Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deficiency Warrants Supplementals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JFAC hears how deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions work; committee reminded of emergency clause
Summary
Budget staff explained deficiency warrants (authority to spend without prior appropriation for select emergencies), how supplemental appropriations function, and the constitutional emergency clause that allows current‑year bills to take effect immediately.
Kellen McGurkin, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, briefed the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee on Jan. 7 on the definitions and procedures for deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions and the constitutional basis for emergency implementation of current‑year adjustments.
McGurkin said deficiency warrants allow certain agencies to spend from the general fund for statutorily authorized purposes without a prior appropriation and later appear before JFAC to receive an appropriation that zeroes out the outstanding balance. “Deficiency warrants allow select agencies to spend monies against the general fund for select purposes as authorized in statute without a prior appropriation,” he said, likening the practice to an agency using a credit card and later presenting the bill to the committee.
Board authorization and typical uses
Those expenditures are typically first authorized by a board such as the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners, McGurkin said. Examples of permitted deficiency‑warrant expenses cited in testimony include dam safety, fire suppression, and pest control. McGurkin presented a five‑year trend showing a continued increase in the value of deficiency‑warrant requests, driven in recent years mainly by pest‑control expenses; the committee was directed to expect more detail on specific requests during the Military Division and Department of Agriculture budget hearings.
Supplementals, rescissions and the emergency clause
McGurkin clarified that supplementals act like normal appropriations but are for the current fiscal year (the committee this session will consider adjustments to FY2025). He reported that the governor’s recommended supplementals totaled $604,842,000 across all funds, including $98,776,000 in general‑fund requests; those totals include a proposed transfer of $60,000,000 from the general fund to the fire deficiency fund.
He reminded members of the Idaho Constitution’s emergency clause, which requires an emergency preamble for any bill to take effect before the end of the fiscal year: “Except in the case of emergency… no action will take effect until the end of the fiscal year in which that was passed,” McGurkin said, summarizing the constitutional guidance included in the briefing slides. The committee also must decide whether emergency language is needed for any approved current‑year adjustments, he told members.
Committee discussion and practice guidance
Committee co‑chairs and members emphasized long‑standing committee practice to reserve supplementals for true, unanticipated needs rather than routine additions that agencies could have included in their original budget submissions. The co‑chair said the committee had tightened its standard to accept supplemental requests only for crises or expenses that could not have been anticipated or included in the original budget submission.
Members asked practical questions about emergency repairs (for example, a leaking roof in a state building) and how procurement or purchasing rules would interact with emergency appropriations; McGurkin said procurement and purchasing processes would still be followed and that the budgetary vehicle for emergency spending would be an enhancement (supplemental) rather than a maintenance action.
Ending
McGurkin provided a list of current deficiency warrant and supplemental requests for the committee and noted that more detailed information will be available in the budget book and in forthcoming agency hearings.
