Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deficiency Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee briefed on deficiency warrants, supplementals and emergency clause for current‑year needs
Summary
Analysts explained deficiency warrants (statutory authority to spend without prior appropriation), supplemental requests, rescissions and the constitutional emergency clause used when relief is needed before fiscal-year end.
Kellen McGurkin, a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, explained the difference between deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions to the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee on Jan. 7 and reviewed the constitutional emergency clause that makes some current‑year adjustments effective immediately.
McGurkin described deficiency warrants as a statutory exception that allows certain agencies to spend money from the general fund for specified purposes without a prior appropriation; agencies later come to the committee for an appropriation to cover those expenditures. He compared the mechanism to a credit card: the agency uses authority up to a statutory cap set by law or board action and then requests appropriation to zero out the outstanding balance. Typical authorized uses include dam safety, fire suppression or pest control; many recent increases in deficiency-warrant requests were tied to pest-control costs, McGurkin said.
He said most deficiency-warrant expenditures are first authorized by the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners, which the committee then reviews when agencies request the appropriation. The Board of Examiners comprises the governor, secretary of state and attorney general; the Board of Land Commissioners includes the state controller and superintendent of public instruction in addition to those members. McGurkin displayed a five‑year trend that shows the dollar value of deficiency-warrant requests has grown over time, with pest control accounting for much of the growth.
On supplementals, McGurkin explained that supplemental appropriations work like normal appropriations but apply to the current fiscal year. He said the governor’s recommended supplemental total in the presentation was $604,842,000 across all funds, including $98,776,000 on the general fund; that total included a proposed $60,000,000 transfer from the general fund to a fire-deficiency fund. Committee members emphasized that supplementals should be reserved for unexpected or emergent needs and not used routinely to add planned items omitted from original requests.
McGurkin also reviewed the emergency-clause requirement of the Idaho constitution — that except in case of emergency, actions do not take effect until the end of the fiscal year — and told the committee it must decide whether current-year measures require emergency language to be immediately effective.
Committee members asked about logistics when real-time facility emergencies occur, such as a building leak that requires quick repair. McGurkin said agencies, purchasing and DFM must work through procurement rules and that, in practice, emergency repairs can be handled but still must follow statutes and purchasing procedures; the committee can act on a supplemental or deficiency-warrant appropriation (with emergency language) if immediate funding authority is required.
The presentation included a table of agency deficiency-warrant and supplemental requests that committee members can review in the legislative budget book and during agency hearings.
