Governor’s office seeks $1.35 million cash transfer to restore emergency fund; lawmakers press for detail on interagency transfers and constituent‑management IT

At a Feb. 18 Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee hearing, Legislative analysts and the Division of Financial Management described several Executive Office of the Governor budget items and fielded multiple questions about the governor’s emergency fund balance and interagency personnel reimbursements.

Analyst Christopher LaHozet told the committee the governor’s emergency fund has a base appropriation of $2 million but a cash balance of about $650,000 after expenditures in FY2023–24. He said the governor’s office is proposing a one‑time cash transfer of $1,350,000 from the general fund to restore the fund’s cash to $2 million. LaHozet said the governor’s office spent “1,400,000 to reimburse ISP for the University of Idaho Moscow murder investigations and for operation Esto Perpetua program, which you may have heard, referred to as fight fentanyl now.”

The governor’s office also requested two other enhancements in its FY‑2026 packet: $45,000 one‑time from the general fund for ITS replacement hardware and $250,000 one‑time to support Idaho participation in the White House‑led “America 250/Task Force 2250” objectives cited in a presidential executive order mentioned during the hearing. LaHozet said the governor’s office will coordinate state activity with a national advisory council and with federal expectations.

Lawmakers sought detail on transfers, personnel reimbursements Several committee members asked for transaction‑level detail about transfers and reimbursements from other agencies to the governor’s office. Senator Hart and Representative Tanner asked whether the governor’s office had purchased a constituent‑services platform and whether subscription or implementation costs would be ongoing. LaHozet said the office studied Salesforce but found it cost‑prohibitive and that the appropriation authorized last year was intended to implement a constituent services management system; he said the office had not yet spent the FY25 appropriation and was evaluating lower‑cost options and potential leverage of existing DFM/ITS tools.

Representative Tanner and others pressed DFM Director Laurie Wolfe about transfers recorded as personnel reimbursements to the governor’s office, sometimes known as 10P transactions. Wolfe said those personnel reimbursements are an established practice for sharing staff costs when staff perform work for other agencies or boards, and she rejected the idea that the transactions were hidden. “There is nothing being hidden or trying to offset budgets,” Wolfe told the committee, explaining the 10P process has been used for decades and was replicated in the new LUMA accounting system. Wolfe agreed to provide the committee with a detailed breakdown of recent transfers and reimbursements.

Why it matters: Restoring the emergency fund increases the governor’s immediately available cash for unanticipated incidents that meet statutory criteria. Lawmakers also signaled continued interest in transaction‑level transparency where large transfers occur at or near the close of a fiscal year.

Other details and follow up Analysts told the committee that the emergency fund previously supported pandemic‑era CARES/ARPA transactions and that some appropriations in the governor’s office have been used for special initiatives. Committee members asked for reports or spreadsheets showing how previous emergency fund spending was allocated; LaHozet said those are available and offered to provide the reporting that DFM and the controller produce.

No formal votes were taken. DFM agreed to provide the committee with the requested transaction detail, and analysts noted the governor’s office had not yet expended the constituent‑services appropriation and continued to evaluate options.