Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deficiency Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deficiency warrants, supplementals and emergency clauses: committee refresher ahead of budget season
Summary
Kellan McGurkin told JFAC that deficiency warrants let certain agencies temporarily spend against the general fund for statutorily authorized purposes and then come to the committee for appropriation; he also reviewed supplementals, rescissions and the constitutional emergency clause that accelerates current‑year adjustments.
Kellan McGurkin, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, gave the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee a primer on deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions during the Jan. 7 hearing.
What deficiency warrants are: McGurkin said deficiency warrants are statutory exceptions that allow certain agencies to spend against the general fund for authorized purposes without a prior appropriation. Agencies use deficiency warrants like a temporary credit card for specified needs — historically for items such as dam safety, fire suppression and pest control — and later seek a formal appropriation from the committee to zero out the outstanding balance.
Authorization and oversight: Deficiency expenditures are typically authorized in practice by the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners. McGurkin noted the boards’ role is to confirm that a given expenditure is appropriate and within statutory limits before the agency uses the warrant authority.
Supplementals and rescissions: McGurkin explained supplementals act like regular appropriations but change the current fiscal year’s authority (the committee will consider fiscal‑year‑2025 supplementals during the session). Rescissions are reductions to current‑year appropriations. The governor’s recommended supplemental package total presented in the briefing was approximately $604.8 million in total adjustments, including about $98.8 million in general fund supplemental requests; the total figure included a proposed $60 million transfer from the general fund to the fire deficiency fund.
Emergency clause and timing: McGurkin reviewed the Idaho Constitution’s emergency clause: bills take effect at the end of the fiscal year except when the legislature declares an emergency in the bill preamble. The committee therefore decides when supplemental or deficiency language must include an emergency declaration so the changes take effect immediately instead of waiting until fiscal‑year end.
Practical questions: Committee members asked whether a leaking roof or other urgent facility repair would qualify as an emergency; McGurkin said the determination rests with the committee and with the agency’s division of purchasing for procurement timing. Co‑chairs emphasized the committee’s policy that supplementals should be reserved for true, unanticipated emergencies rather than items agencies chose not to include in initial budget proposals.
Ending: McGurkin provided a table of supplemental and deficiency requests by agency for committee reference and said analysts will provide detail during the individual agency hearings.
