Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Procedures Deficiency Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears overview of deficiency warrants and supplemental requests; governor's recommended supplementals top $604 million
Summary
Legislative staff explained deficiency warrants, how they differ from supplemental appropriations, and provided totals in the governor's recommended supplemental package, including a proposed $60 million transfer to the fire deficiency fund.
Kellen McGurkin, a budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services, briefed the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee on Jan. 7 on three current‑year appropriation mechanisms: deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions.
McGurkin defined deficiency warrants as a statutory authority that allows select agencies to spend general‑fund monies for certain emergencies without a prior appropriation; agencies later come to the committee to appropriate general fund money to the accounts where the expenditures occurred and thus clear the outstanding balance. The analyst said typical authorized uses include dam safety, fire suppression and pest control and that the initial authorizations often come through boards such as the Board of Examiners or the Board of Land Commissioners.
He told the committee that the use and dollar value of deficiency warrants has risen over the past five years, with most of the recent growth tied to pest control. McGurkin said more detailed agency‑level examples will be presented in specific budget hearings, and that the military division and Department of Agriculture will have related material in their hearings.
On supplementals, McGurkin said those requests work like ordinary appropriations but adjust the current fiscal year (fiscal year 2025 in this session). He reminded members that supplementals should be true unplanned adjustments—response to emergencies or unforeseen needs—rather than routine additions to the base, a point committee co‑chairs emphasized as a policy preference.
McGurkin summarized the governor's recommended supplementals as totaling $604,842,000 across fund sources, including $98,776,000 from the general fund; he noted the total included a proposed $60,000,000 transfer from the general fund to the fire deficiency fund. He also reminded the committee of the Idaho Constitution's emergency clause: unless an emergency is declared in the law, appropriations typically do not take effect until the end of the fiscal year.
Committee members asked how immediate physical needs—such as a leaking roof in a state building—should be treated. McGurkin said the committee would decide whether the situation qualified as an emergency; the procurement process and purchasing timelines for repairs are operational matters that agencies and the Division of Purchasing would manage.
Ending
McGurkin said the committee will see individual deficiency warrant and supplemental requests in relevant agency hearings and that members should weigh whether proposed emergency language is necessary for each request to take effect immediately.
