Committee briefed on deficiency warrants and supplemental appropriations; governor’s supplemental package totals provided

Kellen McGurkin, a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, told Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee members on Jan. 7 that deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions are distinct mechanisms the Legislature uses to adjust current‑year spending authority.

“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, explaining that statutory authority and caps allow agencies to make certain expenditures before the committee appropriates funds to cover them. Agencies that use deficiency warrants later come to the committee to receive a matching appropriation that zeros out the outstanding balance.

McGurkin said deficiency warrants historically have been used for items such as dam safety, fire suppression and pest control. He showed a five‑year trend indicating the total value of deficiency warrant requests has increased over that period, with most growth coming from pest‑control requests. McGurkin said agency hearings in the session (for example, the Military Division and Department of Agriculture) will include specific deficiency‑warrant requests and background.

On supplementals, McGurkin said the governor’s recommended supplemental package totaled $604,842,000 across all funds, including $98,776,000 from the general fund. He noted that the package includes a proposed $60,000,000 transfer from the general fund to the fire deficiency fund. He also reminded the committee that supplementals, unlike deficiency warrants, are ordinary appropriations that change the current fiscal year’s authority and that they should be reserved for true in‑year needs.

McGurkin reviewed the emergency clause in Idaho’s constitution, which the Legislature uses for bills that must take effect immediately: “Except in the case of emergency…no action will take effect until the end of the fiscal year in which that was passed,” he read. Committee members asked how the committee should distinguish urgent needs from non‑urgent requests; co‑chairs and members urged restraint and said supplementals should be used for genuine crises rather than deferred items that agencies chose not to include in their base requests.

Senator Cook asked whether a leaking roof that needs immediate repair would qualify as an emergency; McGurkin said the committee would consider the agency’s supplemental request and could include emergency language if the committee determined immediate action was required, but that procurement and purchasing rules may still apply for how the repair is procured.

McGurkin provided the committee with a handout and the legislative budget book pages listing deficiency warrant and supplemental requests by agency and encouraged members to review those lists as they consider budgets in their work groups.