The Idaho Spending Index serves to provide a fiscally conservative perspective on state budgeting while providing an unbiased measurement of how Idaho lawmakers apply these values to their voting behavior on appropriations bills. Each bill is analyzed within the context of the metrics below. They receive one (+1) point for each metric that is satisfied by freedom-focused policymaking and lose one (-1) point for each instance in which the inverse is true. The sum of these points composes the score for the bill.
Rating: (-1)
Bill Description: House Bill 425 is an enhancement of $122,861,900 for the Permanent Building fund for fiscal year 2026.
Analyst Note: The Permanent Building Fund is a continuously appropriated account and does not receive appropriations as an agency would. This means projects appropriated last year are “off budget,” leaving only new projects visible each year. Therefore, there is no base or ongoing expenditures to measure, as is true with other appropriations. There are also no FTPs dedicated to this account.
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.)?
The budget for the Permanent Building Fund contains several new wasteful projects. These projects span multiple agencies. Projects which are particularly concerning include:
ISP’s request for a new District 2 headquarters will add $5.5million to the nearly $10 million that was originally intended for it to purchase an existing building — more than a 55% increase. This request was spurred because negotiations with the seller of the property they were primarily interested in fell through. In making this request, ISP ignores the potential for seeking other campuses to purchase with existing monies, rather than appropriating additional monies to now build a new facility.
ISU is hoping to use the $14 million appropriation to match $50 million in bonding to construct a new life sciences building to replace an existing building. The university cites outdated facilities and some examples of disrepair to justify the expense. But it is not necessary to replace the building at such a high cost. The school plans to rehabilitate the old building to repurpose it after the new life sciences complex is finished. A more prudent way to address the needs of the school would be to simply repair and update the old building, which it could do at a lower cost.
Finally, the University of Idaho is asking for $8 million to construct a new Veterans Assistance Center, which it says will house ROTC and an office to serve veterans. This expense constitutes a want rather than a need. The existing ROTC program is housed at the Memorial Gym while the Veterans Services Office is located in the campus housing offices. The Memorial Gym sees less use now that collegiate sports programs are hosted at the ICCU arena. The Veterans Services Offices are already centrally located for on-campus residents. Constructing of a new building to house these programs appears to be based on wants rather than the true needs of the school and its students.
(-1)
