Chairman Nelson convened the Human Resources Division section of the House Appropriations Committee to review the Protection and Advocacy Project budget and asked staff to explain differences between the competing executive proposals and how the committee will handle amendments.

Legislative staff summarized why the two executive budgets differ and what items the committee will routinely treat the same going forward. "In this case, really the only difference would be with the, salaries and wages increase," staff member Adam said, and he identified standard adjustments—salary and health insurance increases and a new-and-vacant FTE pool—that will appear across agency worksheets.

The committee was told the Armstrong version of the executive recommendation is the simplest baseline for the panel to adopt now, subject to any member amendments. Chairman Nelson said using the Armstrong figures as a baseline would allow the legislative staff to draft amendment language and accompanying documents for the committee to review and vote on at its next meeting.

Key provisions discussed included:

- Salary and health insurance adjustments: staff flagged two line items commonly shown together on the statement of purpose for amendments (SPA). The worksheet included separate entries listing a roughly $246,000 figure and a roughly $180,000 figure; staff said those amounts are normally presented as a combined SPA total with a footnote detailing each component.

- One new FTE: staff said the budget adds one workforce-technology-services FTE, funded by a roughly 50/50 split of general fund and federal dollars. Chairman Nelson and staff cited a figure of $237,880 in connection with that position as included in the Armstrong worksheet.

- New-and-vacant FTE pool: the staff noted the 2025–27 new-and-vacant FTE pool is a separate line that is not yet shown on this worksheet and that the pool will affect totals once the committee decides which positions to include.

- Federal funding adjustment: both executive versions show a roughly $24,000 reduction in federal fund authority that the agency requested based on its expectation it will not need that authority in 2025–27. Adam said that if additional federal funds materialize during the biennium, the Emergency Commission or the budget section could authorize extra spending authority later.

- One-time payouts: the agency requested one-time funding to cover anticipated accrued-leave payouts tied to retirements; staff cited an amount in the $19,000 range for that one‑time request.

Committee members asked how adopting the Armstrong baseline would affect the new-and-vacant pool and whether individual items (the new FTE, IT rate increases, federal adjustments and one-time payouts) would be carried forward automatically. Adam said the pool and the Armstrong choices would be included if the committee directs staff to proceed with the Armstrong recommendation, and that the legislative staff will prepare amendment language and the SPA that will document each component in the footnotes.

Representative Steeman and Representative Murphy asked whether the $24,000 federal reduction was a firm cut or a projection; staff replied it came from the agency's anticipation and could be restored later if federal funds arrive. Members were also reminded that legislative counsel will draft any member amendments and that full amendment packages (long sheet, bill version, and SPA) will be available for the committee when it reconvenes.

The chair closed by asking members to submit any amendment requests before the next session. Legislative staff said the Protection and Advocacy Project amendment packet will be ready first thing Tuesday morning for committee review and that the committee will vote on any member amendments at that time.