Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deficiency Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JFAC staff brief members on deficiency warrants, supplementals and emergency clause
Summary
Analysts reviewed how agencies use deficiency warrants and supplemental appropriations, trends in requests (noting pest control growth), and the constitutional emergency clause that makes in‑session adjustments effective immediately.
Kellen McGurkin of the Legislative Services Office summarized deficiency warrants, supplementals and rescissions to the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee on Jan. 7, and explained how the constitutional emergency clause works when agencies need current‑year adjustments.
McGurkin told the committee deficiency warrants are statutory authorities that allow certain agencies to spend money from the general fund for specified purposes without a prior appropriation; those agencies later request a supplemental appropriation from JFAC to cover the outlays. He compared the process to a credit card: agencies may be authorized in statute to spend on items such as dam safety, fire suppression or pest control, and then seek appropriation to zero‑out the outstanding balance.
He showed a five‑year trend in deficiency warrant usage and said the total dollar value of requests rose over that period, with most growth coming from pest control. McGurkin said specific details on this session’s deficiency warrant requests and supplemental proposals will be available in the departmental hearings (for example, the military division and Department of Agriculture hearings).
On supplementals, McGurkin noted these are current‑year appropriations and differ from deficiency warrants because they operate like ordinary appropriations but adjust the current fiscal year budget. He provided an aggregate of the governor’s recommended supplementals for the current session: about $604,842,000 in total across funds, including roughly $98,776,000 from the general fund. That total includes a proposed transfer of $60,000,000 from the general fund to the fire deficiency fund.
McGurkin reminded members of the emergency clause in the Idaho Constitution: “except in the case of emergency… no action will take effect until the end of the fiscal year in which that was passed,” so supplementals or deficiency warrant bills typically include emergency language if the committee wants them effective immediately. Committee members asked how quickly agencies can act for urgent repairs (for example, a leaking roof). McGurkin said the legislative appropriation would follow the normal supplemental process and that agencies and the Division of Purchasing would handle procurement and emergency procedures as allowed by statute and administrative rules.
The committee’s co‑chair emphasized past committee practice that supplemental requests should be reserved for genuine, unforeseen needs rather than items an agency could have included in its original budget. McGurkin noted the supplemental list and deficiency warrant schedule are published in the legislative budget book and on the committee tables, and analysts will present detail during agency budget hearings.
