Staff outline deficiency warrants and supplemental requests as committee begins budget work

Kellen McGurkin, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, told the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee on Jan. 7 that deficiency warrants let certain agencies spend against the general fund for specified purposes before a formal appropriation, and that supplementals are ordinary appropriations for the current fiscal year.

Lede/nut graf: Deficiency warrants are statutory exceptions that allow agencies to respond quickly to urgent costs such as dam safety, fire suppression and pest control without a prior appropriation; agencies that use the authority later come to the committee for a general-fund appropriation to zero out the balance. Supplementals, by contrast, are appropriation adjustments to the current fiscal year considered by the legislature through the normal bill process.

McGurkin explained that boards such as the Board of Examiners and the Board of Land Commissioners can authorize deficiency-warrant expenditures in situations the legislature has previously deemed appropriate. The Board of Examiners is composed of 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.

He noted a multi-year trend: the dollar value of deficiency-warrant requests has increased over the past five years, primarily driven by pest-control spending. McGurkin said agency-specific hearings (for example, military division and Department of Agriculture) will provide more detail on those requests during the session.

On supplementals, McGurkin reviewed the governor's recommended current-year adjustments: the package totaled $604,842,000 across all funds, including $98,776,000 on the general fund, and the recommendation includes a proposed $60,000,000 transfer from the general fund to the fire deficiency fund. "The governor's recommendation for supplemental requests comes in at $604,842,000," he told the committee.

Constitutional and timing note: McGurkin reminded members that, under the Idaho Constitution, bills do not take immediate effect except in declared emergencies; the committee must consider whether current-year changes require emergency clauses so they take effect before fiscal-year end.

Committee discussion addressed what constitutes an emergency and the procurement and bidding consequences for urgent repairs. McGurkin said the merits and process depend on circumstance and agency procurement rules; the committee retains discretion whether to include emergency language. Cochairs urged members to treat supplementals as true "supplemental" requests for unanticipated or urgent matters rather than predictable or planned expenses that should have been included in the base budget.

Ending: McGurkin distributed a consolidated list of deficiency-warrant and supplemental requests and told members they can review details in individual agency hearings; committee members asked analysts to provide supplemental materials and asked agencies to justify emergency requests when necessary.