Committee fails to adopt change-in-employee-compensation motions; four alternatives debated

BOISE, Idaho — Lawmakers on the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee debated four alternative approaches Jan. 31 to statewide change-in-employee-compensation (CEC) funding for fiscal year 2026 but failed to adopt any of them after multiple roll calls.

Analysts laid out four motions that differed by distribution method and scope. Representative Miller offered a dollar-based motion (motion 1) to provide $1.55 per hour per permanent FTP — presented as $84,411,000 for state employees and, when combined with school and other adjustments, $177,429,000 total. Representative Furness offered a variant (motion 2) that combined $1.55 per hour up to a floor and added $611,500 to ensure all state employees receive at least a 3% increase. Senator Cook proposed a merit-focused alternative (motion 3) that distributes up to 4% on merit and the governor’s option (motion 4) would provide a straight 5% merit increase; committee staff produced fund-source calculations and agency-level breakdowns for each option.

Mr. Brian Bybee, the legislative analyst, summarized the methodology used to calculate each motion: “using our LSO budget system, by fund source, we calculated the dollar amount per FTP” and then adjusted calculations for colleges, community colleges and other pay adjustments. He also explained that motions differ in whether increases are flat per hour, a guaranteed minimum percentage or merit-based and which personnel categories receive targeted adjustments (for example, IT/engineering, troopers and nursing/healthcare classifications).

Lawmakers' debate touched on policy trade-offs. Senator Cook and supporters argued merit pay preserves supervisors’ ability to reward higher performance; Cook said the merit approach would provide “a dollar 55 or 4% interest, whatever is greater, by merit.” Opponents warned that purely merit-based increases could leave lower-paid employees behind; Representative Handy argued that treating everyone the same has advantages for employees meeting basic inflationary needs.

The committee held several roll-call votes on different substitute and original motions. In each case, the motions failed to achieve the required majorities under the joint voting procedure the committee used at the meeting, and the committee concluded it would revisit CEC on a later date. Committee leadership also spent time clarifying the joint voting rule in effect for the session; staff said leadership had provided a letter describing that the ballot is programmed to calculate majority support from the quorum present in each chamber.

Because no motion passed, the committee did not adopt funding levels for FY2026 CEC items and directed staff and members to return to the issue at a later date. Committee chairs apologized to agencies scheduled for subsequent hearings and said those hearings will be rescheduled.