Note: This year IFF rated maintenance bills according to a more refined system. This is an enhancement bill, and will be rated as a standalone bill. IFF will only consider enhancement line items in these ratings. This means that FTP reductions passed in maintenance legislation will not be evaluated here, among other things.
Bill Description: Senate Bill 1446 authorizes an additional expenditure of $4,619,000 from the Millennium Income Fund (MIF), $5,808,000 from the State-Directed Opioid Settlement Fund, and $20,525,000 from federal funds, amounting to a total of $30,952,000 for fiscal year 2027. These funds will restore Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and peer support services for the remainder of FY26 and FY27.
Rating: -4
Does this budget incur any wasteful spending among discretionary funds, including new line items? Conversely, does this budget contain any provisions that serve to reduce spending where possible (i.e. base reductions, debt reconciliation, etc.)?
This legislation authorizes additional onetime spending of $4,619,000 from the Millennium Income Fund (MIF), $5,808,000 from the State-Directed Opioid Settlement Fund, and $20,525,000 from federal funds, amounting to a total of $30,952,000 for fiscal year 2027. This is on top of the $9,872,200 already allocated to be spent by the MIF in its original appropriation.
The onetime expenditures consist of funding for ACT ($10,158,00 D/FF), Peer Support Services ($20,544,000 D/FF), and Mental Health Courts ($250,000 DF). All of these are unwarranted, especially so in a deficit year. If these expenditures were truly warranted, appropriate budgetary trade-offs should have been made without resorting to the use of onetime funds as a stopgap. Budgets must be structurally balanced.
(-1)
Does this budget create permanent programs or Full-Time Positions (FTPs) using temporary funding? Conversely, does this budget remove programs or FTPs that rely on temporary funding?
All of these onetime expenditures support ongoing programs. In a March 18th letter submitted by the Millennium Fund Committee, the Committee states that they wish “to underscore this recommendation is onetime in nature.” They further note that this is not the primary use of the MIF, which focuses on youth substance abuse prevention. It is also described as a “onetime bridge.”
Using temporary or onetime funds to prop up insufficiently funded programs only serves to obfuscate ongoing spending and creates a constant need for onetime funding to fill gaps in service. These programs should have ended, instead of being restored with temporary onetime funding.
(-1)
Does this budget perpetuate or expand state dependence on federal dollars, thereby violating principles of federalism? Conversely, does this budget actively reduce the amount of federal dollars used to balance this budget?
This legislation appropriates $20,525,000 in new federal enhancements to the agency. This represents a commitment to continued reliance on borrowed federal dollars, deepening the dependence on the federal government and violating the principles of federalism.
(-1)
Does this budget contain hidden fund transfers or supplemental expenditures that work to enact new policy or are not valid emergency expenditures? Conversely, are fund transfers only made to reduce budget expenditures or taxes, or are supplemental requests only made in the interest of resolving valid fiscal emergencies? Does this budget abuse continuous funding or obfuscate the appropriations process? Conversely, does it reduce the use of continuous funds or clarify the appropriations process?
This legislation obscures the appropriations process in several ways. First, it directs the use of MIF and State-Directed Opioid Settlement Funds to be used in a manner not in accord with their state purpose. This is especially true regarding the Opioid funds, where section 57-825 of Idaho Code is set aside to make this expenditure possible.
Further, this obscures the appropriation process, the effects of which can be seen concretely in Senate Bill 1433. Onetime and Ongoing appropriations do not match enhancements because of this onetime appropriation that supports ongoing programs. This distortion to the budget adds additional opaqueness to an already complex process.
(-1)
