Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deficiency Warrants Supplementals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears refresher on deficiency warrants, supplementals and emergency clause
Summary
Legislative staff explained deficiency warrants (statutory authority for certain agencies to spend against the general fund), the purpose and limits of supplemental appropriations, and the constitutional emergency clause that allows current‑year changes to take effect immediately.
Kellen McGurkin, a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, briefed the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee on Jan. 7 about deficiency warrants, supplementals, rescissions and how the Idaho Constitution’s emergency clause applies to current‑year adjustments.
Deficiency warrants McGurkin explained that deficiency warrants are a statutory authority allowing certain agencies to spend money against the general fund for specified purposes without a prior appropriation; agencies later come to the committee to have those expenditures appropriated so the agency’s outstanding balance is cleared. Typical authorized uses include dam safety, emergency fire suppression and pest control. Deficiency warrants are usually authorized in practice by the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners; McGurkin reminded members that the Board of Examiners includes the governor and secretary of state, among others.
Supplementals and rescissions McGurkin said supplementals operate like normal appropriations but apply to the current fiscal year (the committee was considering fiscal‑year‑2025 adjustments). He noted the governor’s recommended supplemental total in the hearing materials was about $604,842,000 across all funds, including roughly $98,776,000 in general‑fund supplemental recommendations. The committee package also listed a proposed $60,000,000 general‑fund transfer to a fire deficiency fund as part of the current set of requests.
Emergency clause and timing McGurkin reviewed Article II (emergency language) of the Idaho Constitution as the legal basis the committee uses when it wants supplemental or deficiency actions to take effect immediately rather than at fiscal‑year end. Committee co‑chairs cautioned members that supplementals should be reserved for true, unforeseen needs rather than planned items omitted from initial budget submissions; they said previous sessions had seen large supplemental totals that undermined the regular budget process.
Questions and examples Senator Cook asked whether a leaky roof that requires immediate repair would qualify as an emergency; McGurkin noted the committee decides whether to approve and whether emergency language is required, and that procurement issues such as competitive bidding could still affect how quickly an agency can spend. Co‑chairs said agencies should request supplementals only for urgent, unforeseen needs.
Ending McGurkin said members would see a table of current deficiency warrant and supplemental requests in the budget book and on the committee table; co‑chairs urged members to consult those lists as they work agency budgets.
