Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Maintenance Budgets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JFAC staff present program-maintenance packets and new 'clear language' approach for appropriations
Summary
Committee staff previewed program-maintenance packets across state government, outlined three common categories of appropriation language (exemptions from transfer limits, reappropriations, and conditions/limitations), and said the committee will vote on maintenance budgets and associated language in upcoming sessions.
Keith Bybee, division manager of budget policy analysis for the Legislative Services Office, and committee chairs outlined the packet structure and a new emphasis on clearer appropriation language during the Jan. 15 Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee hearing.
Bybee told members that each program-maintenance packet contains a comparative analysis of agency requests, the governor's recommendation and a placeholder for the committee's recommendation. He explained the package is intended to let the committee set base budgets and then apply statewide personnel-benefit costs, statewide cost allocation and change-in-employee-compensation adjustments across agencies.
The nut graf: committee staff said they will include prior-year "intent" or appropriation language in the maintenance packets and are treating it as binding "clear language" that explains conditions, limitations and reporting expectations for agencies; members will vote on maintenance budgets and the associated language.
Bybee described four categories often found in maintenance bills: exemptions from Idaho Code §67-3511 transfer limits (allowing movement between expenditure categories), reappropriation authority (carryover for multi-year capital or ARPA-funded projects), conditions/limitations (clear language to define lawful uses of appropriations) and accountability audits. The committee noted prior confusion about intent language and said the new phrasing is meant to make legal expectations explicit. Committee members were advised to review packet language before Friday's votes and to request additional reporting language where oversight is desired.
Committee co-chairs emphasized that the legislature has discretion to change appropriation numbers or language and urged members to consult analysts for details on specific agency language items. The committee adjourned until the next morning's session.
