Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Committee Motions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee approves a package of administrative motions; some non‑lapsing authorities moved to potential cut list
Summary
Lawmakers approved staff and agency motions covering funding transfers, non‑lapsing authority, and other administrative items, while amending and moving specific non‑lapsing requests (CH15, CH16) onto a potential cut list after debate and recorded no votes on some motions.
The Social Services Appropriations Subcommittee approved multiple administrative motions during its Jan. 22 meeting, including a package of CH and CI motions related to federal fund transfers, restricted account spending authority, and non‑lapsing intent language.
Procedural votes. Early in the meeting the committee approved an ad hoc motion (AZ‑1) and CE‑1 through CE‑4 related to correctional health funding; the chair ruled that motion passed unanimously. Later, staff presented a set of CH motions (CH1–CH17) and the committee approved those motions with the exception of CH7; the chair recorded 'no' votes from senator Baldry and representative Chevrier on that package.
Non‑lapsing authority and the cut list. Representative Chevrier moved to remove or alter two non‑lapsing requests (CH15 and CH16). After discussion and an amended motion, the committee placed CH15 and CH16 on a potential cut list for further consideration (the substitute motion passed with a mix of yes and no votes recorded on the floor). Committee staff clarified that moving an item to the cut list does not immediately rescind previously approved non‑lapsing authority unless the committee later takes action to rescind.
CI motions and follow‑ups. The subcommittee also approved a set of CI motions (CI1–CI27 range) to allow entities to retain unspent funds under specified limits and to report back on certain opioid award recipients; the committee approved this package with a narrow set of exclusions (CI9 and CI15). Staff noted the non‑lapse language specifies an "up to" amount for each request rather than a guaranteed transfer.
Why it matters: These motions affect how and when previously appropriated funds may be spent and whether unspent balances revert to the general fund. Several members stressed the need for additional reporting and documentation on how retained balances will be used by agencies and grantee organizations.
What comes next: Staff will track reporting dates and provide follow‑up details on the items moved to the potential cut list. The committee left open the ability to revisit and rescind non‑lapsing approvals as it refines the cut list.
