This is based off my 1-time exposure in a very lay tournament, but i think it's some mesh of solvency arguments with spec theory. something like "how does the plan work if we don't know how much it costs", etc. IF that's close to what the argument is referencing, then i would first reccomend that you block out a sufficient response to each solvency/spec/theory argument you're used to hitting.
as far as it not being a voter, the warrant for this changes depending on the neg arg. The spec args you listed would, i think, make your 1AC extra topical (especially the funding spec argument. literally every aff that specifies some obscure source of funding that i've hit (kansas HS circuit) uses that specification to dodge some of the only stable links that you get for disads). Timeframe is also another shady spec--lets you dodge any politics DA, and the neg can't reasonably prepare for 100 versions of each aff with different hypothetical advantages/solvency mechanisms for each time-frame specified.
If it's a solvency argument about funding, you can just say you deficit spend. very few bills are rejected because we don't know how much they're cost. hope this is useful