Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Deficiency Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Analyst outlines deficiency warrants, supplementals and emergency clause for current-year adjustments
Summary
Kellan McGurkin explained deficiency warrants, how select agencies can spend against the general fund without prior appropriation, the Board authorizations that trigger such expenditures and the scale of recent requests; he also summarized supplemental request totals in the governor—s recommendation.
Kellan McGurkin, a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, briefed the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee on deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions on Jan. 7.
Lede in one line: McGurkin said deficiency warrants permit specified agencies to make immediate expenditures against the general fund for statutorily authorized purposes, with the committee later providing appropriation authority to clear outstanding balances; supplementals are standard current-year appropriations and require normal legislative action and, if necessary, an emergency clause to take effect immediately.
Nut graf: The committee heard that deficiency-warrant authority is a statutory exception used for items such as firefighting, dam safety and pest control; such expenditures are typically authorized by the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners and are subsequently presented to the committee for appropriation. McGurkin reported the governor—s recommended supplemental package totals roughly $604.8 million overall and about $98.8 million in general-fund supplementals (including a proposed $60 million transfer to the fire deficiency fund).
Key points
- Deficiency warrants: McGurkin compared the mechanism to a credit card that allows selected agencies to respond to urgent needs and later seek legislative appropriation to zero out outstanding balances. The Board of Examiners (governor, secretary of state, attorney general) or Board of Land Commissioners commonly authorizes these expenditures.
- Types and trends: Over the past five years the total value of deficiency-warrant requests has risen, driven largely by pest-control expenditures. McGurkin said more detail on recent requests will be available in relevant agency hearings (for example Military Division and Department of Agriculture hearings).
- Emergency clause: Under the Idaho Constitution, current-year adjustments take effect immediately only when an emergency is declared in the bill preamble; the committee must decide whether requests require emergency language or can wait until the end of the fiscal year.
- Supplemental totals: McGurkin provided the governor—s recommended supplemental sum (about $604,842,000 total; $98,776,000 general fund), noting this figure includes a $60 million proposed general-fund transfer to the fire deficiency fund.
Questions and committee guidance
Committee co-chairs reiterated that supplementals should be for true unanticipated needs, not routine additions deferred from the original budget. Members asked whether building repairs (for example an active interior roof leak) constitute an emergency; McGurkin said the committee would decide and that agencies would follow standard procurement and purchasing rules to address repairs even when the emergency clause is used for immediate effect.
Ending
McGurkin directed members to summary tables listing all current deficiency-warrant and supplemental requests by agency (also available in the legislative budget book) and said analysts would provide more detail during each agency—s budget hearing.
