Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JFAC staff present 'clear‑language' approach to maintenance budgets; committee urged to review reappropriations and restrictions
Summary
Keith Bybee, Division Manager for Budget Policy Analysis at the Legislative Services Office, walked the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee through a program‑maintenance packet that consolidates comparative budget tables, prior intent language, reappropriation authorities and conditions/limitations to make legislative direction clearer.
Keith Bybee, Division Manager for Budget Policy Analysis at the Legislative Services Office, briefed the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee on Jan. 15 about a program‑maintenance packet the committee will use to set maintenance budgets this week. The packet compiles comparative budget analyses, prior “intent” language that the committee has historically included, reappropriation authorities and conditions/limitations intended to make legislative direction explicit.
Bybee said each packet includes a comparative chart showing the 2026 base, personnel benefit costs, statewide cost allocations and change‑in‑employee‑compensation (CEC) so the committee can see how votes on statewide items affect each maintenance budget. He described three principal categories in the clear‑language package: exemptions from the state code provision that limits transfers between expenditure categories, reappropriation (carryover) authority for multi‑year projects (including ARPA and capital projects), and explicit conditions/limitations that clarify how appropriated funds must be used.
Chair Horman stressed the committee’s intent to make this language unambiguous. “This is what this language is going to express. When we give you money for x, that's where we expect it to be spent. Not because that's it is our intent, but it's also the law,” she said. Committee members asked procedural questions about whether the committee can change prior intent language; Bybee and co‑chairs confirmed the committee has full discretion to remove or alter language when setting budgets.
Members were urged to review packets in advance of votes; analysts said the statewide decisions on personnel benefits, statewide cost allocation, and CECs will be finalized before the committee sets program maintenance budgets. Several senators and representatives noted the importance of adding reporting requirements when the committee wants to track program performance and suggested leveraging newly created fiscal‑impact resources to follow up on outcomes.
No votes were taken during the briefing. Bybee assigned committee members to review their packets and to raise questions with analysts in advance of scheduled budget votes.
