IDAHO
Budget Primer
Idaho Center For Fiscal Policy
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................3
Idaho’s Budget Process—Inside The Black Box...........................................................................4
Funds....................................................................................................................................6
Objects..................................................................................................................................8
Who Produces Idaho’s Budget?....................................................................................................9
Is There A Dictionary For Idaho’s Budget?................................................................................. 10
Where Does The Money Come From?......................................................................................... 10
General Fund...................................................................................................................... 10
Dedicated Funds................................................................................................................. 13
Federal Funds..................................................................................................................... 13
Other Funds........................................................................................................................ 14
Where Does The Money Go?...................................................................................................... 15
Education........................................................................................................................... 15
Public Schools............................................................................................................... 17
Higher Education........................................................................................................... 18
Health & Human Services..................................................................................................... 20
Are There Deficiencies In Idaho’s Budget Process?................................................................... 21
Inaccurate Budget Baseline.................................................................................................. 21
Inadequate Time Horizon...................................................................................................... 21
Incomplete Expenditure Reporting........................................................................................ 22
Inconsistent Labeling........................................................................................................... 22
Insufficient Fiscal Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 22
What Are Today’s Big Budget Issues?........................................................................................ 23
Appendix 1: DFM Citizen Guide................................................................................................ 25
Appendix 2: LSO Budget Process.............................................................................................. 28
Appendix 3: Department/Agency/Program Codes For DFM and LSO Budget Development
System (Appendix 5 in Budget Development Manual)............................................................... 34
2
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Introduction
This document is intended as a guide to understanding Idaho’s state
budget. While it can’t make a complicated budget (and associated
process) simple, it can provide a framework for penetrating that
complexity and giving the average citizen an understanding of how
Idaho’s budget works and what is at stake.
The state’s budget is important because
it touches all Idahoan’s lives, in ways
both direct and indirect. Over a third
of the total state budget goes toward
education, and that spending impacts
everyone regardless of whether they have
children in public school, are attending a
public university, or hire employees from
a workforce whose skills and knowledge
depend in large measure on the quality of
the public education system.
About a third of the total state budget
goes toward health and human services.
You may not need a public program such
as Medicaid to help pay for your health
care needs, and you may not have the
misfortune to be dealing with serious disabilities that require around the
clock care, but it’s pretty likely that you
do rely on (and hopefully, appreciate)
public health programs that protect all
of us from the ravages of communicable
diseases, and insure a high quality of the
air we breath, the water we drink, and the
food we eat.
There are many more functions of state
government we’ll dive into in more detail
later. We’ll also look at another important
aspect of the budget – how we pay for the
services that are provided through state
government programs.
Idaho All Fund Expenditures,
by Functional Category
FY 2013, Total = $6,957.3 Million
12.6% of Idaho Personal Income
$361.1
5.2%
$1,628.7
23.4%
$2,409.8
34.6%
$2,557.8
36.8%
Education Function
Public Safety Function
Health & Human
Services Function
All Other
Agencies/Functions
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
It’s easy to lose sight of the fact the
services we often take for granted must
be paid for, or in the jargon of public
budgeting, must be funded. Unlike the
private sector where we have straightforward transactions (you give me a widget,
I give you money in payment), there can
be a long distance between the delivery
of a public service and the payments that
‘fund’ that service.
Going back to the part of the budget that
is for education, you receive the service (in
the case of public schools) by registering
and sending your children to the elementary
school down the street. You (and others)
pay for that service by paying sales tax on
your purchases, income tax on your
earnings, and property taxes on your
home and business property. It is not
“fee for service.” It is a public service
paid for with our tax dollars. And in the
case of public schools, that principle
is ensconced in Article 9, Section 1 of
Idaho’s Constitution: “…it shall be the
duty of the legislature of Idaho to
establish and maintain a general,
uniform, and thorough system of public
free common schools.” Free doesn’t
mean it costs nothing to run Idaho’s
public schools. Free means we can’t be
charged admission to send our children
to Idaho’s public schools.
Throughout the state budget, choices are
being made. How money is raised, how
much money is raised, what money is
spent on, and how it is spent entail
enormous public policy decisions. It may
seem daunting, but it behooves every
responsible citizen to pay attention to
the state’s budget, understand the public
policy choices it reflects, and hold their
representatives accountable for the
decisions they make.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
3
Idaho’s Budget Process – Inside The Black Box
Idaho’s budget is the state’s financial blueprint for the money it will spend on
its many and varied programs. It is primarily focused on state programs and
spending, but it does also intersect with both the federal government and local governments. Over a third of all the money spent in Idaho’s budget comes
from the federal government, and about 8% of Idaho’s General Fund revenue
sources go directly or indirectly to local government.
A state’s budget is by its nature a complicated document. State
governments have a very wide range of responsibilities, with many
departments and programs. There are very many participants in
a state’s budgeting process. There is a lot of jargon the casual
observer may not understand. The budget process has a long and
overlapping temporal flow. Work on a given fiscal year’s budget
starts well over a year before the day the fiscal year begins. And
the money (revenue) used to fund budgets comes from a wide
range of sources, with a variety of limits and restrictions attached
to those revenue sources.
Another source of complication arises from the
fact that Idaho’s two main budget agencies – the
Legislative Services Office (LSO) and the Division
of Financial Management (DFM) – operate on
different definitions of what is actually included
in their budget documents. That’s right, the two
main budget offices produce Idaho budget
documents that don’t present the same numbers.
LSO produces budget documents that only
include the parts of program budgets that are
annually appropriated by the Legislature. DFM
produces budget documents that include both
annually appropriated and some, but not all,
continuously appropriated parts of program budgets.
Lets say a state has higher than expected revenues when its
economy is booming. The extra revenue (above planned
expenditures) can be stored in an account, often referred to
as a rainy-day fund, and held in reserve for
future fiscal years. Later, when revenue
One of the common
underperforms expectations and is insufficient
to meet planned spending the reserves can be
misconceptions is
used to fill the gap.
that states must
always balance
their budgets–
revenues must
equal expenditures.
Since the budget documents produced by DFM are more
comprehensive in the spending they cover, all references to
budget figures in this Primer are based on the broader DFM
definition unless expressly noted. This definitional difference
does not apply to the General Fund, since all General Fund
spending is subject to annual appropriations.
A common misconception is that states must always balance their
budgets – revenues must equal expenditures. It is true that most
states have what are loosely called “balanced-budget provisions,”
4
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
often in the form of constitutional restrictions. What these
provisions usually boil down to is that a state may not deficit
spend – it may not borrow money to fund its operations in a given
fiscal year. It can certainly spend less than the revenue it brings
in, and if it does so, it will then have reserves that can be spent
in future fiscal years when revenue falls short of expenditures.
If a state finds itself in a situation where
revenue underperforms expectations and
reserves are insufficient to meet spending
needs within the fiscal year, there are several
ways to deal with the situation. Authorized
expenditures can be reduced through negative supplementals, thereby cutting programs.
Revenue can be increased by increasing tax rates
or imposing tax surcharges. Or bill payments can be deferred
beyond the end of the fiscal year, effectively kicking the can down
the road. At various times in the past, Idaho has done all three.
Standing between revenues sources and spending programs are
financial structures called funds. Funds are accounts that money
goes into from revenue sources, and out of to pay for the goods
and services government supplies. There are literally dozens of
funds associated with Idaho’s budget, but for simplicity they can
be (and are) divided into four broad categories: General, Federal,
Dedicated, and Other.
Idaho All Program Expenditures,
by Fund Category
FY 2013, Total = $6,957.3 Million
$840.0
12.1%
$2,690.8
38.7%
$2,646.3
38.0%
$780.2
11.2%
General Fund
Federal Funds
Dedicated Funds
Other Funds
Source: Division of Financial Management,
FY 2015 Executive Budget
The money going into funds comes from a wide array of sources
such as the sales tax, income taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes,
license and user fees, transfers from other governments, etc.
Funds are not the same as a revenue source. A fund can have a
single revenue source or multiple revenue sources. Likewise, a
revenue source can feed into a single fund
or be distributed into multiple funds. The
General Fund (a special fund we’ll look at
much more closely) receives most (about
95%) of its revenue from the individual
income tax, corporate income tax, and sales
tax. But not all of these General Fund revenue
sources go to the General Fund. A small
portion of income taxes go to the Permanent
Building Fund, and a fairly large share of
sales taxes go to a variety of other funds – the
Permanent Building Fund, the Water Pollution
Control Fund, the Sales Tax Ag Property Tax
Relief Fund, and a local government Revenue
Sharing Fund.
On the spending side of the budget, there are
multiple dimensions. We normally think of
different departments when we think of the functions of
government – the Department of Health and Welfare, the
Department of Agriculture, etc. These broad agencies are broken
down into programs (the smallest functional elements of the
budget) and added together into goals (the half dozen broad
functional classifications used in Idaho’s budget).
For example, the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW)
is divided into 25 separate and distinct programs. Medicaid,
which is in DHW and usually referred to as a single program, is
actually divided into 4 distinct programs – Administration and
Management, Basic Medicaid Plan, Enhanced Medicaid Plan,
and Coordinated Medicaid Plan.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Department of Health
and Welfare (and its 25 distinct programs) make up just part of
the Health and Human Services Goal. Besides the Department
of Health and Welfare, this broad functional category of state
spending includes the Catastrophic Health Care Program, the
Public Health Districts, and the Independent Living Council.
As another example, the Department of Agriculture is classified
as part of the Economic Development Goal, along with the Department of Commerce, the Department of Finance, the Industrial Commission, the Department of Insurance, the Department of
Labor, the Public Utilities Commission, Self-Governing Agencies,
and the Transportation Department. Within the Department of
Agriculture there are 8 programs ranging from Animal Industries
and Plant Industries to Administration and Animal Damage Control.
Each program within a department is treated as a separate entity
for budget purposes. A complete listing of the programs that
make up Idaho’s budget can be found in Appendix 3.
At the program level there are several dimensions associated
with the spending side of the budget. One of the dimensions
programs are divided into is spending categories called objects.
There are five object categories: Personnel Costs, Operating
Expenditures, Trustee and Benefit Payments, Capital Outlays
and Lump Sum. These spending categories
allow aggregations by type of spending across
programs and goals.
Another important dimension of programs is
where the money being spent comes from. A
single program may be ‘funded’ by a variety of
sources. For example, the Operations Program
within the state’s Public Schools receive money
from the General Fund, Dedicated Funds,
Federal Funds, and Other Funds. A subtle
but important point is that programs are not
funded by revenue sources per se (such as the
sales tax or income tax), but by a fund – or, as
in this case, by multiple funds.
One very important and unique fund category is the General Fund. It is the only fund
category that consists of just a single account. It is important
because a) it receives the bulk of the revenue generated from
Idaho’s sales and income taxes, b) it funds over a third of all
state spending, and c) the wide variety of programs that depend
on the General Fund are effectively in competition with each
other for the limited resources available. Consequently, it is
invariably the portion of state spending that receives the most
attention when budgets are set.
Important as the General Fund is, it by no means provides a
complete fiscal perspective on state programs. Very few agencies
or programs rely exclusively on the General Fund to pay for their
operations. In a real sense, the extensive and intensive focus
on the General Fund often obscures what is really happening to
state program budgets.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
5
Idaho Public School Spending
by Fund Category
FY 2013, Total = $1,871.9 Million
$238.5
12.7%
$276.0
14.7%
$1,288.1
68.8%
$69.3
3.7%
General Fund
Federal Funds
Dedicated Funds
Other Funds
Note: Public Schools includes State Department of Education
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
Public Schools, for example, are primarily funded by the General
Fund, but also rely heavily on Dedicated Funds (the earnings
from endowment lands, occasional transfers from reserve funds,
etc.), Federal Funds (aid for children with disabilities, free and
reduced price meals, etc.), and Other Funds (supplemental
property tax levies, bond levies, etc.).
Even though public schools pay for about two-thirds of their
spending with money received from the state’s General Fund,
you really have to look at their spending from all funds to get
a complete and accurate picture of the financial condition of
public schools.
Medicaid is another example where the General Fund is a major
element (and indeed, a driving element), but only a partial
element. Because of the program’s design, every dollar of state
General Fund revenue that is allocated to Medicaid is matched
by approximately two and one-third Federal Fund dollars. If the
state reduces eligibility for the Medicaid program, or cuts the
services provided to eligible individuals, it saves state General
Fund dollars AND automatically foregoes the associated federal
matching dollars.
To see how this works, here’s an example: Cutting one million
General Fund dollars from Medicaid frees up that amount for
other General Fund programs or tax cuts (roughly a wash from
Idaho’s overall economic perspective), but it also takes $2.3
million of Federal Funds away that otherwise would have come
to Idaho, but won’t. That’s not a wash. It is a $2.3 million direct
loss to Idaho’s overall economic output.
In 2011 Idaho actually cut $35 million General Fund dollars
from Medicaid services, for a total reduction in Medicaid services
of over $100 million, and a direct loss to Idaho economic
output of over $70 million. With economic multipliers factored
in, the combined direct and indirect loss to Idaho’s overall
economic output was probably at least twice that amount,
or over $140 million.
Another important distinction embedded in the details of the
state budget is how the money is spent. Public Schools and
Medicaid illustrate this point nicely: in the case of Public
Schools, most of the expenditures are for salaries and benefits
of teachers and administrative staff that are employees of the
program (in this case, Idaho’s school districts). Government both
pays for and provides the service.
In the case of Medicaid, most of the expenditures are for what
are known as Trustee and Benefit Payments (in this case,
payments to private health care providers) on behalf of the
Medicaid recipients. Government pays for the service, but the
private sector provides the service.
The state’s prison system is an interesting hybrid. Most of
Idaho’s correctional facilities are operated and staffed by state
employees (i.e., government both pays for and provides the
service), but until recently a few were operated and staffed by
private corporations (i.e., government pays for the service, but
the private sector provides the service). Either way, the Idaho
public pays the cost of operating and maintaining the prisons.
That’s true even if Idaho contracts with other states or private
contractors to house Idaho inmates outside of Idaho. But in those
cases, there is a very real and negative economic consequence
to Idaho, since Idaho tax dollars are being spent elsewhere
(wherever the out of state prison is located) and elsewhere is
where the multiplier occurs. If you want Idaho to have a larger
economy, that’s not a very effective way to get there.
Lets explore the Fund and Object dimensions associated with
Idaho’s budget a bit more closely:
Funds
The General Fund is the fund category that by far receives the
most attention. It is actually a single fund (all the other fund
categories consist of many different individual funds) that receives
revenue primarily (but not exclusively) from the sales and income
taxes, and is spent primarily (but not exclusively) on the broad
government functions (i.e., Goals) of Education, Health and
Human Services, and Public Safety.
Idaho General Fund Expenditures
FY 2013, Total = $2,690.8 Million
$147.3
5.5%
$259.5
9.6%
$639.0
23.7%
$1,644.9
61.1%
Education Function
Public Safety Function
Health & Human
Services Function
All Other
Agencies/Functions
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
6
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Idaho Federal Fund Expenditures
FY 2013, Total = $2,646.3 Million
$394.3
14.9%
$270.1
10.2%
Idaho Dedicated Fund Expenditures
FY 2013, Total = $780.2 Million
$196.2
7.4%
$268.6
10.2%
$80.7
10.3%
$300.7
38.5%
$248.9
31.9%
$1,502.9
56.8%
$68.7
8.8%
$81.2
10.4%
$14.2
0.5%
Education Function
Dept. of Transportation
Health & Human
Services Function
Dept. of Labor
Public Safety Function
All Other
Agencies/Functions
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
In FY 2013 the General Fund accounted for 38.7% of total state
spending, making it the largest fund category that year. In FY
2013 61.1% of the General Fund went for education spending,
23.7% went for Health and Human Services, and 9.6% went to
public safety. The rest (5.5%) went to the remaining three broad
functional areas (i.e., Goals) combined: Natural Resources,
Economic Development, and General Government.
Federal Funds are the second largest source of state spending,
accounting for 38.0% of total state spending in FY 2013. Unlike
the General Fund, the Federal Funds category consists of many,
many individual funds allocated for specific purposes – education,
health care, transportation, natural resource management, etc.
One of the reasons there are so many separate Federal Fund
accounts is they are usually accompanied by restrictions on what
they can be used for. Having separate accounts helps ensure
they will be used properly.
While Federal Funds are used throughout Idaho’s budget, they
are most prominent in Health and Human Services (56.8% of
all Federal Fund spending in Idaho’s budget), Education (10.2%
of all Federal Funds spending), and two departments in the
Economic Development Goal: the Transportation Department
(10.2% of all Federal Funds spending), and the Department
of Labor (14.9% of all Federal Funds spending). The rest of
Economic Development, Natural Resources, and General
Government account for just 7.4% of Federal Fund spending in
Idaho’s budget. And Public Safety is a mere 0.5% of Federal
Fund spending in Idaho’s budget.
Dedicated Funds are a smaller category (11.2% of total state
spending in FY 2013) of state funds that are characterized by
being limited in terms of what they can be used for. Examples
include the State Highway Fund (limited to highway-related
expenditures), the Permanent Building Fund (limited to paying
for capital costs and maintenance associated with the state’s
buildings), and the Public School Permanent Endowment Fund
Education Function
Dept. of Transportation
Health & Human
Services Function
All Other
Agencies/Functions
Public Safety Function
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
(limited to paying expenses incurred by the beneficiaries of
the endowment). There are many specific Dedicated Funds.
They usually (but not always) have an earmarked revenue
source or sources.
Some Dedicated Funds are restricted by constitutional provisions
(the State Highway Fund is a good example). Others are restricted
by statute or custom, and serve as more of an accounting
convenience (the Permanent Building Fund is a good example).
Often, Dedicated Funds are seen as a way of ensuring a particular
revenue source is perpetually available for a particular spending
program. This gives that spending program the advantage of not
having to compete each year for the limited resources available
in the General Fund. It can, however, subject the program to the
vagaries of the Dedicated Fund’s revenue source.
Even though the big-three functional categories (Education,
Health and Human Services, and Public Safety) account for
almost 80% of All Funds spending, 95% of General Fund spending,
and 68% of Federal Funds spending, they account for just 30% of
Dedicated Fund spending. One department alone, Transportation,
accounts for 32% of all Idaho dedicated fund spending.
Other Funds, the fourth fund category, is similar to the Dedicated
category, but different. That sounds like a riddle, and in some
ways it is. It also reflects some of the often mind numbing
complexity associated with Idaho’s budget processes.
The Other Fund category is found in the Executive budget
documents (DFM), but not in the Legislative budget documents
(LSO). Huh? That’s right, the Executive and the Legislative
budget documents don’t line up. The lack of an Other Funds
category in the Legislative budget is one major way this
misalignment occurs, but there are others. We’ll leave a more
thorough description of the differences to a later section (Are
There Deficiencies In Idaho’s Budget Process?), but for now
we’ll just look at what makes up the Other Fund category.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
7
Idaho Other Fund Expenditures
FY 2013, Total = $840.0 Million
$6.1
0.7%
$199.2
23.7%
$71.1
8.5%
$563.6
67.1%
Education Function
Public Safety Function
Health & Human
Services Function
All Other
Agencies/Functions
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
In principle, Other Funds are buckets of money that are not federal
and are not subject to annual appropriations by JFAC. They are
reported in the DFM budget documents in an attempt to provide a
comprehensive accounting of all spending by state programs. They
are left out of the LSO budget documents because they are not
part of the spending decisions the legislature must make each year.
That’s not to say the legislature does not control the expenditures
of Other Funds. It just does so in the form of continuing
appropriations that don’t require annual legislative action.
Community Colleges provide an example of spending supported
by Other Funds that shows up in the DFM budget documents
but not in the LSO Budget documents. Because the spending
supported by the property tax, tuition, and fee revenue raised by
Idaho’s Community Colleges are not subject to annual appropriation
decisions, these spending dollars do not appear in the LSO
budget documents. In FY 2013 the Legislative budget shows total
spending for Community Colleges at $28.3 million. However, the
Executive budget shows total spending for Community Colleges at
$102.7 million. The difference ($74.4 million) is the amount of
Community College spending in FY 2013 that was from property
tax, tuition, and fee revenue that is continuously appropriated.
Public Schools are another example of the differences that arise
between the Legislative and Executive budgets due to annually
versus continuously appropriated spending. FY 2013 total Public
School spending in the Legislative budget is $1,550.1 million.
In the Executive budget FY 2013 total Public School spending
is $1,837.6 million. The difference ($287.5 million) is primarily
due to Public School spending in FY 2013 that was supported by
revenue from property taxes that go into the Other Fund category.
Unfortunately, not all continuously appropriated agency spending
is accounted for in the Executive budget. An example is Colleges
& Universities, where both the Legislative and Executive budget
documents show FY 2013 all funds spending as $447.8 million.
This is the annually appropriated amount (hence the Legislative
8
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
budget documents are consistent), but it leaves out very large
amounts of continuously appropriated spending supported by a
wide variety of revenue sources, including federal grants and contracts, auxiliary enterprises, and other student fees. This is clearly
not consistent with the treatment of other programs in the Executive budget such as the Public Schools and Community Colleges.
Objects
The term ‘object’ is budget jargon for an expense category. In
Idaho’s budget process there are four broad object categories,
and a fifth “catch-all” category. Here’s a brief description of the
object categories:
Personnel Costs (PC) are by far the largest component of overall
state expenses. This “object” represents dollars paid to state
employees in the form of wages and benefits. However, this object
category does not represent all dollars paid to state employees,
since some spending is put into the ‘Lump-Sum’ category (including almost all the Public Schools budget) and it therefore excludes large amounts of wages and salaries from the PC category.
Operating Expenditures (OE) are expense items such as rent,
utilities, supplies, contract services, and so forth. Again, the use
of the ‘Lump-Sum’ category renders this category incomplete on a
statewide basis.
Capital Outlay (CO) is the expense category that reflects expenditures on long-lived “things” such as land, structures, vehicles,
computers, and many other types of equipment and machinery.
Ditto on the impact of the ‘Lump-Sum’ category.
Trustee and Benefit Payments (T/B) are expenses that are paid to
beneficiaries of public services either directly (i.e., unemployment
benefits, food stamps, etc.) or indirectly (i.e., Medicaid payments
to health care providers, etc.) And one more time, ‘Lump-Sum’ can
distort the amount reported in this category on a statewide basis.
Lump Sum is a catch-all category that is used when the
appropriation doesn’t restrict the types of expenditures that can
be made, just the amount. The spending that actually occurs will
fall into one of the four specific categories, it just isn’t specified
in advance, and is often not specified after the fact. About half of
all General Fund spending goes to Public Schools, and virtually
all is classified as Lump Sum, even the historical data.
As mentioned, a problem arises when spending is allocated to
the Lump Sum object category, in that it renders the totals of the
four specific object categories incomplete at the aggregate level.
For example, when large appropriations such as Public Schools
and/or Colleges & Universities are classified as Lump-Sum, the
statewide totals for specific object categories end up leaving out
those departments and/or programs, and are therefore inaccurate
when it comes to statewide figures for Personnel Cost, Operating
Expenditures, Capital Outlay, and Trustee and Benefit Payments.
Who Produces Idaho’s Budget?
There are many players involved in producing
Idaho’s budget. Here are the most important ones:
Governor
The Governor is responsible for submitting an Executive Budget
recommendation to the Legislature each year at the beginning of
the regular legislative session. He/she has a staff that assembles
the Executive Budget each year. It takes over a year to produce
the budget, starting with a document called the Budget
Development Manual. The Governor’s budget staff is in DFM
(the Division of Financial Management), a part of the Executive
Office of the Governor.
After a budget is enacted (by the Legislature, see below) the
Governor is responsible for executing that budget, i.e., making
sure the fiscal directives of the Legislature are carried out.
Here again, he has a staff (surprise, it’s DFM) to carry out that
responsibility. Idaho’s budget is usually enacted by the legislature about three months before the start of the fiscal year it
will take effect. Once a budget starts (on July 1, the first day of
Idaho’s fiscal year) it is in effect for twelve months. During that
time it is subject to temporary modification by the governor (in
the form of executive holdbacks) and/or permanent modification by
the legislature (in the form of positive or negative supplementals)
or the Board of Examiners (spending cuts only).
Legislature
The Legislature is responsible for actually setting the state budget
each year. Budget decisions are initiated by the Joint Finance
and Appropriations Committee (JFAC), but must be approved by
a majority of both the House and the Senate (and are subject to
potential gubernatorial veto). The Legislature also has a staff that
is responsible for assembling the Legislative Budget documents
and supporting the work of JFAC. That staff is in Budget and
Policy Analysis, a part of LSO (the Legislative Services Office).
Agencies
Agencies also have staff that are responsible for assembling
agency budget requests that are a combination of agency
priorities and instructions handed down from the Governor
and the Legislature.
Large agencies typically have a Fiscal Officer who is in charge of a
staff responsible for budgeting functions within the agency. Smaller
agencies may have a staff member with other responsibilities
assigned to handle budget matters as part of their overall
responsibilities. Often smaller agencies depend on their
legislative and/or executive budget analysts from LSO and DFM
to provide technical assistance in preparing their budgets.
And as in the case of the Governor, agency budget staff perform
two distinct functions. First, they develop much of the material
that forms the basis of the Governor’s budget recommendation
(a planning function), and second, they oversee the proper
implementation of the enacted budget within their agency
(an operational function)
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
9
Is There A Dictionary
For Idaho’s Budget?
Where Does The Money
Come From?
There is not a single, definitive source of definitions for all the
specialized terms that surround Idaho’s budget process. It is
not an exaggeration to refer to a dictionary, because there are so
many acronyms and words that have specialized meaning in the
context of Idaho’s budget process.
Idaho’s budget is funded by revenues that come from a wide array
of sources. Most are either state-levied taxes and fees, or various
forms of revenue-sharing provided by the federal government.
However, some of the revenue that shows up in the state budget
originates at the local government level. Perhaps the best
example of the latter is the use of local property taxes to fund
public schools. Another example is property taxes that go toward
funding the state’s community colleges.
And it doesn’t necessarily help to be familiar with another state’s
budget process. While there are many similarities, each state’s
process is unique and it would be a mistake to think that knowing one state’s budget process translates to knowing another’s.
Both DFM and LSO have web-based descriptions of Idaho’s
budget process, and they are included here as Appendix 1 and
Appendix 2, respectively. DFM’s Citizen Guide does include a
definition section that explains many of the specialized terms
used in Idaho’s budget process.
Also included is Appendix 5 from the Idaho Budget Development
Manual – a listing of the Department/Agency/Program codes used
in both DFM’s and LSO’s budget documents. This is important
information in that it defines the level of programmatic detail
available in Idaho’s budget. For example, Medicaid is a major
element of the Health and Human Services “Goal” that is broken
down into four distinct programs: Administration and Management,
Basic Medicaid Plan, Enhanced Medicaid Plan, and Coordinated
Medicaid Plan.
Because there are so many different sources of money in the
state budget, it is classified into four broad categories that
help simplify keeping track of it all. Three of these categories
(dedicated, federal, and other) consist of many different funds
that are lumped together for purposes of displaying them in the
budget documents. Sometimes a specific fund in one of these
categories receives revenue from just a single source, and is used
for just a single program, but this is rarely the case.
The fourth fund category, the General Fund, is special in that
it is truly just a single, huge fund. It receives money from a
broad range of revenue sources, and that money is spent on a
very broad array of public services. Because the General Fund
is where the majority of general-purpose tax revenues Idaho
collects are deposited, it receives an enormous amount of
attention in the budget process. No other fund is like it. However,
when looking at the public services Idaho provides, it can be
a serious mistake to focus exclusively on the General Fund. To
Here are the primary budget documents by title and source
get a complete picture of the money available to support public
agency, in roughly chronological order of release:
services one must look at all funds (general, dedicated, federal
Budget Development Manual
DFMand other) to see the full measure of financial resources available
to programs.
Spring, about 15 months prior to start of fiscal year
Executive Budget, Executive Budget Detail
January preceding start of fiscal year
General Fund Revenue Book
January preceding start of fiscal year
Legislative Budget Book
January preceding start of fiscal year
Budget Activities Summary
Month or so after close of legislative session
Legislative Fiscal Report
Month or so after close of legislative session
Fiscal Source Book
Roughly every two years
DFM
General Fund
The General Fund is made up of revenue from the Individual
DFMIncome Tax, the Corporate Income Tax, the Sales Tax, a group of
taxes on tobacco and alcohol products know as Product Taxes,
and a variety of other revenue sources known as Miscellaneous
LSORevenues.
Product Taxes consist of the Cigarette Tax, Tobacco Products Tax,
DFMBeer Tax, Wine Tax, and Liquor Surcharge.
Miscellaneous Revenue consists of a dozen separate items, with
LSOthe largest three being Insurance Premium Tax, Interest Earnings,
and Other Departments & Transfers.
LSOA complete breakdown of all the revenue sources underlying the
General Fund can be found in the current General Fund Revenue
Book published by DFM.
Almost 94% of Idaho’s General Fund revenue comes from the
income and sales taxes. When combined with Idaho’s property
taxes (they primarily fund Idaho’s local government programs,
10
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Idaho General Fund Revenue Sources
FY2013, Total = $2,750.3 Million
$49.9
1.8%
$1,109.8
40.4%
A direct by-product of Washington’s heavy reliance on sales tax
is its status of having the most regressive state and local tax
structure in the nation. That’s because sales taxes are inherently
regressive. By the way, regressive means that people with lower
incomes pay a greater share of their income in taxes than people
with higher incomes.
$107.6
3.9%
$1,284.4
46.7%
$198.7
7.2%
Individual Income Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Sales Tax
Product Taxes
Miscellaneous Revenue
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
but some do go to state purposes such as Public Schools and
Community Colleges) you have what is commonly known as the
three-legged stool. It’s a way of saying Idaho’s state and local
revenue structure is balanced and stable. Balanced because
each leg is approximately the same length. Stable because
that’s the nature of a tripod.
In contrast, Idaho is surrounded by states that have two-legged
stools, a reference to tax structures that are neither balanced nor
stable. Every state has property taxes, so that is automatically one
leg of each state’s revenue structure. Income taxes are a different
matter. Of the 7 states that don’t have an income tax, 3 border
Idaho (Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming). Of the 4 states that
don’t have a sales tax, 2 border Idaho (Montana and Oregon).
Why is not having one of the major revenue sources problematic?
Basically, it means that state will have to put too much emphasis
on the other major revenue source it does have. We can see this
clearly in the case of Washington, where without an income tax
it has reverted to the highest sales tax burden in the nation.
Oregon, without a sales tax, is known for its quite substantial
income tax burden.
Over the past dozen or so years Idaho’s General Fund revenue
sources have “shrunk.” That doesn’t mean they’ve declined in
absolute terms, but they certainly have in relative terms. If we
measure General Fund revenue as a share of Idaho personal
income, that measure of Idaho’s fiscal capacity has declined
from 6.1 percent in FY 2000 to just 5.0 percent in FY 2013.
That decline in Idaho’s revenue capacity has had a material
impact on the state’s ability to fund public services.
For example, while it’s not technically just General Fund,
if we add in Public School Dedicated Funds and property taxes
we have a better picture of the full measure of Public School
funding in Idaho. This is where it becomes evident what has
happened to this critically important program in Idaho over the
past roughly dozen years.
During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s Idaho maintained its
overall Public School funding effort at an average 4.4% of Idaho
Personal Income. Since FY 2000 Idaho’s effort level has dropped
to 3.4% of Idaho Personal Income in FY 2013 –a full percentage point drop, a 23% decline! When applied to current Idaho
Personal Income the drop in effort means Idaho’s public schools
currently have approximately $600 million less than they would
have if the effort had been maintained.
These cuts in effort have not been without consequences. For
example, 39 out of 115 Idaho school districts conduct a 4-day
school week, and there are districts that have been forced (by
reduced funding) to cut “frills” like music and athletics.
Not only has a steady diet of tax cuts since 2000 failed to boost
Idaho’s economy, in the past massive revenue increases to fund
public services have not been followed by doom and gloom, but
rather by exceptionally strong economic performance.
Idaho General Fund Revenue
Percent of Idaho Personal Income
%
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.0
FY1980
FY1981
FY1982
FY1983
FY1984
FY1985
FY1986
FY1987
FY1988
FY1989
FY1990
FY1991
FY1992
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
4.5
Source: Division of Financial Management, FY 2015 Executive Budget
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
11
Idaho Public School Funding
Percent of Idaho Personal Income
%
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
FY1980
FY1981
FY1982
FY1983
FY1984
FY1985
FY1986
FY1987
FY1988
FY1989
FY1990
FY1991
FY1992
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
3.0
Source: Idaho Executive Budget; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
In 1965 Idaho enacted a 3% sales tax (it raised what in today’s
terms would be $600 million of new tax revenue) to boost
education funding, and that was followed by a decade and a half
of exceptionally strong economic performance in Idaho. Four years
after enacting the 3% sales tax Idaho skipped the 1969 national
recession entirely, and a decade later the 1974-75 recession (at
that time the worst to hit the U.S. since WWII) was mild in Idaho.
Again in the mid-80s Idaho faced challenges funding public
services, especially schools, and a series of significant tax
increases were enacted in the period 1983 to 1987. The sales
tax was increased from 3% to 5%, the corporate income tax
rate was increased from 6.5% to 8%, and a new top individual
income tax bracket of 8.2% was enacted (up from 7.5%).
The mid-80s tax increases raised approximately $500 million in
additional revenue in today’s dollars. Idaho skipped the 19901991 national recession altogether, and a decade later the 2001
recession was quite mild in Idaho.
In 2000 Idaho reversed course and began cutting taxes (and
with them, the General Fund revenue stream). Income tax rates
were cut in 2000 and 2001, and again in 2012. Business
personal property taxes were cut in 2001 and again in 2013. In
2006 equalized public school maintenance and operation (M&O)
levies were eliminated with only partial revenue replacement
from the sales tax. In 2008 an eight-year phase-in of a five-fold
increase in the Grocery Credit began.
All-told, since 2000 about $500 million (in today’s dollars) has
been cut from the revenue stream if we include the public school
M&O levy reductions that were supposed to be replaced from
the General Fund. That’s based on adding up the fiscal impact
estimates of enacted legislation, and is an annual impact.
If we look at General Fund revenue as a share of Idaho Personal
Income, the numbers are similar. Although General Fund
revenue reached a peak of 6.2% of Idaho Personal Income in
12
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
FY 2001, the average in the late 1990s was closer to 5.8%.
Today the figure is 5.0%, and an eight-tenths of a percent drop
is equivalent to approximately $500 million in today’s dollars
(.008 x $60 billion = $480 million)
Since 2000 Idaho has gone from being at the forefront among
states in economic performance to looking more like the caboose.
Among Idaho’s recent economic distinctions are having the highest
share of minimum wage jobs, having the lowest overall wage
rates, and being second only to Mississippi in our per capita
personal income. Since 2006 Idaho has been surpassed by
eight of the nine states that had lower income, and the one that
remains behind Idaho (Mississippi) has closed the gap from 10.5
percentage points in 2006 to 1.8 percentage points in 2012.
Looking at Idaho’s economic performance today it’s difficult to
make a case that bears out the growth and prosperity claims
behind Idaho’s tax cuts. In fact, if anything, Idaho’s experience
seems to show the exact opposite.
1983–1987 Revenue Structure Adjustments
March
June
July
April
1983
1983
1984
1986
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
from
from
from
from
3% to 4%
4.5%
4%
5%
Net Increase Approximately $400 Million in FY2012 Dollars
January 1987
Individual Income Tax Added 2 Brackets:
From 7.5% to 7.8% on Taxable Income
from $15,000 to $40,000;
From 7.5% to 8.2% on Taxable Income
above $40,000
Net Increase Approximately $60 Million in FY2012 Dollars
January 1983 Corporate Income Tax from 6.5% to 7.7%
January1987 Corporate Income Tax to 8%
Net Increase Approximately $36 Million in FY2012 Dollars
Total Increase Approximately $500 Million in FY 2012 Dollars
2000 – 2012 Revenue Structure Adjustments
January2000
Individual Income Tax Subtracted 0.1
Percentage Point From Each Bracket And Began Inflation Indexing Brackets
January2001
Individual Income Tax Subtracted
Additional 0.3 Percentage Points From
Each Bracket
January2008
Individual Income Tax Increased
Grocery Credit From $20 To $100 In
$10 Increments Over 8 Years (Completion
Pending)
January2012
Individual Income Tax Eliminated Top
Bracket (Top Rate Now Lowest Since 1934)
Net Decrease Approximately $250 Million In FY 2012 Dollars
January 2001
Corporate Income Tax From 8.0% To 7.6%
January 2012
Corporate Income Tax To 7.4%
Net Decrease Approximately $15 Million In FY 2012 Dollars
January2001 Ag Personal Property Exempted
January2006
Property Tax Public School M&O
Levy Eliminated
October2006
Sales Tax From 5% To 6% In Swap For
Public School M&O Levy
January2013
Business Personal Property Exempted Up
To First $100,000 Per Business Per County
Net Decrease Approximately $80 Million in FY2012 Dollars
Total Decrease Approximately $345 Million in FY2012 Dollars
Dedicated Funds
There are numerous Dedicated Funds that go to specific
purposes. Highway user fees (fuel taxes and registration fees)
are dedicated to paying for highway related expenditures.
Hunting and fishing license sales fund many of the wildlife
management programs in the Idaho Fish & Game Department.
An assessment on utility sales is used to fund the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission.
Sometimes money is transferred from one fund category to
another. For example, when “excess” revenue comes into the
General Fund, it may be transferred into the Budget Stabilization
Fund, a type of reserve account. When the money in the Budget
Stabilization Fund is eventually spent, it shows up in the budget
as coming from a Dedicated Fund, even though it originated in
the General Fund. This can be both confusing, and make it difficult to trace where the money to fund public services originates.
For the most part, Dedicated Funds are treated differently in the
budget than the General Fund. In the case of the General Fund,
a fairly extensive amount of attention is focused on the revenue
side of the fund, and the revenue side doesn’t necessarily
match the expenditure side (i.e., in a year of more General Fund
revenues than expenditures, the balance will go up, or down if
expenditures exceed revenues). With only a few exceptions
(notably, the reserve funds), Dedicated Funds DO NOT get the
same revenue-side attention as the General Fund. Expenditures
(i.e., program budgets) are the principal place that Dedicated Funds
show up in the budget documents. There is no comprehensive
separate reporting of Dedicated Fund revenues (i.e., the inflows
to the funds), nor of Dedicated Fund balances.
One thing to be on the lookout for is cases where the LSO and
DFM budget documents have different dollar amounts in a
particular program’s Dedicated Funds. This can be due to either
a) some of the Dedicated Funds are continuously appropriated,
hence they won’t show up in the LSO budget documents, or b)
what are reported as Dedicated Funds in the LSO budget
documents are reported as Other Funds in the DFM budget
documents (and both are annually appropriated).
In the Dedicated Fund realm, probably the most pressing fiscal
need is for additional Highway Fund revenue. In 2008 and 2009
the Governor unsuccessfully attempted to raise Idaho’s motor
fuel taxes. It certainly didn’t help that the 2009 proposal to raise
motor fuel taxes was pressed just as the state was feeling the full
force of the nation’s financial crisis and the Great Recession.
After his failure to secure additional Highway Fund revenue in
2009, the Governor has not pursued the issue since. One of the
characteristics of the fuel tax component of highway user fees is
the tax is denominated in cents per gallon of fuel. This erodes
the real value of Idaho’s fuel tax revenue because a) inflation is
not captured, and b) increasing fuel economy actually reduces
the tax collections per mile travelled. At some point, Idaho is going
to have to step up and increase revenues for the maintenance of
its roads and bridges.
Federal Funds
Federal Funds come to Idaho from a very wide array of federal
agencies and programs, ranging from health care assistance to
transportation to wildlife to military activities. Federal Funds
almost always come with very specific restrictions on what they
can be used for, and in some cases require state matching funds
to determine how many federal dollars will be provided.
Medicaid is an example of a program (actually, several programs)
where the amount of Federal Funds provided are directly correlated
with the amount of Idaho General Fund dollars allocated to the
program. In 2011 the legislature cut $35 million in General
Fund dollars from Idaho’s Medicaid program benefits, with a
matched Federal Funds decline of over $70 million, for a total
reduction of over $100 million.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
13
Other Funds
The Other Funds category is found only in the DFM budget
documents, and usually reflects sources of spending that are
not subject to annual appropriations, and therefore not in the
LSO budget documents, although this is not always the case.
In some cases, spending that is classified as coming from
Dedicated Funds in the LSO budget documents (and therefore
is by definition annually appropriated) is classified as coming
from Other Funds in the DFM budget documents. This lack of
harmonization between LSO and DFM budget documents adds
a layer of complexity to Idaho’s budget process that serves no
apparent useful purpose, but does serve to make it substantially
more difficult to understand the content of the state’s budget.
As in the case of Dedicated Funds, Federal Funds are treated
differently (than the General Fund) in that it is the expenditure
side that is reported. There is no coverage of beginning balances,
ending balances, or revenue inflows as distinct from expenditure
outflows.
This fund category is also subject to potentially large differences
between the expenditures reported by LSO and DFM, a result
of the annually versus continuously appropriated distinction.
Annually appropriated amounts are reflected in both LSO’s and
DFM’s budget documents, whereas continuously appropriated
amounts are only reflected in DFM’s budget documents.
All Expenditures by Fund Source
All Expenditures by Fund Source
Governor’s Recommendation, FY2015
Total = $6,639.8 Millions
Executive Budget Book (DFM)
Legislative Budget Book (LSO)
$2,795.0
37.6%
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
$2,885.1
38.8%
$2,404.1
36.2%
$2,885.1
43.5%
$1,350.7
20.3%
$839.5
11.3%
General Fund
Federal Funds
Dedicated Funds
Other Funds
Source: FY 2015 Executive Budget, page C-7
|
According to LSO, 43.5% of the Executive budget
recommendations in FY 2015 are funded by the General
Fund, 36.2% by Federal Funds, and 20.3% by Dedicated
Funds. According to DFM, 38.8% of the Executive budget
recommendations are funded by the General Fund, 37.6%
by Federal Funds, 11.3% by Dedicated Funds, and 12.4%
by Other Funds.
Governor’s Recommendation, FY2015
Total = $7,442.9 Millions
$923.3
12.4%
14
These fund classification issues may seem picky, but they have
real impacts on the information presented concerning state
operations. The following two pie charts show the Governor’s
expenditure recommendations by fund source from the LSO
and DFM budget documents.
General Fund
Federal Funds
Dedicated Funds
Source: FY 2015 Idaho Legislative Budget Book, page 13
Where Does The Money Go?
State programs are divided into six broad
functional categories called Goals: Education,
Health and Human Services, Public Safety,
Economic Development, Natural Resources,
and General Government. These functional
areas get fuzzy in places, and there are broad
areas of overlap.
A good example is the Department of Commerce. It is classified
as Economic Development. Colleges and Universities are classified
as Education. That makes sense on the face of it, but in all
likelihood policy decisions relating to higher education are every
bit as important for Idaho’s economic performance as decisions
relating to the Department of Commerce.
Similarly, Idaho’s budget classifies the Department of Environmental Quality as a Natural Resources Goal (along with the
Department of Lands, Department of Fish & Game, Department
of Water Resources, and Department of Parks & Recreation).
While it is true that DEQ is primarily concerned with natural
resources – aquifers, streams, watersheds, air sheds, etc.,
the agency’s purpose is to protect public health and safety. An
argument can be made that DEQ should be classified as either
Public Safety or Health & Human Services. The point is the
classifications are in some cases arbitrary and/or ambiguous.
Classification issues notwithstanding, let’s take a look at the
primary areas of public services in Idaho’s budget. But, just as
the share of spending by funding source within Idaho’s budget
varies between LSO and DFM, so too does the share of spending
by functional category. The following two pie charts compare the
LSO and DFM versions of the Executive recommendation:
According to LSO, Health & Human Services accounts for 38.9%
of total Idaho spending, Education comes in at 35.4%, and all
the rest account for 25.7%. But in the DFM Budget documents
Education accounts for 35.7%, Health & Human Services is also
35.7%, and all the rest account for 28.6%.
Not only are there differences in the shares, there are also large
differences in the dollars. Some of this is due to LSO focusing
exclusively on annually appropriated spending, and some of it
is due to the inconsistencies between LSO and DFM in the fund
classification of spending.
Education
This is the largest functional area of Idaho’s budget, and can
be roughly divided into primary/secondary education (Public
Schools) and higher education (Community Colleges, Colleges
and Universities, etc).
Overall, the Education function accounts for almost two-thirds
of General Fund Total spending, and almost 4 out of every 10
dollars of All Funds Total spending. Education’s share of state
spending has been shrinking in recent years, going from 67.2% of
the General Fund budget in FY 2000 to 61.1% in FY 2013. The
picture is similar looking at All Funds, where Education’s share
has gone from 44.4% in FY 2000 to 36.8% in FY 2013. The FY
2013 All Funds share of 36.8% is the lowest since WWII, and
the FY2013 General Fund share of 61.1% is the lowest since at
least FY 1970, the earliest year data are currently available.
These shares are not adjusted for the funding swap that occurred
in 2006, when then Governor Risch successfully maneuvered
a sales tax for property tax swap through a special session of
Idaho’s legislature. The swap was accompanied by a 5% increase
in the share of the expanded General Fund that was needed to
hold Public Schools harmless. So, Education’s adjusted FY 2013
share of General Fund spending (to make it comparable
All Fund Expenditures by Functional Category
All Fund Expenditures by Functional Category
Executive Budget Book (DFM)
Legislative Budget Book (LSO)
Governor’s Recommendation, FY2015
Total = $7,358.8 Millions
$265.6
3.6%
$321.1
4.4%
$1,110.3
15.1%
Governor’s Recommendation, FY2015
Total = $6,639,8 Millions
$265.6
4.0%
$326.6
4.9%
$715.2
10.8%
$2,624.3
35.7%
$2,353.6
35.4%
$2,582.6
38.9%
$2,629.2
35.7%
$408.1
5.5%
$396.3
6.0%
Education Function
Natural Resources
Education Function
Natural Resources
Health & Human
Services Function
Economic Development
Health & Human
Services Function
Economic Development
Public Safety Function
Source: FY 2015 Executive Budget, page A-34
General Government
Public Safety Function
General Government
Source: FY 2015 Idaho Legislative Budget Book, page 21
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
15
to the FY 2000 value) is 56%. In
other words, a very significant 11
percentage point drop.
These declines in Education’s share
of the state budget are the result of
two primary factors: a series of tax
cuts enacted since FY 2000 that have
significantly reduced Idaho’s General
Fund revenue stream in relation to the
size of its economy, and increases in
funding for Health & Human Services.
To see more clearly how these factors
have impacted education funding, lets
look at the budget figures expressed
as a percentage of Idaho personal
income. In today’s terms, one
percentage point of Idaho Personal
Income is equivalent to about $600
million, and one-tenth percentage
point is equivalent to about $60 million.
That’s because today Idaho Personal
Income is about $60 billion. Using
percent of personal income provides a
consistent basis for comparing funding
levels and changes over time.
And to further simplify the analysis,
lets look at decades (70s, 80s, 90s,
00s, and 10s) rather than individual
years to reduce noise and more easily
show longer trends. The “raw” data is
in the following table:
Between the 1970s and the 1990s
General Fund total spending increased
from 4.7% to 5.7% of Idaho Personal
Income. This was made possible by
a series of tax increases that were
enacted between 1983 and 1987, and
is consistent with current estimates
of the dollar magnitude of those tax
increases (see Where The Money
Comes From for a detailed breakdown).
Idaho Budget Expenditures, Expressed as Share of Idaho Personal Income
by Fund, Function, and Decade
Decade Average
74 to 79
80 to 89
90 to 99
00 to 09
10 to 14
Education
Public Schools
Higher Ed
6.1%
4.3%
1.6%
5.9%
4.4%
1.4%
6.0%
4.5%
1.4%
5.4%
4.0%
1.2%
5.0%
3.7%
1.2%
Health and Human Services
2.2%
2.1%
3.0%
3.7%
4.5%
All Fund Expenditures
Public Safety
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
Other
4.9%
4.3%
3.7%
3.1%
3.2%
13.6%
12.7%
13.3%
12.9%
13.4%
3.1%
1.8%
1.3%
3.6%
2.5%
1.0%
3.9%
2.8%
1.0%
3.6%
2.7%
0.8%
3.1%
2.4%
0.6%
Total (All Functions)
General Fund Expenditures
Education
Public Schools
Higher Ed
Health and Human Services
0.7%
0.7%
0.9%
1.1%
1.1%
Public Safety
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
Other
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
Total (All Functions)
4.7%
5.0%
5.7%
5.5%
4.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
Dedicated Fund Expenditures
Education
Public Schools
Higher Ed
Health and Human Services
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Public Safety
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Other
1.6%
1.4%
1.6%
1.2%
1.1%
Total (All Functions)
2.5%
2.1%
2.0%
1.5%
1.7%
0.6%
0.4%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.5%
0.0%
Federal Fund Expenditures
Education
Public Schools
Higher Ed
Health and Human Services
1.2%
1.2%
1.6%
2.3%
2.9%
Public Safety
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other
2.3%
2.3%
1.6%
1.4%
1.6%
Total (All Functions)
4.1%
4.0%
3.7%
4.2%
5.1%
Education
Public Schools
Higher Ed
1.6%
1.4%
0.1%
1.3%
1.1%
0.2%
1.3%
1.0%
0.3%
1.1%
0.8%
0.3%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
Health and Human Services
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
Other Fund Expenditures
Public Safety
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
Total (All Functions)
2.2%
1.7%
1.8%
1.6%
1.6%
Source: Idaho Executive Budget
16
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
0.8%
0.7%
0.1%
The tax increases of the 1980s mitigated what would have
been even larger declines in All Fund Total Expenditures,
which nonetheless declined from 13.6% of Idaho Personal
Income in the 1970s to 13.3% in the 1990s. Why did All
Fund Total Expenditures decline three-tenths of a percentage
point at the same time General Fund Total Expenditures
increased one full percentage point? Because Dedicated
Fund Total Expenditures declined 0.5 percentage points
(entirely in the Education function), Federal Fund Total
Expenditures declined 0.4 percentage points (mostly in
the Other function), and Other Fund Total Expenditures
declined 0.4 percentage points (in both the Education
and Other functions).
Among other things, those mid-80s tax increases allowed
Idaho’s All Funds Education spending to remain relatively
stable over the decades of the 80s and 90s at about 6% of
Idaho Personal Income. All Funds Public School spending
actually gained a bit, going from 4.3% on average in the
70s to 4.4% in the 80s to 4.5% in the 90s. All Funds
Higher Education spending declined, going from 1.6%
on average in the 70s to 1.4% in the 80s and 90s.
Idaho’s relatively stable period of education funding ended in
roughly 2000, when a period of significant tax cutting began.
General Fund Total Expenditures fell from 5.7% of Idaho Personal
Income in the decade of the 90s to 4.9% on average over the
past 5 years. This decline is consistent with current estimates
of the dollar magnitude of tax cuts that were enacted between
2000 and 2013 (see Where The Money Comes From for
a detailed breakdown).
General Fund Education Expenditures took the full brunt of the
General Fund tax cuts, declining from 3.9% of Idaho Personal
Income on average in the 1990s to 3.1% on average over the
past 5 years.
All Funds Education spending as a share of Idaho Personal
Income fell from 6% in the 1990s (and 1980s and 1970s)
to 5% over the past 5 years on average. Instead of mitigating
the General Fund Education Expenditure decline, Other Fund
Education spending compounded the decline, going from 1.3%
of Idaho Personal Income in the 1990s to just 1% in the past
5 years. This is consistent with the Risch Property Tax Swap that
took $260 million out of Public School M&O levies. Based on
current Idaho Personal Income of approximately $60 billion,
All Funds Education Expenditures have declined by about $600
million between the average during the 1990s and the average
over the past 5 years.
Drilling down a bit, the cuts to Education funding have been
spread over both Public Schools and Higher Education. Looking
strictly at the General Fund, both took significant reductions from
the 1990s to the past 5 years: down 0.4 percentage points in the
case of public schools, and down 0.4 percentage points in the
case of higher education. But that’s where the similarity ends.
Public Schools
In the case of Public Schools, the General Fund decline of 0.4
percentage points was compounded by an even larger decline of
0.5 percentage points in the Other Fund category. Federal Funds
did go up one-tenth point between the 1990s and the past five
years, and Dedicated Funds were unchanged, yielding a total
All Fund decline of 0.8 percentage points (from 4.5 percent of
Idaho Personal Income in the 1990s to 3.7 percent on average
the past 5 years). This is equivalent to a $480 million reduction
in All Funds Public School Expenditures in the last 5 years on
average relative to the funding levels during the decade of the
1990s. That’s almost a 20% decline.
We know where the four-tenths point reduction in General Fund
Public Schools Expenditures came from (tax cuts), but what
caused the five-tenths point reduction in the Other Fund category? The short answer, quite simply, is the 2006 Idaho Legislative Special Session. That’s when a single bill was enacted that
swapped $260 million of Public School property tax reduction
for $210 million of state sales tax increase.
The Other Fund category was supposed to decline by roughly
five-tenths point (that’s where property tax is located in the
Public School budget), and the General Fund dollars were
supposed to increase by five-tenths point to hold Public School
funding harmless. That almost happened in the year of the swap
(General Fund spending for Public Schools increased from 2.4
percentage points of Idaho Personal Income in FY 2006 to 2.8
percentage points in FY 2007), but by FY 2010 General Fund
spending for Public Schools had declined to 2.4 percentage
points, where it stands today (i.e., FY 2014). In effect, the
initial increase in General Fund spending on Public Schools to
mitigate the Other Fund spending decline was temporary, and
General Fund spending on Public Schools is back where it was
the year before the Risch tax swap.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
17
Idaho Public School funding has gone down not only in
relation to its own recent past, but also in relation to other
states. According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
as of the 2010/2011 school year Idaho’s primary/secondary
instruction expenditures per pupil have fallen behind all but
one other state (Utah). In 2000/2001 Idaho was ahead of five
states – besides Utah, they were Arizona,
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
In the 2000/2001 school year Utah’s
expenditures per pupil were 81.6% of Idaho’s
level. In the 2010/2011 school year Utah’s
expenditures were 92.7% of Idaho’s level,
a gain of 11.1 percentage points. In fact,
between the 2000/2001 school year and the
2010/2011 school year Idaho lost ground to
every other state.
Higher Education
The budget picture for Idaho’s Higher Education system looks
similar to that of Public Schools when examined through the lens
of the General Fund. Higher Education is down 0.4 percentage
points of Idaho Personal Income from the 1990’s average to
the last 5 year’s average, same as Public Schools. However, the
percentage decline is steeper (40%) because
General Fund Higher Education funding levels
Idaho Public
are substantially lower than General Fund
Public School funding levels – 1.0 percent of
School funding
Idaho Personal Income in the 90s, 0.6 percent
has gone down not
of Idaho Personal Income in the past 5 years.
only in relation to
its own recent past,
but also in relation
to other states.
All but 3 states (Indiana, Oklahoma, and
Oregon) had double-digit percentage point gains
on Idaho. Of the surrounding states Montana
gained 40 percentage points (from 17% higher than Idaho to
57% higher), Nevada gained 22 percentage points (from 1%
higher to 23% higher), Oregon gained 8 percentage
points (from 32% higher to 40% higher), Utah gained 11
percentage points (from 18% lower to 7% lower), Washington
gained 23 percentage points (from 14% higher to 41% higher),
and Wyoming gained 95 percentage points (from 37% higher to
132% higher).
The Other Funds category is where the real
differences between Higher Ed and Public
School funding show up. In the case of Higher
Ed, the Other Funds category moved in the
opposite direction, and mitigated the decline
in General Fund spending.
The Other Fund Higher Ed category represents
primarily tuition and fees, i.e. the costs billed directly to students. Other Fund Higher Education spending has actually gone
up from 0.3 percentage points of Idaho personal income in the
1990s to 0.5 percentage points of Idaho personal income in the
past 5 years. This Other Fund increase offset half of the General
Fund decline.
So how has this change in funding level for Idaho’s Public
Schools impacted Idaho’s Public Schools? In a word, badly.
Staffing levels have shrunk, leading to larger class sizes.
Furloughs have shortened the school year. Pay has been frozen,
and teacher morale has suffered. In recent years the number of
Idaho school districts operating on four day school weeks has
grown from 14 in 2010 to 39 in 2013. Some have dropped
music programs altogether. Others have dropped athletic
programs completely. Fees have gone up for parents, prompting
a lawsuit alleging violation of Idaho’s Constitutional promise
of “…free common schools.” And property taxes have gone up
dramatically to supplement inadequate state funds.
The net effect of these funding changes is Higher Education
spending from All Funds dropped from 1.4 percentage points
of Idaho personal income in the 1990s, to 1.2 percentage
points of Idaho personal income on average in the past 5 years.
This is equivalent to a decline of approximately $110 million,
or about 14%.
18
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
The effects on students and
their families of the cost shift
within Higher Ed funding
(from the General Fund to
student fees) can be seen in
the actual tuition and fees
charged by Idaho’s higher
education institutions, shown
in the table on the right.
This shows that in the past
10 years Idaho undergraduate
tuition charges have more
than doubled, and have grown
at triple the rate of income
growth in Idaho. Idaho income
growth has barely kept up with
inflation over the decade,
suggesting it has probably
been quite challenging for
Idaho residents to absorb the
steep increases in tuition.
Idaho College Tuition vs Per Capita Income and Inflation
Undergrad Tuition:
Per Capita Personal Income:
Fiscal Year
Boise
State
Idaho
State
U of I
LewisClark
Calendar
Year
Idaho
U.S.
CPI-U
Inflation
2002
$2,665
$2,800
$2,720
$2,554
2002
$26,042
$31,481
179.9
2003
$2,984
$3,136
$3,044
$2,852
2003
$26,452
$32,295
184.0
2004
$3,251
$3,448
$3,348
$3,126
2004
$28,412
$33,909
188.9
2005
$3,520
$3,700
$3,632
$3,392
2005
$29,544
$35,452
195.3
2006
$3,872
$4,000
$3,968
$3,714
2006
$31,493
$37,725
201.6
2007
$4,154
$4,190
$4,200
$3,897
2007
$32,607
$39,506
207.3
2008
$4,520
$4,400
$4,410
$4,092
2008
$33,110
$40,947
215.3
2009
$4,632
$4,664
$4,632
$4,296
2009
$30,809
$38,637
214.5
2010
$4,864
$4,968
$4,932
$4,684
2010
$31,556
$39,791
218.1
2011
$5,300
$5,416
$5,524
$4,998
2011
$32,881
$41,560
224.9
2012
2012
$5,566
$5,796
$5,856
$5,348
$33,749
$42,693
229.6
2002-12
% Increase
109%
107%
115%
109%
30%
36%
28%
2002-12
% Increase,
Annualized
7.6%
7.5%
8.0%
7.7%
2.6%
3.1%
2.5%
Source: Idaho State Board of Education, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Labor
These shifts are not a recent phenomenon, but they have accelerated quite dramatically over
the past dozen years (again, coinciding with the series of tax cuts enacted in Idaho since
2000). Here’s a chart showing the sources of Idaho College & University funding since 1980:
Idaho Colleges & Universities Funding Sources
Fiscal General Endowment
Year FundFund
Tuition
Fiscal General Endowment
Year FundFund
Tuition
198088.1% 4.7%
198186.8% 6.3%
198280.3% 6.6%
198377.0% 7.2%
198478.8% 6.5%
198578.5% 5.5%
198680.1% 5.3%
198780.5% 4.8%
198882.3% 4.4%
198982.1% 4.4%
199082.4% 4.5%
199183.2% 4.1%
199282.4% 3.8%
199380.4% 3.8%
199479.2% 3.8%
199577.5% 3.3%
199676.5% 3.7%
7.2%
7.0%
13.1%
15.8%
14.7%
16.1%
14.6%
14.6%
13.3%
13.5%
13.1%
12.7%
13.8%
15.8%
17.0%
19.2%
19.8%
199776.9% 3.8%
199875.8% 4.1%
199975.1% 4.4%
200075.0% 4.6%
200174.8% 4.5%
200275.0% 5.0%
200372.6% 4.6%
200466.6% 3.7%
200565.4% 2.9%
200664.1% 2.7%
200765.4% 2.0%
200866.2% 2.0%
200967.4% 2.0%
201064.2% 2.4%
201158.3% 2.6%
201252.9% 2.4%
201351.1% 2.2%
19.3%
20.2%
20.4%
20.5%
20.7%
20.0%
22.8%
29.7%
31.6%
33.2%
32.5%
31.8%
30.5%
33.4%
39.2%
44.7%
46.7%
Source: Idaho State Board of Education
In the past third of a century Idaho has gone from tuition accounting for less than 10% of the
dollars spent on higher education to almost half coming from tuition. A small portion of this shift
has been due to reductions in the Endowment Fund’s share. The bulk of the shift has been due
to reductions in the General Fund’s share.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
19
Health & Human Services
Health and Human Services spending in Idaho has been on the
rise. It makes up a little over one-third of All Funds spending,
up from 25% in FY 2000. It’s up to almost one-quarter of all
General Fund spending, from 17% in FY 2000.
Not only has this function seen large increases in its share of All
Funds and General Fund dollars, when measured in relation to
Idaho’s Personal Income it has seen quite dramatic increases,
going from an average of 3% of Idaho Personal Income in the
decade of the 90s to 4.5% on average over the past 5 years. General
Fund spending on Health and Human Services has also been on
the rise, growing from 0.9% of Idaho Personal Income in the 90s
to 1.1% over the past 5 years. The largest relative increase has
been in the Federal Funds component, which has gone from 1.6%
of Idaho Personal Income in the 90s to 2.9% in the past 5 years.
These increases hide something: even though the dollars have
gone up at a rapid rate, significant cuts have been made to the
services delivered to Medicaid recipients. In 2011 over $100
million worth of benefit cuts were enacted, coming primarily
from people with serious disabilities. About $35 million of the
cuts were reductions from the Idaho General Fund, and over
$70 million more were reduced federal matching dollars. Those
federal dollars are economic base dollars, so their economic
effect is probably at least double (i.e., over $140 million) by
the time multipliers work their magic.
An extremely small part of the 2011 cuts were restored the next
year, but nothing was added back in 2012 or 2013. Yet there
was enough money available in the General Fund to enact $36
million of income tax cuts in 2012, and $20 million more for
sizeable reductions in property taxes related to business personal
property in 2013.
Significant changes are happening at the national level to both
Medicaid and the overall health care sector, relegating recent
Idaho Medicaid cuts to backburner status. The Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act (PAACA, or ACA for short) will
increase Idaho’s cost of providing basic Medicaid services (due
primarily to more people being covered under mandatory Medicaid expansion provisions in the ACA), but an optional Medicaid
expansion component has the potential to significantly reduce
Idaho’s cost of providing health care. The optional component
is not a feature of the original ACA, but is an outcome of a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling on challenges to the constitutionality of
the ACA.
Idaho is in a fairly unique situation when it comes to the optional
part of Medicaid expansion. Because Idaho pays hospitals for
care given to people who can’t pay their bills, and those payments are not given a penny of match from federal dollars, Idaho
taxpayers bear the full cost of the taxes needed to pay those
hospital bills. They do this through the counties’ property tax
indigent funds that pay the first $11,000 cost per incident, and
the state’s Catastrophic Health Care Program that pays costs
exceeding $11,000 per incident.
If, under the optional expansion component of the ACA, Idaho
expands Medicaid for people in households up to 138% of the
federal poverty line, the federal government will pay 100% of
the cost to provide health care to the newly eligible Medicaid
recipients for the first three years, then the match phases down
to 90% in perpetuity (90% federal, 10% state).
Here’s a table showing the estimated mandatory costs and
optional savings:
Idaho Medicaid Expansion Costs Under the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
$20.8
$19.9
$20.4
$20.9
$31.3
State Plan (Managed Care)
($64.1)
($48.5)
($28.5)
($22.7)
($3.5)
Private Insurance (Exchange)
($62.4)
($49.7)
($30.7)
($23.1)
$25.3
Mandatory Plus State Plan
($43.3)
($28.6)
($8.1)
($1.8)
$27.8
Mandatory Plus Private Insurance
($41.6)
($29.8)
($10.3)
($2.2)
$56.6
Mandatory Expansion Net Cost
—
FY 2025
Optional Expansion Net Cost / (Savings)
Combined Net Cost / (Savings)
Source: Milliman Report on Idaho Medicaid Expansion Population and Cost Forecast, Initial Update, 6/18/14
This table shows the estimated savings Idaho taxpayers would
realize under two alternatives for the optional component of
Medicaid expansion. The initial savings are very large due to the
100% federal match, then taper down to more modest savings
levels as the federal match rate phases down to 90%. However, it
should be noted that the federal match stays at 90% in perpetuity.
20
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Even though the mandatory costs eventually outweigh the
optional savings in the State Plan alternative, the savings
continue beyond the forecast horizon. In the case of the Private
Insurance alternative the initial savings eventually turn into costs
in the out years.
Are There Deficiencies In
Idaho’s Budget Process?
There are a number of aspects of Idaho’s
budget process that can be considered
deficiencies. Examples include inaccurate
budget baselines, inadequate time horizons,
incomplete expenditure reporting, insufficient
fiscal impact analysis, and inconsistent
labeling across budget agencies.
Inaccurate Budget Baseline
This may not seem like much, but over time it compounds and
the impacts can be significant. Costs that increase at an annual
rate of 3% per year are 15.9% higher after 5 years. Idaho’s
Executive Budgets have largely ignored inflation for the past 5
years (FY11-FY15), and provided no employee compensation
increases for the past 6 years (FY10-FY15). One of those years,
FY 2013, did have a one-time “surplus eliminator” proposal
(equivalent to a 3% bonus IF revenue exceeded the Governor’s
forecast) in the Executive Budget, and that year did end up
with a 2% employee compensation increase enacted by the
Legislature. In FY 2015 the legislature provided for a 1% salary
increase and 1% for one-time bonuses.
By ignoring inflation and zeroing out employee compensation
changes, Idaho’s governor and legislature have effectively cut
tens of millions of dollars from Idaho’s budgets over the past
half-decade without explicitly identifying the cuts. This makes
it impossible for the public to understand the nature and
magnitude of these cuts.
In order for the public to understand what a budget represents
it needs to have a meaningful and consistent baseline. Idaho
practices something known as incremental budgeting, wherein
a baseline is established that represents the cost of maintaining
A far preferable approach would be to properly account for
public services at current levels, then changes are made to either
inflation (preferably at the program and object level), then insert
add or subtract spending associated with specific services and/
an after-maintenance line item to reduce or zero-out inflation
or programs. Without a proper baseline it is difficult at best, and
(if that is what the governor and/or legislature
impossible at worst, to know what is actually
intend). That way the public has a clear picture
happening to the services and/or programs
In order for the
of the actual cuts that are being made.
being budgeted.
public to understand
Similar concepts apply to the wage elements
In Idaho’s budget process the baseline is a
what
a
budget
of the budget (CEC, or Change in Employee
concept known as MOE, or maintenance of
Compensation). Here it is not inflation per se at
effort (in years past it was known as MCO,
represents it
issue, but changes in prevailing wages. Idaho
or maintenance of current operations). The idea
needs
to
have
a
actually hires the services of a human resources
is that the MOE budget captures what it would
consultancy (HayGroup) to survey other public
cost to continue (in the budget year) the same
meaningful and
and private employers to determine prevailing
level of programs as currently exist. This
consistent
baseline.
wage levels. Again, those prevailing wages
maintenance baseline should reflect enrollment,
should be factored into the baseline maintenance
caseload, and/or workload changes; inflation;
budget at the program level, then reduced or
employee compensation and benefit changes; and anything else
removed
in
an
after-maintenance
line item if the governor
that changes the cost of continuing current programs at current
and/or legislature choose to fund a lower level of wages. That
service levels.
way the public will have a clear picture of the dollar amount of
Idaho’s budget does have an element called MOE, but it does not
compensation underfunding.
accurately reflect the true cost of maintaining current services.
As an idea of the cumulative magnitude of these “hidden” cuts,
While it does attempt to reflect updated enrollment, caseloads,
the most recent HayGroup Benefit and Compensation Review
etc., it does not accurately reflect the prices associated with
(January 2013) found that Idaho’s compensation levels are
maintaining public services. In effect, it ignores substantial
on average 29% below the Private Sector, and 10% below the
amounts of inflation and employee-related costs.
Public Sector.
Why are these costs important? Because inflation is a real factor
that impacts the true total cost of providing public services, and
if it is ignored it amounts to a hidden cut in public services.
Budget decisions often have impacts that change over time.
Employee-related costs are similar, in that failing to keep up with
This can be because of lags in public awareness and utilization
prevailing wage rates amounts to hidden budget cuts.
of new programs, or by design through delayed phase-in or
The impact of inflation on agencies that provide public services
phase-out of programs. Regardless the reason, it is widely
will vary depending on their specific inputs, but in the current
held that multi-year budget horizons are essential for providing
economic environment overall inflation rates are running in the
policy makers and the public with full information relating to
2-3% range.
the ramifications of budget decisions.
Inadequate Time Horizon
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
21
Idaho does not produce a multi-year budget. It limits the focus
to a single year (i.e., the year being budgeted). This can make
it difficult to see the full ramifications of budget decisions that
have changing impacts over time.
This lack of a sufficient time horizon in the budget can be
particularly misleading when it comes to major tax policy
changes, especially when the changes are intentionally phased-in
over a multi-year period.
A good example of this is the proposal made in the 2013
legislative session to completely eliminate the business personal
property tax over a seven-year period, with replacement funding
coming from Idaho’s General Fund. There was no analysis of how
the state budget would be impacted by such a phase-in beyond
the budget year – FY 2014 – even though the bulk of the revenue
impacts occurred in the out years, i.e. after FY 2014.
Prospective changes on the spending side of the budget related to
the Affordable Care Act are another real example of why a multiyear budget analysis is imperative. While some of the impacts of
the ACA are optional, there are a number of impacts that are not
optional and have changing impacts over time.
Incomplete Expenditure Reporting
There are substantial differences between the two main budget
documents produced in Idaho – the Executive Budget and the
Legislative Budget. The Executive Budget is an attempt to include all spending by state agencies and programs in Idaho, while
the Legislative Budget is intentionally limited to spending that is
annually appropriated. This in itself is not a deficiency, it is just a
different definition of what the respective budget documents include.
For example, the Department of Labor’s Employment Services budget
for FY 2015 is $11.5 million in the Legislative Budget Book, but
it is $394.5 million in the Executive Budget. The reason for this
difference is the $11.5 million in the Legislative Budget Book is
annually appropriated, whereas the additional $383.0 million in
the Executive Budget is not subject to annual appropriation, it is
continuously appropriated (mostly in the form of federal funds that
are used to make unemployment insurance payments).
However, there are deficiencies in the Executive Budget
documents related to incomplete reporting of certain agency
spending. A good example of this is in the Colleges & Universities
component of the budget. This spending category is identical in
both the legislative and executive budget documents (i.e., it is
strictly annually appropriated amounts), even though significant
amounts of spending by Colleges & Universities fall into the
continuously appropriated category.
This omission of continuously appropriated spending by Colleges
& Universities does not appear to have a rational explanation,
and because it is so large (almost double the size of the annually
appropriated spending) it introduces significant distortions in
both the Colleges & Universities budget figures and all of the
subsequent summations (i.e., Total Education spending and
Total spending across all agencies and programs.
22
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Insufficient Fiscal Impact Analysis
Fiscal notes (attached to bills) are how the fiscal impacts of
proposed legislation are presented to legislators and the public.
All bills that have fiscal impacts are supposed to have a fiscal
analysis presented in the fiscal note. Unfortunately, Idaho does
not have a meaningful fiscal impact analysis framework incorporated into its overall budgeting process.
Bill sponsors are responsible for providing fiscal notes, and it is
up to committee chairmen to approve or reject fiscal notes. There
is no formal review process in place and there are no standards
to insure that the fiscal notes attached to legislation present an
objective, unbiased assessment of a bill’s fiscal consequences.
A missing element of many fiscal notes is information related
to impacts that change materially over time. This means there
can be substantial “hidden” impacts of legislation that are
completely ignored.
A recent example of this problem occurred with HB 598 in
the 2014 legislative session. Its fiscal note simply said “fiscal
impact is not expected to be significant…$2 million to $5 million
annually.” Yet the Idaho Tax Commission testified that based
upon an analysis of several dozen tax returns and audits the
impact would be at least $8 million immediately, and rapidly
grow to $40 million. The Tax Commission’s testimony was
ignored, and the impact figures used in various budget agency
reports continued to be the sponsor’s figures.
Another bill in 2014 also demonstrates the problem. HB 546
creates a mechanism for the Department of Commerce to issue
“Tax Credit Certificates” for up to 30% of a business’s income
tax paid, sales tax paid, and withholding collected from certain
jobs, for up to 15 years. This legislation will clearly have fiscal
impacts that grow rapidly, but the fiscal note addresses a single
year, FY 2015, and based on a single question from a Rev & Tax
Committee member, the impact was flipped from negative $3
million to positive $7 million.
Inconsistent Labeling
Another deficiency is inconsistency in how spending is classified
between the Legislative and Executive budget documents.
The different basis (continuously vs. annually appropriated)
notwithstanding, there are variations in how spending is classified
by Fund category.
Once again, Colleges & Universities serve as a useful (but vexing)
example. In the Legislative Budget documents, the Governor’s
recommendation for FY 2015 Colleges & Universities spending
consists of $251.2 million from the General Fund, and $244.8
million from Dedicated Funds. In the Executive Budget documents
the General Fund figure is the same, but the Dedicated Fund figure
is just $12.5 million and the Other Fund figure is $232.3 million.
Pointing out this inconsistency may seem nitpicking, but in an
already complex set of documents (the Legislative and Executive
budget documents) this inconsistency just makes it that much
harder for average citizens (and average reporters) to follow the
numbers.
What Are Today’s Big Budget Issues?
There are several very important issues in play when it comes to
decisions that must be made in the next legislative session when
the FY 2016 Idaho budget will be set. Here’s a brief list:
These issues are interconnected. For example, the 2011 Medicaid
cuts ($35 million in General Funds and over $70 million in
Federal Funds) made in response to under forecasting of revenue
eliminated a significant amount of exogenous federal matching
funds, thereby reducing the level of economic activity in Idaho.
So budget decisions regarding the provision
of health care services contributed directly
The U.S. Supreme Court
to Idaho’s declining economic performance.
And as of today (Summer 2014) only a small
decision that created
amount of those Medicaid cuts have been
‘optional Medicaid
restored. At the time they were made, they
were billed as “necessary because we just
expansion’ is still in play,
don’t have the funds.” Now, as the funds
since Idaho failed to act
return, the Medicaid cuts remain but taxes
have been cut for three straight years.
on the issue in the 2013
• E
ducation funding in Idaho has been reduced dramatically
in the past dozen or so years, with the downward trend
continuing into FY 2015. Idaho’s Public Schools have lost
an estimated $600 million of funding since 2000, and
Idaho’s Colleges and Universities have had substantial cost
shifts to students and their families.
• S
harp cuts were made to Idaho’s
Medicaid program at the onset of
the Great Recession, and very few of
those cuts have been restored as the
economy and revenues have recovered.
• T
ax cuts have taken a higher priority in
the past three years than ‘unfreezing’
state worker pay or restoring program
cuts that were ‘necessary’ to deal with
recession-induced revenue declines.
Now Idaho has well over $56 million
less every year to pay for education,
health care, public safety, and all the
other programs of state government.
• T
he U.S. Supreme Court decision
that created ‘optional Medicaid
expansion’ is still in play, since Idaho
failed to act on the issue in the 2013
and 2014 legislative sessions. Idaho’s
Governor and Legislature in effect
threw away over $90 million in
combined property tax and General
Fund revenue savings by not acting in
the 2013 and 2014 legislative sessions.
and 2014 legislative
sessions. Idaho’s Governor
and Legislature in effect
threw away $115 million
in combined property
tax and General Fund
revenue by not acting in
the 2013 and 2014
legislative sessions.
• Idaho’s economic performance has gone from being among
the best in the nation to among the worst. There are
significant questions regarding appropriate public policy
responses.
Less direct linkages connect education
funding policies, education outcomes,
and Idaho’s economy. The State Board of
Education has made it’s highest priority
increasing the rate at which Idaho
students complete a post-secondary
degree or certificate program, yet the cost
to students of attending Idaho’s colleges
and universities has been increasing at rates
substantially higher than inflation. At the
same time, Idaho employers report difficulty
finding qualified applicants for jobs requiring
advanced training and education. And
Idahoans’ economic well-being continues to
slip farther behind.
Tax cuts have been made in the name of promoting economic
expansion, yet there is no credible scientific evidence proving
such policies work, and no evidence whatsoever such policies
have improved Idaho’s economic fortunes. There is, however, clear
evidence that tax cuts have reduced Idaho’s capacity to deliver
public services such as education and health care.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
23
It is telling that in past periods of economic and/or revenue
challenges, Idaho policy makers actually increased taxes (and
hence revenue) not once, but twice in the last half century.
These increases were both followed by exceptionally strong
economic performance for a decade and a half. In fact, even in
2004 when Idaho temporarily raised its sales tax from 5% to 6%
for 2 years, it was accompanied by the fastest economic growth
in Idaho in over a decade.
gap that existed in 2006. In 2006 Idaho’s per capita income
was 10.5 percentage points ahead of Mississippi’s. As of 2013,
Idaho per capita income is just 2.0 percentage points ahead of
Mississippi’s. This happened through a combination of Idaho
losing ground at the same time Mississippi was gaining ground.
Over the past quarter-century Idaho has gone from having its per
capita personal income grow faster than all but 4 other states
(from 1986 to 2006, after a half-billion dollar tax increase),
to slower than all but 3 other states (from 2006 to 2013 after
about a dozen years of tax cutting).
Today’s official executive branch policy is “to grow government
at a slower rate than the economy,” which is equivalent to
saying “shrink public services.” At his point,
with education in FY 2013 at 61% of General
Fund spending, down from 72% in FY 2007,
The unprecedented
further cuts in education funding at the
decline in Idaho’s
state level are difficult to imagine.
education funding effort
The tax cuts since 2000 have come in a
quite varied mixture, from ag equipment
property tax cuts to income tax cuts via an
increased grocery credit. The only common
thread is the cuts all contributed to reduced
revenue as a share of Idaho’s Personal
Income. In FY 2000, before the tax cuts
took hold, Idaho General Fund revenue was
6.1% of Idaho Personal Income. Today that
percentage has dropped to 5.0%.
FY2007 is a significant year for education
will only be compounded
funding because it is the first year after
then Governor Jim Risch called a special
by Idaho’s continued
session of the Idaho Legislature to swap a
preference for tax cuts
$260 million property tax cut for a $210
Not surprisingly, the revenue decline was
million sales tax increase. The magnitude
over restoring the deep
closely matched by a similar decline in
of education’s decline in its share of the
cuts already made to
General Fund spending. That measure went
General Fund in just six years (see previous
from 5.7% of Idaho Personal Income in
paragraph) is nothing short of stunning, and
spending programs.
FY 2000 to 4.9% of Idaho Personal Income
it is further compounded by the fact that
in FY 2013. All the 0.8 percentage point
thanks to tax cuts, the General Fund share
decline occurred in Education. These percentage points may
of Idaho’s economy (as measured relative to personal income)
seem like small numbers, but they actually represent very large
shrank from 6.0% in FY 2007 to 5.0% in FY 2013, a 17%
numbers. In 2013 Idaho Personal Income is estimated to be
decline over that period.
$55.2 billion. One percentage point of that is $552 million,
As Idaho’s personal income in relation to U.S. personal income
and one-tenth percentage point is $55 million.
declines, it will become ever more painful to maintain a steady
The unprecedented decline in Idaho’s education funding effort
level of public service funding. In 2006, the peak of Idaho’s
will only be compounded by Idaho’s continued preference for
economic activity, Idaho’s per capita personal income was 84%
tax cuts over restoring the deep cuts already made to spending
of the national average. Seven years later Idaho is at 79.4%, a
programs. And with a lack of meaningful fiscal impact analysis,
drop of almost 5 percentage points.
we won’t really know the impact of those tax cuts until well after
Even worse, in 2006 Idaho per capita income exceeded that of
their damage to spending programs has been done.
nine other states. Today (as of 2013, the last year of data), eight
of those states have surpassed Idaho, and the one that remains
below Idaho (Mississippi) has closed over three-quarters of the
24
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
25
Goal - Focus of agency resources that will support the overall mission of the organization.
Budget and Policy Analysis - The unit within the Legislative Services Office responsible for
development and presentation of budget and policy information to Legislators.
Employee Benefit Costs - A budgetary adjustment for changes
(generally increases) in the cost of maintaining a range of employer-paid benefits for state
employees such as Social Security, retirement (PERSI), unemployment insurance, and health
insurance.
Division of Financial Management (DFM) - The Division of Financial Management is the Governor’s Budget Office. The Division assists the Governor in developing revenue projections and
agency expenditure recommendations for presentation to the Legislature.
Deficiency Warrants - Expenditures that are authorized but for which no specific appropriation is provided until after the expense amount is known. Examples include fire suppression
costs and agricultural pest eradication expenses.
Decision Unit (DU) - A specific item in the budget request. Decision units are standardized in
order that statewide information may be summarized and reported. A table of decision unit
categories can be found in Appendix B of this manual.
Continuous Appropriations - Statutory appropriations not set by annual legislative action.
Actual expenditures are based on program needs and cash availability.
Change in Employee Compensation (CEC) - Cost of salary increases for agency personnel. CEC
is calculated using form B6 and the calculation factor determined by DFM. CEC is requested in
DU 10.61.
Caseload - Changes Increases or decreases in clients required to be served by state agencies
or enrollment numbers in public school or colleges and universities. Caseload changes do not
include changes in benefit levels for existing clients.
Capitalized Lease - Multi-year lease of land, buildings, vehicles, computers, machinery,
office equipment or other property with a useful life greater than two years and in which
the ownership of such items is to be transferred to the agency at the end of the lease term.
Capital Outlay (CO) - Object class from which expenditures for land, highways, buildings
fixtures, automobiles, machinery, equipment, and furniture with a useful life greater than two
years are recorded.
Operating Expenditures (OE) - Object Class from which expenditures for daily operations of
the agency are recorded.
One-time - Spending authority granted for one budget year only. One-year grants or capital
purchases are examples of uses of one-time funding. One-time funding is removed prior to
establishment of the base budget for the following fiscal year.
Objective - Means to achieve a long-term goal.
Object Transfers - Movement of funds between appropriated Object Classes. Funds may be
moved from Personnel Costs, Operating Expenditures, and Trustee and Benefits Payments to
any other object class. Funds may not be moved into Personnel Costs or out of Capital Outlay
without legislative action. All object class transfers require DFM approval.
Object Code (Class) - Categories of expenditures. Object Code Classes include Personnel
Costs (PC), Operating Expenditures (OE), Capital Outlay (CO), Trustee and Benefit Payments
(TB), and Lump Sum (LS).
Noncognizable Funds - Non state funds obtained after appropriations are established and from
which expenditures must be made prior to the next legislative session. Use of noncognizable
funds must be approved by DFM.
Maintenance of Current Operations (MCO) - Resources needed to continue current levels
of service.
Lump Sum (LS) - Legislative authority to expend appropriated funds from any Object Class
the agency determines appropriate.
Line Item - Additional decision units requesting funding for new or expanded activities after
maintenance of current operations.
Legislative Services Office (LSO) - Full-time staff who serve the Legislature. LSO includes
Budget and Policy Analysis, the Legislative Audits, Research and Legislation.
Information Technology Resource Management Council (ITRMC) - ITRMC plans and coordinates the state’s approach to information technology. Administratively the ITRMC resides in
the Department of Administration.
Governor’s Holdback - Authority given to the Governor to temporarily limit expenditures of
agencies due to shortfalls in revenue projections for the fiscal year.
Fund - A unit within the accounting system for collection of revenue and expenditure information from specific sources.
Budget Unit - Appropriation control mechanism within STARS used to differentiate between
appropriated and non-appropriated elements within an agency’s program structure.
Function - Grouping of agency activities into areas of like purpose in STARS.
Board of Examiners Reduction - A reduction in the appropriation of an agency directed by
the State Board of Examiners in consultation with the Division of Financial Management.
Full-time Positions (FTP) - Full-time and part-time permanent agency staffs who are not
part of group or board positions. The number of FTP is normally capped by the Legislature for
most state agencies each fiscal year.
Expenditures - Cash outlays for items necessary and essential to the operation of the agency
but not including encumbrances.
Encumbrances - Obligations for expenses incurred in one fiscal year but not paid until after
the end of the same fiscal year.
Base - Starting point for development of a fiscal year’s budget request. The base reflects
previous year’s expenditures plus or minus expenditure adjustments and base adjustments.
Appropriation - The authority provided by the Legislature to an agency to spend revenues
derived from a variety of sources including the state General Fund. Actual cash available in
the respective funds also limits spending.
Agency - An administrative division of the department or reporting entity for which a budget
request package is submitted, e.g., Department of Finance, DFM, etc.
Activity - STARS reporting group for specific financial transactions impacting defined users.
Financial Terminology
Citizens Guide
http://dfm.idaho.gov/citizens_guide.html
Appendix 1: DFM Citizen Guide
26
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Wage and Salary Report (WSR) - A series of reports produced by the Employee Information
System Unit of the State Controller’s Office which identify wages, salaries and related benefit
costs for all budgeted positions and also projects increases in costs for the current and following fiscal years.
college districts, community development block grants).
Trustee and Benefit Payments (TB) - An expenditure class through which funding for
authorized payments can be passed through to eligible individuals (e.g. scholarships,
public assistance, retirement benefits) or to other governmental entities for the provision
of services (e.g. intra or intergovernmental contracts, state support for local community
Supplemental Appropriation - A change to the appropriation that adds to, reduces, or
adjusts spending authority between Objects that is granted by the Legislature in the current
fiscal year.
Strategy - Action or activity leading to the completion of an objective.
Statewide Goals and Objectives - Structure within STARS used to provide expenditure information on a statewide functional basis.
Statewide Cost Allocation Plan (SWCAP) - State plan for implementing federally approved
indirect cost allocation among all state funding sources.
State Board of Examiners - A board consisting of the Governor, the Secretary of State, and
the Attorney General with the State Controller acting as secretary to the Board. The Board of
Examiners reviews all claims against the state.
STARS - STatewide Accounting and Reporting System operated by the State Controller’s Office.
Rescission - A change to the appropriation that reduces spending authority that is granted by
the Legislature in the current fiscal year.
Refactor - The Division of Human Resources may revise the pay grade for an entire class of
positions statewide. For example, the pay grade for all Administrative Assistant 1 positions
throughout the state could be refactored from pay grade F to pay grade G. Refactoring requires approval from the Division of Financial Management if there would be fiscal impact.
Receipts to Appropriation - Money received from the sale of assets or insurance settlements that is added back to the appropriated object class from which the asset was originally
acquired.
Reappropriations - Unused funds from a previous fiscal year available through Legislative
action for use in the current fiscal year. Commonly known as Carryover Authority.
Reclassify - Upon the request of an agency, a specific position may be reclassified upward or
downward as determined by the Division of Human Resources. For example, an agency may
request an Administrative Assistant 1 position to be reclassified as an Administrative Assistant
2 position.
Program Transfers - Movement of funds between more than one budgeted program within
an agency. Program transfers are limited to 10% cumulative change from the appropriated
amount for any program affected by the transfer.
Program - An agency or part of an agency identified for budgeting purposes. Programs may be
functions or activities within an agency depending on the agency’s STARS structure.
Personnel Costs (PC) - Object Class from which expenditures for wages, salaries, and benefits
of agency staff are recorded. This includes temporary staff funded in group positions.
(Contract temp services are recorded in Operating Expenditures.)
Performance Measurement Report - Agency information regarding completion of targeted
performance standards that are part of agency strategic plans. Information is reported in
the budget request document on form B3 and B3.1 and compiled as Part III of the Governor’s
Executive Budget message.
Output - Number of services performed by an activity within a program.
Outcome - Results of program services on the constituent group served.
Within the Division of Financial Management, (DFM) the Budget Bureau is responsible for
budget development. Budget development is a continual process throughout the year. It
involves the legislative and executive branches with occasional counsel from the judicial
branch. The following chart indicates the participants in the budget process.
Budget Process
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
27
Adjustments to budgets are ongoing throughout the year. The Legislature
considers adjustments to the current year’s budget through supplementals at the beginning of the budget setting process. DFM budget analysts
monitor how spending is going throughout the year. The Governor can
make budget adjustments such as holdbacks at any point in a year where
revenues are not meeting projections. DFM analysts are authorized by the
Board of Examiners to allow agencies to make budget transfers mid-year
and to allow for the inclusion of federal grants, etc. that were unknown
at the budget-setting time through a noncognizable funds process.
Adjustments to Budgets
When passage of the appropriation bill is complete, agencies know what
their budget will be for the upcoming fiscal year and can begin to plan
accordingly. On July 1, the new budget will go into effect.
Budget Execution
After the Executive Budget is printed and the Budget Message is given,
the appropriation process begins. The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) begins hearing testimony from agencies on their budget request and the Governor’s Recommendation. After all agencies have been
heard, the budget setting process begins. JFAC creates an appropriation
bill (legislation) that must pass both the House and the Senate and then
must be signed by the Governor. The process –starts over if the bill does
not pass both the House and the Senate or it is vetoed by the Governor.
Legislative Appropriations
Between July and August, agencies work with their assigned DFM budget
analyst on the technical details of the budget proposal. In September
agencies submit their budgets simultaneously to the Division of Financial
Management and Legislative Services Office. Throughout October and
November, analysts work on technical details and meet with the Governor
to present the agencies’ requests and introduce options. The Governor
completes his recommendation in early December and the Executive
Budget goes to print. The Governor presents his recommendations to the
legislature during the first week of the session that begins in January.
The fiscal year runs from July 1-June 30. Agencies begin preparing their
budget request for the next fiscal year 18 months in advance. For instance, for fiscal year 2010, which begins on July 1, 2009, agencies will
prepare their request during July through August 2008. The Division of
Financial Management and the Legislative Services Office – Budget and
Policy Analysis, jointly prepare a “Budget Development Manual” that is
sent to agencies in early June.The manual provides guidance on budget submittal procedures. This guidance includes detailed information
on projected benefit increases, the percentage increase to be used for
operating expense inflation, medical inflation, and Change in Employee
Compensation (CEC).
Budget Development
28
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Both the Executive and Legislative budget staffs are involved in
providing input and assistance to state agencies over the summer
months as they develop their new budget requests.
The agency budget requests, when completed, are required by
statute to be submitted on September 1st
simultaneously to the Governor’s Office and the Legislature’s Budget and Policy Analysis staff.
The Governor’s Budget Recommendation is featured prominently
in the Legislative Budget Book, the primary source document for
the Joint Finance Appropriations Committee.
•
•
•
Please see the following for additional detail:
The Budget Flow Chart
Statutory Framework
Rules
History
State Budget Processes
The rules and guidelines that state agencies use to develop their
annual budget requests are developed cooperatively between the
Governor’s Division of Financial Management and the Legislature’s
Budget and Policy Analysis staff.
•
The Idaho budget and appropriations process has evolved over time
into one of the most streamlined and efficient state budget systems in
the nation. Foremost, our system is based on an approach that shares
key elements of authority and responsibility between the Legislative
and Executive branches of Government:
Introduction
Budget Process
http://legislature.idaho.gov/budget/budgetprocess.htm
Appendix 2: LSO Budget Process
Budget Process - Budget Flow Chart
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
29
The administrator of the division shall, on or before the 20th day of November next
succeeding prepare and submit to the governor, or to the governor-elect if there
is one, information for the development of the executive budget as designated in
Section 67-3502, Idaho Code, including the requests of the legislative and judicial
departments as submitted by those departments.
67-3505. BUDGET INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR.
The completed forms shall, not later than the first day of September except with
special permission and agreement of the administrator of the Division of Financial
Management and the director of Legislative Services Office, be filed in the office of
the administrator of the Division of Financial Management and the Legislative Services Office. The legislative and judicial departments shall, as early as practicable
and in any event no later than the first day of November, prepare and file in the
office of the governor and the Legislative Services Office upon the forms described
in this section a report of all of the information required in this section.
4. A report concerning the condition and management of programs, program performance and progress toward accomplishing program objectives.
3. An estimate of appropriations needed for the succeeding fiscal year showing each
primary program or major objective as a separate item of the request and itemized by object code.
2. For the current fiscal year, each of the entities listed above shall report their
estimates of all funds available to them regardless of source including legislative
appropriations, and their estimated expenditures by fund and object of all sums
received from all sources, segregated as provided for on the forms, including a
statement of the purposes for which anticipated funds are expected to be expended.
1. For the preceding fiscal year, each of the entities listed above shall report all
funds available to them regardless of source, including legislative appropriations,
and their expenditures by fund and object of all sums received from all sources,
segregated as provided for on the forms.
of Financial Management shall, not later than the fifteenth day of July have available for all departments, offices and institutions of the state government forms
necessary to prepare budget requests. Such forms, whether in electronic or written
format, shall be developed by the administrator of the division and the Legislatives
Services Office to provide the following information:
67-3502. FORMAT AND PREPARATION OF ANNUAL BUDGET REQUESTS. In the preparation of a state budget, the administrator of the Division
which are required by Section 67-3502, Idaho Code, to submit reports of actual
and estimated receipts and expenditures to the Division of Financial Management
shall submit the same information to the Legislative Services Office for the Joint
Finance-Appropriations Committee, not later than the deadline prescribed in Section 67-3502, Idaho Code.
67-437. DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS TO SUBMIT
INFORMATION. All departments, agencies and institutions of state government
Budget Process - Statutory Framework
Rule Authority: Unless specific rules to the contrary are adopted by the
Joint Committee, the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives will govern the proceedings in the Joint Committee, or in the absence
of Joint Rules, Senate Rules will apply. In all cases not covered by rule, and
in which they are not inconsistent with Joint Committee Rules, Joint Rules
or Senate Rules, the general rules of parliamentary practice and procedure
as set forth in Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure shall govern the proceedings of the Joint Committee.
Chairmanship: Chairmanship of the Joint Committee shall alternate between the Senate Finance Chairman and the House Appropriations Chairman from day to day. In the absence of both chairmen, the Vice-Chairman
of the committee whose chairman was to chair the meeting will preside as
Chairman.
Necessary Majority: All decisions shall be by simple majority of the quorum
present, except decisions to reopen a budget, or to suspend the rules. (See
Rules 12 and 16).
Roll Call Vote: A roll call vote is required on any motion authorizing expenditures of money. (See Rule 11). When a roll call is called for, the members
will remain seated until the roll call is completed.
Motions: Only one main motion (original motion) can be pending at one
time: however, the main motion (original motion) may be amended (substitute motion) and the amendment may be amended (amended substitute
motion). Vote is taken first on the amended substitute motion; in the event
such a motion fails, the vote is taken on the substitute motion; and in the
event the substitute motion fails, vote is then taken on the original motion.
Privileged motions as listed in Section 176, Mason’s Manual, take precedence
over main motions before the committee, i.e. the motion to adjourn, recess,
etc. Committee members shall be seated at their desk in order to vote.
Specificity of Motions: All motions considered by the Joint Committee shall
specify the dollar amounts to be appropriated by agency or program and
by source of funding (i.e. general, dedicated, other and federal). Specification of standard classes and/or FTP positions may also be included.
Rule 1:
Rule 2
Rule 3
Rule 4
Rule 5
Rule 6
Budget Process - Budget Rules
lature in charge of appropriation measures, after considering the budget requests
required by Section 67-3502, Idaho Code, and the executive budget as required by
Section 67-3506, Idaho Code, shall prepare and introduce appropriation bills covering the requirements of the various departments, offices and institutions of the
state. In the case of any department, office or institution operating under a continuous appropriation, the joint committee may prepare and introduce appropriation
bills covering the requirements for the administrative functions of such department,
office or institution. The joint committee may, after examining the budget of any
department, office or institution operating in part or in whole under a continuing
appropriation or fund authorized by the legislature, prepare and introduce appropriation bills covering all the requirements of the respective department, office and
institution.
67-3514. APPROPRIATION BILLS TO BE PREPARED BY JOINT FINANCE-APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. The joint committees of the legis-
30
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
Alteration of Committee Action: An action formally taken by the Joint Committee may thereafter be altered only by formal action of the Joint Committee.
Rule 13 Supplemental Appropriations: Requests for supplemental appropriations
shall first require unanimous consent, or a two-thirds affirmative roll call
vote of the quorum present, to reopen the current year appropriation for
that agency or institution requesting the supplemental appropriation. Once
Rule 12 Reconsideration: Any member of the Joint Committee may move to reopen
a budget previously established by the Joint Committee prior to the time
an appropriation measure has been finally acted upon by the houses into
which it is originally introduced, and any member may likewise move to reopen consideration of an appropriation request for which funding has been
denied. A two-thirds affirmative roll call vote of the quorum present
is necessary to reopen.
Rule 11
Rule 10 Motion to Hold: A Motion to Hold a bill in the Joint Committee, to hold
consideration of a budget or to hold the vote on a motion or motions must
specify a time certain to which such is to be held.
Intent Language in Appropriation Bills: Any intent language meant to be
included as a part of the appropriation bill shall be submitted in writing to
the committee at the time the motion is made. Such written language may
be amended or changed by the committee prior to adoption. Language so
adopted shall be set out in the written committee minutes and noted that it
is included in the appropriations bill.
B
Legislative/Committee Intent: Language may be included with any motion
to provide directions, restrictions, and/or clarifications with regard to how
certain moneys are used. Such language can be adopted as one of two types
of intent:
Rule 9
Intent Language in Committee Minutes: Intent language included in any
motion shall be read back and explained to the committee by the maker of
the motion prior to the vote. Language so adopted shall be set out in the
written committee minutes.
Other Bills: An appropriation bill or any other bill originating in another
committee and referred to the House Appropriations Committee or the
Senate Finance Committee, and considered by the Joint Committee, may
be reported by majority vote out of the Joint Committee to the appropriate
house “without recommendation”, with a “do pass recommendation”, with a
“do not pass recommendation”, with a recommendation that it “be amended”, or with a recommendation that it be “referred” to another committee.
Rule 8
A
Bills Originating in Joint Committee: By majority vote or unanimous consent the Joint Committee may report an appropriation bill originating in the
Joint Committee to either house “without recommendation” or with a “do
pass recommendation.” Recommendations, once made, give authorization
for a measure to be introduced in both houses, without being returned for
further recommendation or consideration to the membership of the Joint
Committee, the House Appropriations Committee or the Senate Finance
Committee. In the event, however, an appropriation bill is amended on
the floor to alter the action of the Joint Committee, then such amended
bill, after transmittal to the house in which the action remains to be taken,
and if referred by the presiding officer to the Joint Committee, the House
Appropriations Committee or the Senate Finance Committee, shall not be
automatically referred out of Committee.
Rule 7
Explanation of Vote: Any member may explain his or her vote when his or her
name is called upon a roll call vote, provided such member has not participated
in debate and provided further that such explanation shall not exceed one minute
duration.
Roll Call Vote: Under no circumstances shall a roll call, once ordered, be interrupted except (a) to explain a vote under provisions of Mason’s Manual, Section 528, or
(b) for a call to or for order from the Chair.
Withdrawal of Modification of Motion: Before a motion has been stated by the
Chair, its maker may withdraw or modify the same without consent of the second.
Once put by the Chair, however, and before amendment or being voted upon, it
may be withdrawn or modified only with consent of the second.
Motions: No motion shall be debated or voted upon until the same is seconded,
when required, and put by the Chair; and, if desired by the presiding officer or
requested by any member, such motion shall be reduced to writing and read before
the same is debated or voted upon.
Quorum: The Joint Committee shall not proceed to the transaction of business
except upon a quorum being present when the committee convenes, nor thereafter
if any member objects to a lack of a quorum. A quorum shall consist of a majority
of the committee membership.
Rules Commonly Operative in Joint Committee
Meetings (from Senate Rules):
ADOPTED: January 12, 1999
Rule 17 Suspension of Rules: Rules adopted by the Joint Committee may be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the membership (quorum present) of the
Joint Committee.
Rule 16 Sine Die Adjournment: The Joint Committee shall adjourn sine die after
consideration has been given to the funding requirement of ALL the statutorily- created departments, offices, programs and institutions of the state
for which formal requests, made through established channels, have been
made. Sine die adjournment shall require a majority of the membership
present (there being a quorum) at the meeting. (Ref. Section 67-35143515, Idaho Code).
Rule 15 Impacting Legislation: In the event legislation is enacted which changes
the financial requirements of a program for which an appropriation has
been established by the Joint Committee (i.e., statutory salary increases,
elimination of a statutory duty, etc.), the appropriation may be increased
or reduced by majority vote of a quorum present, for the substantive
change made by the impacting legislation only.
Rule 14 Reconsideration of Defeated Appropriation: In the event an appropriation
bill originating in the Joint Committee is defeated in either house, reconsideration by the Joint Committee of an appropriation in replacement thereof
shall be by majority vote.
reopened for consideration, a simple majority shall be required for approval of the supplemental appropriation, or any other changes to the current
year appropriation bill.
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
31
1998-present: Program based budget, summarized at the agency level, with
increased emphasis on performance indicators from agencies’ Strategic Plans, and
issue analysis and supportive information in addition to budget request information.
1994-1997: Governor’s recommendation integrated into the Legislative Budget
Book. Program based budget, with requirements to submit performance reports in
the budget process as a result of the passage of the Strategic Planning Act in 1995.
1981-1994: Program based budget; program descriptions and workload indicators.
1979-1980: Program budget with a modified form of zero-based budgeting.
About 25% of state agencies were required to build a budget request starting at a
base of 70% of their current appropriation.
1978-1979: Program budget with a pure form of zero-based budgeting for about
25% of the state agencies. The budget contained decision units that built from a zero
base, explaining the impacts of each level.
1976-1978: Program budget with a modified form of zero-base budgeting that
used different “Levels” of funding; Level I, Level II, or Level III.
1973-1975: Program budget with programs, and program descriptions, with an
incremental approach that showed the cost of continuing the 1971-1972 level of
services and introduced multi-year estimates for 1973-1974 and 1974-1975 fiscal
years.
1971-1972: First annual line item program budget. The Idaho Legislature also
establishes its own budget office, as a result of the Governor failing to present a
budget to the Legislature.
1969-1971: Biennial line-item program budget with programs, minor programs,
program descriptions and workload indicators.
1940-1968: Biennial line item agency budget with lines for salaries and wages,
travel, printing costs and other current expense, capital outlay and other items with
no program breakdown. JFAC gradually develops more formal hearing process to
review Governor’s budget recommendation.
1890-1939: Biennial line item agency budget with lines for salaries and wages,
travel, printing costs and other current expense, capital outlay and other items with
no program breakdown. Legislature reviewed the Governor’s Budget, haphazard
hearing process.
Budget Process - Budget History
Buck Slips: Buck slips may be used for committee action on the instruction of or
recommendations on bills, but only in instances where committee meetings are
impractical. The objection to the use of a buck slip by one committee member shall
preclude its use in that instance. All Committee members, who are not absent and
excused from attendance on that day, shall be required to sign their names indicating their aye or nay vote on the matter being considered.
Change of Vote: Any member may change his or her vote before the decision of
a question shall have been announced by the Chair, but no explanation for such
change shall be permitted.
at institutionalizing a budget process and bringing some kind of order to state government expenditures. Control is expressed in written budgets through “line items”,
which are simply statements or “lines” in an appropriation bill which simply define
how much money can be spent for certain “items”, whether its road equipment
for the Transportation Department, fish hatchery raceways for Fish and Game or
Drug Enforcement Agents for the Department of Law Enforcement. State Legislators have indicated a certain comfort with this approach in the past because it is
restrictive in terms of defining expenditures and setting limits, and it is also simple
to explain in terms of where the taxpayer’s money is going. However, while Lineitem budgeting provided the essential ingredients of order and control it does not
address issues of performance, quality and accountability.
A. Line-Item Budgeting Line-item budgeting represented the earliest attempts
I. Evolution of State Budget Processes
“The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” said Chief Justice John Marshall,
and it is equally true that the power to spend is the power to create. Budgets are
documents that express state governments’ power to act. They summarize policymakers’ evaluations of past programs and public agencies and their forecasts of
current and future needs and resources. Budgets set goals, decide among alternative objectives, and create means for controlling and accounting for the expenditure of public money. They can push reform or they can discourage it.
These complaints have shown up ever since formal, comprehensive budgeting became a feature of state and local government in the early years of the 20th century.
The Taft Commission, which examined federal budget processes in 1912, criticized
federal budgeting procedures for the same flaws observers note today. Some of the
problems - partisanship, indecisiveness, lack of closure - are inherent in the democratic process. Others spring from conflicting expectations of the process. The central
function of a budget - the decision of how much to spend for what - will always create disputes, and no budget will ever satisfy everyone.
Because budgets have so many functions, the process of writing one is often
conflict-ridden, unsatisfactory to observers and participants and flawed in its outcomes. Budgets seem to increase rather than resolve partisan competition; they
sometimes are late; they leave problems unresolved; they spend too much or too
little; they may fail to include adequate program review, planning for the future,
accounting for past expenses, or controls on planned spending.
Writing a budget for a state government involves the most complicated and controversial issue in public life: how the public’s money gets spent. Given the number
and variety of interests and issues that have to be reconciled for a budget to be
completed, the wonder is that the process moves along as smoothly as it does year
after year. But for many observers, it is the competitiveness, compromises and incomplete nature of the process that are striking, not the real accomplishment every
annual and biennial budget represents.
From “Fundamentals of Sound State Budgeting Practices”
National Conference of State Legislatures
Introduction
Budget Process - State Budget Process
32
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
“Performance-based budgeting calls for a revolution in how states are governed. It
focuses on setting goals, designing the strategies needed to meet the goals, and
measuring how well they are met. Future funding decisions should focus on program effectiveness, not on the preservation of existing programs and levels of spending. This approach requires that budgeting be directed at programs rather than at
D. Performance Budgeting Performance Budgeting developed as a natural
progression from Program Budgeting as Governors and Legislatures began looking
at state government functionally. Performance Budgeting emphasizes the outcome
of state programs, and attempts to measure the performance of state government,
reward programs that work well, and redesign programs that do not work well.
C. Program Budgeting Program budgeting places considerable emphasis on
designing a budget architecture that groups expenditures and sources of funds
into functional activity categories. In program budgeting terminology, a function is
simply a group of related activities for which a governmental unit is responsible. The
classification structure used in each government unit is a product of fiscal, organizational, and political considerations. The second Hoover Commission recommended
that agencies should “synchronize their organization structures, budget classifications, and accounting systems.” If this were accomplished, both organizations and
budgets would be structured functionally and tied together. This is a key aspect of
program budgeting. For instance, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is divided
into eight major programs along functional lines. One of those programs, the Fisheries program, is then broken down into smaller units, such as Resident Fisheries and
Anadromous Fisheries, then each of those functions in turn is broken down into
smaller units; etc.; etc. Program-based budgeting allocates resources by function,
which in turn are divisible into activities. The evolution and development of program
budgets was a vast improvement to the state budget process, because it provided
some functional perspective for decision makers. By organizing budgets into functional units the focus quite logically turned to the function itself and the delivery of
services. The framework in this decision-making process begs the question, “what
do you do and why do you need this money to do it?”. The program budget formats
in many states then began displaying goals and activities of a program to answer
those questions, which then evolved into an examination of “workload measures”
and the beginning of a serious evaluation of “performance measures”.
or deletions to the existing structure of state government. This budget approach usually takes for granted previous appropriations and structure, focusing on year to year
inflationary changes, and building by small increments on past budget decisions.
The incremental approach guides the discussion of budget decisions toward what
money can buy, called an “input”, versus the quality of the service that is provided,
an “outcome”. While it is certainly true that the quality of services in state government can be questioned in an incremental budget, it remains a fact of life in any
budget process decision making that the format will have large and direct impact on
policy discussions. “These practices are under attack because they are said to foster
a business-as-usual approach to government at a time when the public is challenging
how state governments operate, questioning their efficiency and effectiveness, and
expressing distrust of representative government itself. With growing concern about
how well government functions, many people contend that the traditional focus on
line-item budgeting and incremental change neglects outcomes so much that the
budgeting process itself is an impediment to effectively delivering programs.”
B. Incremental Budgeting Incremental budgeting focuses attention on additions
“State programs are not, in practice, amenable to such radical annual re-examination. Statutes, obligations to local governments, requirements of the federal government, and other past decisions have many times created state funding commitments
that are almost impossible to change very much in the short run. Education funding
levels are determined in many states partly by state and federal judicial decisions
and state constitutional provisions, as well as by statutes. Federal mandates require
that state Medicaid funding meet a specific minimum level if Medicaid is to exist at all
in a state. Federal law affects environmental program spending, and both state and
federal courts help determine state spending on prisons. Much state spending, therefore, cannot usefully be subjected to the kind of fundamental re-examination that
ZBB in its original form envisions. No state government has ever found this feasible.
Even Georgia, where Governor Jimmy Carter introduced ZBB to state budgeting in
1971, employed a much modified form.”
E. Zero-Based Budgeting Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) began in the private
sector in a formal sense with Texas Instruments in the late sixties. The popularity
of zero-base budgeting (ZBB) spread to state government in Georgia in the early
seventies under then-Governor Jimmy Carter who then introduced it at the federal
level with his election in 1976. The appeal of Zero-Based budgeting lies in its name
mostly, and the expectations it creates. In its pure form the process actually does
not work very well in the state budget process. Basically, ZBB starts at point zero
every year for all funding decisions. The budget, for all intents and purposes starts
from scratch every year for both existing and proposed new programs. Individual
programs and activities in a state agency are then prioritized in their importance,
and from the ground up all of these units are considered as building blocks in the
budget. The intent of ZBB is to take no previously funded programs for granted, requiring that every program emerge through a competitive looking glass which asks
the question, what are the consequences of not funding this program?
“Advocates contend that the difficulty of implementing a performance-based budget
is evidence of how thoroughly state government needs to be reformed. They say
that the difficulty of agreeing on goals for programs is evidence that the evidence
that the issue has been neglected, and the process of trying to reach agreement
will produce valuable analysis and debate. The difficulty of measuring performance
has to be faced squarely. How else can anyone know whether government is providing needed services? How else can public confidence in government be rebuilt?”
Performance Budgeting is currently the hot topic in state budget development. It
is beginning to turn up in various forms in several states, particularly the strategic
planning aspect of this process; setting goals and objectives. The most difficult part
of Performance Budgeting up to this point has been in identifying meaningful measurements of performance. It is easy to quantify workload; but much more difficult
to measure quality which requires a context of public satisfaction, productivity, cost
benefit, and fairness. The other two difficulties, once you have meaningful measurements in place are; how do you reward performance in the budget process and
how do you sanction poor performance. Are State Legislatures expected to “hard
code” budget decisions into a performance budget process on automatic pilot and
thus surrender oversight.
specific line items, that the goals of those programs be laid out in measurable terms,
and that performance review becomes central to budget decisions.”
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
33
“In reality, a state can develop a good system of executive and legislative fiscal
and program planning and controls under either an annual or biennial budget. The
success of a budget cycle seems to depend on the commitment of state officials to
good implementation rather than on the method itself.”
II. Annual versus Biennial Budgeting States are split about evenly on whether
they conduct their budget process every year, or whether they set a two-year budget cycle. In the past fifty years, as State Legislatures around the country wanted
more input and control in the budget process, many states opted to change from a
biennial cycle to an annual cycle. The issue was oversight and control. In a biennial
cycle the Legislature was out of the loop after setting a two-year budget, surrendering a great deal of management and control to the executive branch. Idaho
went from biennial system to an annual system in 1971, and created its own budget office to elevate its professional capabilities in the budget process. The current
reform thinking around the country is to take a second look at biennial budgeting.
Two states returned to biennial budgeting recently, ostensibly as a means to allow
more time for planning, review and evaluation. No one has been able to clearly
make their case that one system offers more positives than the other.
5. Our process has elements of a Zero-based approach through encouraging onetime expenditures and sunsetting of programs, zeroing those expenditures out of
the budget base each year.
4. Our process is Performance-based in that performance measures are listed in the
Legislative Budget Book and the state agency Strategic Plans are submitted with
the Budget request documents.
3. Our process is Program-based in that all budget information is structured by program with emphasis on goals and objectives by function.
2. Our process is incremental in that it accepts previous funding decisions in establishing a “base budget” on which to build for the coming year; and provides
mechanisms to allow inflationary increases and program enhancements to existing programs.
1. Our process is line-item to the extent that expenditure categories are defined in
the approrpriation bill; Personnel Costs, Operating Expenditures, Capital Outlay,
and Trustee/Benefit Payments.
F. Idaho’s Line-item, Incremental, Program Based, Modified Zero-Based
Performance Budget As the section title implies, somewhat tongue in cheek,
Idaho like many states has developed a budget process over the years that borrows aspects of several approaches in governmental budgeting.
The positive aspects of ZBB for states that experimented with this very toughminded process were that many programs for the first time received some close
scrutiny. Secondly, the intent of this budget process survived in varying forms as
many states adopted certain aspects of Zero Based Budgeting that worked within
that particular state’s existing process. Examples of this include prioritizing new
budget requests across programs within an agency; developing one-time expenditure policies or the “sun-setting” of certain programs, and developing alternative
options or levels of funding for accomplishing a goal.
34
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
GOVERNOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE
180 Financial Management, Division of
01 Financial Management
181 Governor, Office of the
01 Governor's Administration
03 Governor's Expense
04 Governor Elect Transition
13 Governor Acting Pay
ELECTED OFFICIALS
120 Lieutenant Governor
01 Office of the Lieutenant Governor
130 Secretary of State
01 Secretary of State
131 Uniform Laws, Comm. on State
01 Uniform Laws
140 Controller, State
01 Administration
02 Statewide Accounting
03 Statewide Payroll
04 Computer Center
150 Treasurer, State
01 Treasury
02 Millennium Fund
160 Attorney General
05 Special Litigation
10 State Legal Services
170 Super. of Public Instruction
06 State Department of Education
JUDICIAL BRANCH
110 Judicial Branch
01 Supreme Court Operations
02 Law Library
03 District Court
04 Magistrates Division
05 Judicial Council
06 Court of Appeals
07 Guardian Ad Litem
08 Drug & Mental Health Courts
31 Snake River Basin Adjudication
STARS Agency/Function/Activity/Structure
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
100 Senate
01 Senate Administration
101 House
01 House Administration
102 Legislative Council
01 Legislative Services
02 Office of Performance Evaluations
03 Redistricting
04 Legislative Technology
40
AGRICULTURE, DEPT. OF
210 Agriculture, Department of
10 Administration
20 Animal Industries
30 Agricultural Resources
40 Plant Industries
50 Agricultural Inspections
55 Indemnity Programs (cont)
60 Marketing and Development
70 Animal Damage Control
80 Sheep Commission
ADMINISTRATION, DEPT. OF
200 Administration, Department of
01 Office of the Director
01 Office of the Director
02 Administrative Rules
02 Division of Information Technology
01 Office of the Chief Information Officer
02 Information Technology Resource
Management Council
03 Division of Public Works
04 Purchasing
05 Office of Insurance Management
06 Capitol Commission
11 Bond Payments
GOVERNOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE (cont.)
183 Public Employee Retirement System
01 Administration
02 Portfolio Investment
185 Liquor Division, State
01 Liquor Dispensary
187 Aging, Idaho Commission on
01 Services for Older Persons
189 Blind & Visually Impaired, Comm
10 Services to the Blind
190 Military Division
01 Military Management
03 Federal/State Agreements
06 Bureau of Homeland Security
192 Women's Commission, Idaho
10 ICWP (Administration)
194 Human Resources, Division of
10 Personnel Services
195 Species Conservation, Office of
01 Species Conservation
196 Arts, Comm. on the
03 Commission on the Arts
198 Drug Policy, Office of
01 Office of Drug Policy
02 Substance Abuse
199 Energy Resources, Office of
01 Energy
Appendix 5: Program Codes
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY/PROGRAM CODES
For DFM and LSO Budget Development Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DEPT. OF
245 Environmental Quality, Dept. of
01 Administration and Support
10 Air Quality
20 Water Quality
50 CDA Basin Commission
70 Waste Mgmt. & Remediation
90 INL Oversight
LABOR, DEPT. OF
240 Department of Commerce and Labor
01 Employment Service
02 Wage and Hour
03 Nursing Workforce Center
04 Employment Services - CIS
05 Human Rights Commission
06 Serve Idaho and other services
12 Wage and Hour (cont)
41
JUVENILE CORRECTIONS, DEPT. OF
285 Juvenile Corrections, Department of
01 Administration
02 Community Services
03 Institutions
04 Substance Abuse Services
INSURANCE, DEPT. OF
280 Insurance, Department of
30 Insurance Regulation
50 Division of State Fire Marshall
HEALTH & WELFARE, DEPT. OF
270 Health & Welfare, Department of
12 Physical Health Services
01 Physical Health Services
02 Emergency Medical Services
03 Laboratory Services
04 Substance Abuse Services
31 Self-Reliance
01 Self-Reliance Program
02 TAFI/AABD Benefit Payments
32 Medical Assistance
01 Administration and Management
02 Basic Medicaid Plan
03 Enhanced Medicaid Plan
04 Coordinated Medicaid Plan
34 Div. of Family & Community Services
01 Children's Services
02 Foster Care and Residential Payments
03 Service Integration
41 Licensure & Certification
51 Medically Indigent Administration
61 Indirect Support Services
72 Mental Health Services
01 Community Mental Health
02 State Hospital North
03 State Hospital South
05 Children’s Mental Health
06 Community Hospitalization
74 Developmental Disabilities Svcs.
01 Community Developmental Disabilities
02 Southwest Idaho Treatment Center
91 Domestic Violence Council
92 Developmental Disabilities Council
FISH & GAME, DEPT. OF
260 Fish & Game, Department of
01 Administration
02 Enforcement
03 Fisheries
04 Wildlife
05 Communications
06 Engineering
07 Natural Resource Policy
08 Winter Feeding & Habitat Improvement
COMMERCE, DEPT. OF
220 Department of Commerce
10 Commerce
CORRECTION, DEPT. OF
230 Correction, Department of
10 Division of Management Services
10 Management Services
20 Division of Prisons
10 Prisons Administration
21 ISCI - Boise
22 ICI - Orofino
23 NICI - Cottonwood
24 SICI - Boise
25 IMSI - Boise
26 St. Anthony Work Camp
27 PWCC – Pocatello
28 SBWCC - Boise
25 Division of Community Corrections
40 Community Supervision
50 Community Work Centers
30 Division of Education and Treatment
10 Offender Programs
20 Community-Based Treatment Svcs.
40 Commission for Pardons and Parole
50 Contract Services
10 Idaho Correctional Center
20 Correctional Alternative Placement
30 County and Out-of-State Placements
40 Medical Services
231 Correctional Industries
90 State Manufactured Goods
232 Pardons and Parole Commission
10 Pardons and Parole
FINANCE, DEPT. OF
250 Finance, Department of
01 Department of Finance
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION
215 Soil and Water Conservation Commission
10 Soil and Water Conservation Commission
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER
|
35
REV & TAX, DEPT. OF
351 Tax Appeals, State Board of
01 Tax Appeals
352 Tax Commission, State
10 General Services
20 Audit and Collections
30 Revenue Operations
40 Property Tax
PARKS & REC., DEPT. OF
340 Parks & Recreation, Department of
01 Management Services
02 Operations
03 Capital Projects
341 Lava Hot Springs Foundation
07 Lava Hot Springs
POLICE, IDAHO STATE
330 Police, Idaho State
01 Director's Office
02 Investigations
03 Patrol
04 Law Enforcement Programs
05 Peace Officers Standards and Training
06 Support Services
07 Forensics
10 Executive Protection
331 Brand Inspector
01 Brand Board
332 Racing Commission, State
01 Racing Commission
LANDS, DEPT. OF
320 Lands, Department of
01 Administration
03 Forest Resources
04 Land, Range, and Minerals
07 Fire Management
09 Scaling Practices
322 Endowment Fund Investment Bd.
01 Endowment Investments
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
300 Industrial Commission
01 Compensation
02 Rehabilitation
03 Crime Victims
04 Adjudication
TRANSPORTATION DEPT.
290 Transportation Department, Idaho
01 Administration
02 Planning
03 Motor Vehicles
04 Highway Operations
05 Capital Facilities
06 Contract Construction & Right of Way
07 Aeronautics
08 Public Transportation
42
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
500 Public School Support
10 Administrators
20 Teachers
30 Operations
40 Children’s Programs
50 Facilities
60 Deaf and Blind, Bureau of Educ. Svcs.
01 Idaho School for the Deaf/Blind
02 Outreach Services
SELF-GOVERNING AGENCIES
421 Pharmacy, State Board of
10 Pharmaceutical Regulation
422 Accountancy, State Board of
10 Accounting Regulation
423 Dentistry, State Board of
01 Dental Practice Act
424 Engineers/Land Surveyors, Bd of Prof
01 Board of Prof. Eng. & Land Surveyor
425 Medicine, State Board of
10 Medical Licensing
426 Nursing, State Board of
10 Nursing Board
427 Occupational Licenses, Bureau of
01 Licensing Programs
429 Real Estate Commission
10 Real Estate Regulation
434 Outfitters and Guides
10 Outfitters & Guides Programs
435 Veterinary Medicine, Board of
10 Board of Veterinary Medicine
440 Lottery, Idaho State
01 Lottery Commission
441 Hispanic Commission
01 Hispanic Programs
442 Examiners, Board of
05 Board of Examiners
443 Appellate Public Defender, State
01 Appellate Public Defender
444 Veteran's Services, Division of
01 Service to Veterans
450 Building Safety, Division of
02 Building Safety
521 Libraries, Idaho Commission for
01 Library Services
522 Historical Society, State
01 Historical Preservation & Education
WATER RESOURCE, DEPT. OF
360 Water Resources, Department of
10 Management and Support
20 Planning/Technical Services
50 Water Management
70 Northern Idaho Water Rights Adjudication
EDUC., OFFICE OF STATE BOARD
501 Education, State Board of
01 State-wide Needs
02 OSBE Administration
03 Charter School Commission
503 Professional-Technical Education
01 State Leadership & Technical Asst.
02 General Programs
03 Post-Secondary Programs
04 Underprepared Adults
05 Related Services
505 Community Colleges
04 Community Colleges
05 College of Southern Idaho
06 North Idaho College
07 College of Western Idaho
510 College & Universities
01 System-wide Expenses
02 Boise State University
03 Idaho State University
04 University of Idaho
05 Lewis Clark State College
514 Agricultural Research/Ext.-U of I
02 Agricultural Research & Extension
515 Health Programs
01 WI Veterinary Medicine
02 WWAMI Medical Education
03 IDEP Dental Education
04 Univ. of Utah
05 Family Practice Residency
06 WICHE
07 Boise Internal Medicine
08 Psychiatry Residency
43
CAPITAL BUDGET
990 Capital Budget
03 Capital Budget
PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICTS
950 Public Health Districts
01 Public Health Districts
STATE INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL
905 State Independent Living Council
01 SILC
CATASTROPHIC HEALTH CARE
903 Catastrophic Health Care
01 Catastrophic Health Care
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM.
900 Public Utilities Commission
04 Public Utilities Commission
523 Vocational Rehabilitation
02 Vocational Rehabilitation
05 Work Services Community Supported
Employment
06 Council Deaf & Hearing Impaired
08 Renal Disease
Museum of Natural History
05 Small Business Development Centers
06 Idaho Council on Economic Education
08 Tech Help
520 Public Broadcasting
01 Idaho Public Broadcasting
04
516 Special Programs
01 Forest Utilization Research
02 Idaho Geological Survey
03 Scholarships & Grants
THE IDAHO CENTER FOR FISCAL POLICY
1607 West Jefferson Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 297-3974
idahocfp.org
© 2014. Material in this document may be reproduced with acknowledgment of the
Idaho Center For Fiscal Policy.
ABOUT THE IDAHO CENTER FOR FISCAL POLICY
The Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated
to providing our state’s citizens and elected officials with fact-based information and
analysis to help make informed policy decisions that will shape Idaho’s future for
generations to come.
The Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy (“ICFP”) is funded by a grant from the Northwest
Area Foundation and is housed at Mountain States Group in Boise, Idaho.
Design and layout by Deguz Designs. [email protected]
36
|
IDAHO BUDGET PRIMER