new, agency-level “mini‑pool” can be calculated. “We make them whole from last time,” Adam said, describing a two-step process in which agencies first receive add‑backs for salary and health coverage and for positions added in the prior biennium, then later have a recalculation that yields the actual vacancy savings for the upcoming biennium.

The discussion matters because the process affects how much appropriation authority agencies show on their individual budgets and how much net savings the state captures. Adam summarized line-item changes discussed for the bill: a total $548,000 added in the one footnoted adjustment (described as salary and benefits), about $350,000 shown for the salary increase tied to a 3% pay adjustment, and roughly $198,000 tied to health insurance increases. He also noted a transfer of about $54,000 “from the operating expense line item up to salaries and wages” in order to reflect agencies covering the costs to continue salary increases from this biennium into the next. The middle table discussed by staff showed transfers between line items and net zero impact on the overall budget for those shifts.

Staff said the add‑backs include two pool components carried over from the last budget: a vacant‑FTE amount (about $230,000 as shown in the packet) and money tied to new FTEs added last session (about $739,000). Adam described the resulting appearance in an agency’s budget: “It does look like a big increase getting over to this one,” he said, but added that in the “grand scheme of the total state budget, it’s kind of a net 0 change” because the dollars were previously held in an OMB pool rather than in individual agency budgets.

Committee members pressed for clarity on how the vacancy percentages will be calculated. Senator Sickler asked whether the add‑back is tied to actual reported vacancies or to a calculated percentage; Adam explained the process uses tiered percentages applied to permanent salaries (for example, smaller agencies might have 1.5% applied while larger agencies had higher percentages), and that the final numbers for the new pool calculation for 2025–27 were not yet available. “We’re waiting on getting those percentages,” Adam said, noting that Legislative Council or leadership decisions about thresholds would determine the next adjustment.

Other budgetary changes discussed included agency operating expense reductions related to an expected 3% savings requirement (staff said agencies primarily found savings in operating expenses, roughly a little over $300,000 in the example discussed) and an IT rate increase of about $66,000. Adam cautioned that some of the line descriptions in the packet were incorrect due to a systems error and promised to correct text while keeping the numeric amounts intact.

Faced with those outstanding tier percentages, the committee discussed whether to pass the bill and amend it later in full committee or to wait a few days for finalized numbers. Senator Dwyer and others expressed concern that passing the bill before getting the final percentages could create confusion when the budget appears to grow in an individual agency’s line items even though the statewide effect may be neutral. Adam recommended either waiting a couple of days for the final percentages or passing the bill and adjusting it later in full committee; he said either approach had been used by other divisions.

At the end of the discussion the division “closed our discussion on Senate Bill 2013” and moved on to the next agenda item, with staff directed to obtain the final tier percentages and to produce corrected line descriptions and a revised statement of purpose if needed. Committee members indicated they might wait for that corrected sheet before voting, or else allow a formal amendment in full committee once the numbers were available.

The committee also noted that special funds behave differently than the general fund when vacancies are not spent, and that new FTEs added last session can cause an apparent jump in an agency budget when those positions are restored to the agency line items. Staff repeatedly cautioned that the packet numbers represented a step in a multi‑step process and that final net impacts would depend on the forthcoming recalculation.

Next steps: staff will obtain the finalized vacancy‑pool percentages and updated budget sheets; the committee may postpone a final vote on SB 2013 pending that information or pass and amend later in full committee.