An Introduction to Budget Turkeys and the Sprinkle List

About the Budget Turkey Watch Report

The Budget Turkey Watch report is Florida TaxWatch's annual review of Florida's upcoming budget. The report was started in 1983 and promotes oversight and integrity in the state’s budgeting process based on the principle that: because money appropriated by the Legislature belongs to the taxpayers of Florida, the process must be transparent and accountable, and every appropriation should receive deliberation and public scrutiny. The budget review identifies appropriations that circumvent transparency and accountability standards in public budgeting.

Budget Turkeys are items, usually local member projects, placed in individual line-items or accompanying proviso language that are added to the final appropriations bill without being fully scrutinized and subjected to the budget process.

The Budget Turkey label does not signify judgment of a project’s worthiness. Instead, the review focuses on the Florida budget process, and the purpose of the Budget Turkey label is to ensure that all appropriations using public funds receive the deliberation, debate, and accountability they deserve. While a project may be worthwhile, Budget Turkeys tend to serve a limited (not statewide) area, are often not core functions of government, are more appropriately funded with local or private dollars, and can circumvent competitive bidding or selection as well as oversight and accountability.

Florida TaxWatch is not recommending that the Governor veto any specific project on the Budget Turkey list. We are providing this report to assist the Governor in his budget deliberations, recommending that he not only consider the value and efficacy of a project, but also if it meets turkey-criteria, if it addresses a core state government function, and if it was selected through a fair process that promotes the best interest of taxpayers statewide.

A project that circumvents established review and selection processes or has completed the established process but is funded ahead of much higher priority projects (as determined by the selection process);
Appropriations that are inserted in the budget during conference committee meetings, meaning they did not appear in either the final Senate or House budgets;
Appropriations from inappropriate trust funds; duplicative appropriations; and appropriations contingent on legislation that did not pass; and/or
Appropriations that may have been in the House or Senate budget, but were removed by agreement in conference, only to be added back at the last minute through the supplemental appropriation (“sprinkle”) lists.

Budget Sprinkle Lists Diminish Confidence in the Budget Process and Should Be Discontinued

Budget Sprinkles Report Cover

It has become routine for the budget conference process to end with each chamber accepting the other’s supplemental funding list, or sprinkle list, worth more than an average of $120 million for each chamber – or a combined average of $285 million – annually over the last ten years. These lists are developed and agreed to in private by House and Senate leadership, and without any public debate or discussion. In the 2022 Regular Session, the House Sprinkle List included funding for 62 projects worth $257.1 million and the Senate added $511.8 million in funding for 161 projects. This means $768.9 million in hard-earned taxpayer dollars were spent as almost an afterthought, after all the various budget areas had been “closed-out.” In the last 10 years, these Sprinkle Lists have funded 1,718 projects worth $2.85 billion (see Table 1). The 2022 Regular Session was a record year based on the amount of money the House and Senate added to the budget through the sprinkle lists. (see Figure 1).

Due to this lack of transparency and open public deliberation, the conference should be used exclusively to compromise when the two chambers disagree on funding levels and to decide whether an item funded by only one chamber should be included in the final state budget. This should not be the time to fund new items, particularly funding that goes to a specified private entity or narrow geographic location.

This should not be done through Sprinkle Lists. The practice of spending hundreds of millions of dollars, largely on members’ pet projects, as an afterthought, should be discontinued.

Meet the Author:

Kurt Wenner
Kurt Wenner
Senior Vice President of Research
LinkedIn

Documents to download

Previous Article The What, Why, and How of the Florida TaxWatch Budget Turkey Watch Report
Next Article $670 Million Added to the New State Budget Through the Sprinkle Lists Deserves Close Scrutiny During the Governor’s Veto Deliberations
Print
4539 Rate this article:
4.0