Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deficiency Warrants Supplementals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Analyst explains deficiency warrants and supplementals; committee reminded of emergency clause
Summary
Kellen McGurkin (LSO) briefed the committee on deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions, explaining statutory authority, typical uses (pest control, dam safety, fire suppression) and the constitutional emergency clause required for immediate effect.
Kellen McGurkin, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, briefed the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee on Jan. 7 about deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescission language and their roles in current-year budget adjustments.
"Deficiency warrants allow select agencies to spend monies against the general fund for select purposes as authorized in statute without a prior appropriation," McGurkin told the panel, likening the mechanism to an agency using a credit card and later seeking an appropriation to zero out the outstanding balance.
McGurkin explained that the authority for deficiency warrants is statutory and that the expenditures typically require authorization by a board such as the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners. He said the legislature has authorized deficiency spending in the past for items that must be addressed immediately, including dam safety, fire suppression and pest control.
Supplemental appropriations differ from deficiency warrants in that supplementals function like regular appropriations but are adjustments to the current fiscal year (for the committee's work this session, fiscal 2025). McGurkin provided a governor's recommendation total for supplemental requests in the current session: $604,842,000 overall, including $98,776,000 from the general fund. He noted that the totals include a proposed transfer of $60,000,000 from the general fund to the state's fire deficiency fund.
McGurkin reminded members of Article III of the Idaho Constitution's emergency-clause guidance (as summarized in LSO materials): except in the case of an emergency declared in a bill's preamble, laws do not take effect until the end of the fiscal year. For supplementals, rescissions and deficiency-warrant appropriations to take effect immediately, the committee must add emergency preambles when it determines a request cannot wait.
Committee members discussed examples, including routine maintenance and sudden building leaks. McGurkin said whether a leak would qualify as an emergency depends on timing and procurement rules; he advised that agencies work with the division of purchasing and that the committee could apply emergency language when it determines a request is urgent.
A co-chair noted past concerns about frequent supplementals and urged agencies to reserve supplemental requests for true emergencies rather than anticipated needs that could have been included in the original budget.
McGurkin provided members a consolidated list of planned deficiency-warrant and supplemental requests by agency and said those materials are available in the legislative budget book and at committee tables. He advised that most deficiency-warrant growth over the past five years has been driven by pest-control requests and that specific agency hearings (for example, military and agriculture) will provide more detail.
No formal committee vote occurred during the briefing. Members were reminded to consider emergency language only where immediate effect is required and to review the supplemental list when preparing work-group questions.
Ending: The committee will hear detailed supplemental and deficiency-warrant requests in upcoming agency hearings; members were encouraged to weigh constitutional emergency requirements when deciding whether to grant immediate effect to current‑year adjustments.
