Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Savings Reserves topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Savings near statutory caps as JFAC hears proposal to top off budget stabilization and school reserve
Summary
Legislative Services Office staff told the committee Idaho's budget stabilization fund and public education stabilization fund would rise under the governor's recommendation and explained statutory caps and recent temporary code changes that affect transfers.
Legislative staff briefed the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee on the state's savings accounts and how they interact with the budget forecast.
Keith Bybee reviewed the budget stabilization fund (BSF) and public education stabilization fund (PESF) balances and statutory caps. He said transferring the governor's recommended $59,000,000 to the BSF would raise the balance to about $939,000,000 — which the presentation showed would be at or near the statutory 15% cap for general fund revenues if revenues materialize as projected. Bybee told members the legislature in the prior year temporarily set aside the statutory automatic return — a bookkeeping step to avoid automatic transfers back to the general fund when the cap is exceeded.
Bybee and other presenters framed the BSF as one component of Idaho's recession readiness. The presentation compared the state's position entering the 2009 recession — roughly $641,000,000 in available savings at the time — to the much larger sums available in the current forecast. He said that difference makes the state more resilient to revenue declines but that the committee must still consider policy choices and possible spending reductions in the event of a downturn.
Public education stabilization fund: The presentation described the PESF as an overdraft protection for public school support — an automatic mechanism that covers shortfalls when support units or enrollment‑driven formulas come in higher than budgeted. The governor's projections would move the PSIF to about $293,600,000, staff said.
Why it matters: Savings balances determine how much the legislature can rely on one‑time cash for priorities and how much must come from ongoing revenue. Committee members asked whether the cap should be raised — in the presentation staff noted professional guidance suggesting a target range between 18% and 22% of general fund revenues — and whether existing temporary code changes should be extended or made permanent.
Questions and follow up: Representative Furness requested more detail on how interest earnings on cash are treated and where the interest shows up in agency or fund accounting; staff promised a follow‑up from the treasurer's office. Committee members asked for historical context on the BSF's use during the last recession and why the legislature previously capped the fund at 15%.
Ending: Staff emphasized the committee's discretion over transfers in the coming session and reminded members that resolving the statutory treatment of caps and reserve transfers would be a policy choice for this legislature.
