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 clause: how current‑year adjustments work
Summary
Budget staff reviewed deficiency warrants (statutorily authorized temporary spending that must later be appropriated), the emergency clause in the Idaho Constitution, and the governor’s supplemental recommendations for the current fiscal year.
Kellan McGurkin, budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services, told the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee on Jan. 7 that deficiency warrants allow certain agencies to spend against the general fund for limited, statutorily authorized purposes without a prior appropriation; the expenditures are later appropriated by the Legislature to clear the outstanding balance.
“Deficiency warrants allow select agencies to spend monies against the general fund for select purposes as authorized in statute without a prior appropriation,” McGurkin said. He likened the mechanism to an agency using a credit card and explained that agencies then appear before the committee so JFAC can appropriate funds to zero out the account.
McGurkin said boards such as the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners commonly authorize deficiency‑warrant expenditures for purposes the Legislature has designated as eligible—for example, dam safety, fire suppression and pest control. The Board of Examiners consists of the governor, secretary of state and attorney general; the Board of Land Commissioners includes those officials plus the state controller and the superintendent of public instruction.
He also reviewed other current‑year adjustments: supplementals (additional appropriations to the current fiscal year), rescissions (reductions to current appropriations), and the constitutional emergency clause that permits a law to take effect immediately if the Legislature declares an emergency in the preamble. McGurkin noted that the committee must decide both whether to approve supplemental requests and whether the request requires emergency language for immediate effect.
On totals, McGurkin presented the governor’s recommended supplemental requests for the current fiscal year: roughly $604,842,000 in total adjustments, including approximately $98,776,000 from the general fund. He said that total includes a proposed transfer of $60,000,000 from the general fund to the fire deficiency fund; McGurkin identified the governor’s recommendation as the package staff will present for committee consideration during hearings.
Committee members asked for examples and process clarifications. Senator Cook asked whether a leaking building roof would qualify as an emergency. McGurkin and committee leaders said the determination rests with the committee and the statutory and purchasing processes an agency must follow; the constitutional emergency clause permits immediate effect for bona fide emergencies, but agencies must still manage procurement and other statutory requirements as applicable.
A committee co‑chair reiterated earlier guidance from leadership: supplemental requests should be reserved for true unanticipated exigencies—not as a routine way to increase funding that was omitted from the original budget submission. The co‑chair said the prior session’s high supplemental volume prompted tighter scrutiny and that requests the Legislature could reasonably have anticipated should be included in agency base budgets rather than treated as supplementals.
Ending: McGurkin provided the committee with tables listing deficiency‑warrant and supplemental requests by agency (also available in the legislative budget book). Members were advised they will receive more detailed supplemental packets during each agency’s budget hearing and that the committee will consider emergency language only when the request meets the constitutional standard for immediate effect.
