Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JFAC staff present program maintenance packets and 'clear language' for agency budgets; committee to vote on maintenance framework
Summary
LSO staff outlined program maintenance packets for JFAC, including standardized 'clear language' (intent and restrictions), exemptions, reappropriation authority, and the committee’s approach to setting maintenance budgets and adding or removing language during upcoming votes.
Keith Bybee, Division Manager of Budget Policy Analysis for the Legislative Services Office, presented the committee’s program maintenance packets and the approach JFAC will use to set maintenance budgets and associated "clear language" on Jan. 15.
Bybee explained each packet contains a comparative analysis (2026 base, personnel benefit costs, statewide cost allocation, change‑in‑employee‑compensation and a proposed committee recommendation column) and that staff will update numbers after the committee votes on statewide items.
He described four categories of "clear language" that commonly appear in appropriation bills: (1) exemptions from transfer limitations between expenditure categories (citing the statute that governs transfers), (2) reappropriation authority to carry unspent or federal relief funds into future fiscal years (for multi‑year projects, including ARPA and capital projects), (3) conditions/limitations/restrictions that clarify how funds may be used, and (4) accountability and audit language to ensure funds are spent as authorized.
Senator Cook and Senator Wintrow asked whether language in the packets is simply historical or if the committee must actively approve it. Bybee and Chair Horman said language included in the maintenance packets is generally language that has appeared in prior appropriation acts; the committee has full discretion to add, remove or modify that language when it votes on the maintenance budgets and on enhancement bills. Chair Horman emphasized the intent language is not a suggestion but is intended to function as law directing agency use of appropriated funds.
Bybee encouraged members to review packet language for agency budgets and to raise questions if they wish to change reporting or transfer authorities. He noted that while staff prefer not to reappropriate funds routinely, reappropriation authority remains necessary for some multi‑year capital and federal projects and that the committee will address larger reappropriation questions (for example, ITD capital projects) directly in enhancement hearings.
Bybee said the committee will proceed with motions that add personnel benefit costs, statewide cost allocations and CEC before finalizing maintenance budgets; members were reminded those statewide votes will change the maintenance packet numbers.
The committee adjourned with instructions to review the materials ahead of votes scheduled the following day.
