Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JFAC staff outline maintenance budget packets, ‘clear language’ and reappropriation authority ahead of votes
Summary
Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee staff walked members through maintenance budget packets, explaining standard ‘clear language’ (conditions, limitations, restrictions), reappropriation authority for multi-year projects and the committee's discretion to change language or funding during budget votes.
Keith Bybee, division manager of budget policy analysis for the Legislative Services Office, briefed the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee on Jan. 15 about the format and intent of program maintenance budget packets that the committee will vote on during budget-setting. Bybee emphasized three categories of language the committee will see across maintenance bills: exemptions from statutory transfer restrictions (Idaho Code §67-3511), reappropriation authority (carryover), and conditions/limitations referred to as “clear language.”
Bybee said the comparative packet pages show the 2026 base, personnel benefit costs, statewide cost allocations and change-in-employee-compensation adjustments; the committee will set statewide totals first and then vote the functional-area maintenance budgets. He told members the right-hand column of each packet shows a draft “CEC, committee recommendation” amount that will change at committee votes on statewide decisions.
On intent and clear language, Chair Horman told the committee that language in the maintenance bills is not a suggestion but binding direction on how the legislature expects funds to be used. “As director Adams said when he was here, this week, it's the law,” Chair Horman said, underscoring that appropriations come with required uses and reporting where specified.
Bybee and staff noted the committee retains full discretion to alter numbers or language (including transfer authority and reporting conditions) when it finalizes appropriations. He urged members to review the packets and to ask staff for clarification; committee members asked several procedural questions about where to find prior-year intent language and how reappropriation authority has been used for ARPA and capital projects.
Ending: Members were asked to review packet language in advance of maintenance budget votes and to coordinate with LSO staff on any desired changes; the committee adjourned until the next morning.
