[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6246995,"mediaKeyId","3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc","parentId",3213518,"title","Joint Fiscal Office walks committee through technical corrections and recommends acceptances and rejections across multiple budget sections","audioSeconds",1342,"startMs",824640,"endMs",2166900,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc&start=824&end=2166","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc/thumbnail_824640.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6246995/Vermont/Joint-Fiscal-Office-walks-committee-through-technical-corrections-and-recommends-acceptances-and-rejections-across-multiple-budget-sections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6246995-fb5f8b2cf2298f6cf0c1bdee0d18ccbb/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222322&Signature=BWVVnnWbJ-7qvRQ89YTfYrm4muzGtzXRIrmebNW~KJTKeRBwqxLb2FmZQMF-7oQMZOBMYcgD6ysKGm-s8kJ6UQJGHtCmOSqSqJrMyVXSLMf8GHdTMIadv2fgK4diLRHorOF4Y-msuQEQuQnw5pKVO7Zok3AR4S8iipHO1mKHQLrIW4mPbZgCUKt2UoWo7heEIpkUPhgVva5GDqLG1uUAVso~V1E8KkI1EfBNfR9rVgLjBVXjA67ziMW56fOqSFQdSylFm9CEGymVSrrIQ0im-HbZT-O5Pkv3zaIENddx~lMJK4pBD7LYyCQSY1QJqcPGUNyIF22rj9o~t2n94MNyLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-08T04:49:13Z","article","The Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) provided a detailed technical review of the budget adjustment (H.493) on Oct. 11, 2025, recommending acceptance of some language fixes and rejection of others. JFO staff guided the conference negotiators through corrections to one-time and base appropriations, recommended where prior-year language should remain, and flagged sections that should be handled by legislative counsel rather than negotiated at the conference table.

Key JFO recommendations and technical corrections included: moving an $80,000 item to one-time where appropriate; correcting the funding source for an item (grants versus personal services); placing urban search and rescue (USAR) funding in the proper base and assigning it to emergency management/public safety; accepting a Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity Community Resource Center reclassification from the Department for Children and Families to the Department of Mental Health (as draft language indicated); and recommending acceptance of several technical grammatical and fund-name clarifications.

JFO advised against accepting a set of proposed changes that would split existing fiscal closeout language into multiple sections, instead urging the committee to keep the construct consistent with last year’s language. The office also recommended not including new “pool-created positions” language in isolation and suggested handling position language as a single drafting exercise when the full position section is prepared.

On tax and allocation language, JFO recommended retaining longstanding property transfer tax (PTT) allocation language in the D100 section rather than striking it at this late stage, and recommended rejecting newly proposed special-fund constructs for electric vehicle supply equipment until committees with jurisdiction complete related work.

JFO also noted multiple cross-references and statutory-name issues, including that the Division of Emergency Management is the statutory reference used in prior enactments and that proposed changes to that name should be rejected to maintain consistency. The office recommended not accepting a repeal in timing-sensitive language that could create implementation problems given the bill’s passage timetable.

Process notes and next steps: JFO said it would provide technical edits and further review where legislative counsel and committee chairs identify outstanding issues. Committee members agreed to defer complex topics that require outreach to other parties, such as arbitration language tied to the Attorney General’s office and multi-party agreements, which negotiators said they lacked time to address at the final stage.

Ending: committee members thanked JFO for the review, agreed to several of the recommended corrections, and asked staff to incorporate JFO suggestions into the technical letter and revised BAA for the next draft.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","H.493 Committee of Conference- 2025-05-07 – 12:00PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Joint Fiscal Office presented a technical letter to the H.493 conference committee on Oct. 11, 2025, recommending a mix of acceptances and rejections of draft budget language, corrections to base vs. one-time funding, and other drafting fixes.","taxTitle","Appropriations, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",36948,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6247000,"Negotiators agree to Vermonters Feeding Vermonters funds, improve local food shelves and reallocate farm-to-school money",144,620260,765190,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc&start=620&end=765","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc/thumbnail_620260.jpg","/articles/6247000/Vermont/Negotiators-agree-to-Vermonters-Feeding-Vermonters-funds-improve-local-food-shelves-and-reallocate-farm-to-school-money","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247000-3d8e0b45c8f95dc2fd77677c2f6fd5cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222322&Signature=MJtDp~7nHpVOtf9YveKUqFuel8pe4b13mH1BJ~ojONzuPbMSU3XkpMPflxZwNl1SOOJ6nfJrSDc1F-RN63aN1qf40COydqsz2DXJqzVeVNLeyDxOws5Qwkw0QUuyFMY9Lm~EtUx1lOhOSNYL3oiVbYFMHDnYsmTQZAE-Zq6B8Rr-RJNFRkJ6xQueHJZy1AcbOdjUrqbRxof7d0HzEctTwlPL8p5qNJL7NDwGSDKnbaZKme6DlJUvkUG5qJBC-5OPruu8d9mikLQARU4CngIFw2x2HZfka5Q2yiUGLPwGHLUizR4aj~Aaf-4kj2zPRpRvQ~nnaknAarw5K4ExCIeX0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On Oct. 11, 2025, conference committee negotiators said they had reached tentative agreement on several food and nutrition items in the H.493 budget adjustment, including $500,000 for Vermonters Feeding Vermonters, $1 million for local food shelves, inclusion of CACFP funding previously discussed under childcare, and a reallocation of certain farm-program dollars into farm-to-school programming.

Negotiators said the parties had already agreed to the $500,000 for Vermonters Feeding Vermonters and that the CACFP item would be included as part of both the childcare and food packages. For local food shelves, negotiators reported an agreement in principle to a $1 million appropriation and said they would accept the sponsor’s NOFA increase proposal at a lower incremental amount than originally requested.

The group described a reallocation approach that would reduce a proposed farm-to-school funding mechanism’s new program constructs and instead move money into the existing farm-to-school line. They said the Medicaid-related backfill would be set at $500,000 and that eliminations of the “farm security special fund” would free resources to prioritize farm-to-school access.

Other small one-time proposals were discussed: negotiators said a pair of $500,000 requests (a server and a county conservation district) were proposed to be split, with $250,000 to each project as a compromise.

Why it matters: the funding choices affect food security programs and school food access statewide and will determine which local food shelves and farm-to-school partnerships receive immediate support during the fiscal year.

Process and next steps: negotiators asked staff to confirm dollar allocations and finalize the drafting of language. They said they could provide a response on the three related package items shortly and expected technical staff to fold agreed amounts into the BAA drafts.

Ending: negotiators characterized these as internal agreements subject to final drafting and JFO technical review before inclusion in the enacted conference report.","Conference negotiators on H.493 agreed in principle to fund Vermonters Feeding Vermonters ($500,000), boost local food shelves, include CACFP, and reallocate some farm support into farm-to-school and a Medicaid backfill.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6247005,"Conference negotiators flag $42,000 fee shortfall in Attorney General budget; reduction may be required",82,400000,482040,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc&start=400&end=482","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc/thumbnail_400000.jpg","/articles/6247005/Vermont/Conference-negotiators-flag-42000-fee-shortfall-in-Attorney-General-budget-reduction-may-be-required","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247005-9b8dbe70dd9cbc0e2ab651b14a224ee0/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222322&Signature=W-dpm7d4JhaheYts~G9lINud~jUYGG2x9EPZXXM8QXjm-pJNpXrqZOpNL7f8psSxz-vN6fsut8s0x3BFzZvRIpprGi4LIY1GOLpAvO5I9L8mI~5iMu6J6C7UAohZ-STvsP27pxCx8tEOwQ9wYyc6PzPaopreHIXIjER6ynE73KDSpk-L8KQUcTe1Scr3E2e8FE82YHpg~gqjoWyULOBK3PgBP3KoQ9uDyNfCKTTiaZ8WEXSnztgkXPWAjUjjmFuFG0NqvZW2hm4fxrIAb-Em8Xtg-AxRHYHNsFPGE02xD-SCIa8o0etRhqeKLeSG0geNmTovOPnQmwiIrHbO4LNHUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Negotiators on the H.493 conference committee told staff on Oct. 11, 2025, that the Attorney General’s office built its budget assuming about $42,000 of revenue from fee increases that were not included in the enacted fee changes. That discrepancy means the committee may have to reduce the AG’s appropriation unless other offsets are identified.

During discussion, a negotiator observed that the AG’s budget “assumes the $42,000 from the fee increases,” and staff confirmed the governor’s recommended budget had the same assumption. Committee members said the fee increases had not been finalized and had not “landed” in the enacted language or elsewhere in the budget documents, producing the shortfall.

Why it matters: the AG’s operating budget is sensitive to fee revenue assumptions. A $42,000 discrepancy in a single office’s budget requires either an offset elsewhere or a reduction to match available revenue, and negotiators noted they had not been told of this assumption earlier in their meeting.

Committee response and process: negotiators said they would hold off immediate action once the discrepancy was identified and planned follow-up with staff for clarification. One staff member said the attorney general’s office had been informed that it was “highly unlikely” the matter could be resolved at this late stage, and negotiators discussed whether to reduce the AG’s budget to reflect the missing fees.

Outcome noted: committee members paused further movement on the AG allocation pending clarification from staff and possible reconsideration of budget offsets. The group recorded this as new information that required follow-up before final conference text could be drafted.

Ending: negotiators directed staff to investigate the source of the assumed fee revenue and report back; no formal motion to reduce the AG budget was recorded during the meeting.","Committee negotiators discovered the Attorney General’s budget assumed about $42,000 from fee increases that did not ‘land,’ forcing discussion of reducing the AG’s budget or otherwise reconciling the gap.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6247007,"Conference negotiators tentatively agree to $5 million childcare reserve and related programs",1099,510210,1610120,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc&start=510&end=1610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3213518-22ce644247d1a680193eeab5af6d2acc/thumbnail_510210.jpg","/articles/6247007/Vermont/Conference-negotiators-tentatively-agree-to-5-million-childcare-reserve-and-related-programs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247007-e34830e583b5e49cc97c47cee1f561ed/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222322&Signature=LLOj7~tEidcWjSKjcTsFAMhOfd-CUYthZZOtP5oVYGFwkkwpR9OUi34q0Q0tK3alW1ANMnfmnhQT1iYCcJF2DT3kM0sn9C7YUk4FlAqLFUW3Xv5ZJIFXhGXkuL559p47NTBAdjmipoZnxbX0GWUlJpHSKvLUCyG4FY8O4crpCxLeS75VPyUaTBTWetsblGr9Cuty7~osDo5xSTKq48lJ2fcWHQJOYMirZIhItxQOMkgX3gmXMHdYf6u0dktfM-gFdOatCfrfCDLPmviDnqo0q7n9fNtFbxAksuGZ09rAYU47FjJBXyqfEQtLLD422VPK-k49CNF2uv~uCIKoQIin6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Conference committee negotiators meeting on H.493 on Oct. 11, 2025, said they would agree in principle to include a $5 million childcare contribution reserve, an apprenticeship program allocation and support for the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) in the budget adjustment.

The committee said the childcare reserve language would be included pending final drafting, and negotiators described a compromise on provider rates for infant and toddler care. One negotiator summarized the parties’ position as splitting prior proposals and “land[ing] at 5” (percent) for the infant/toddler rate; earlier offers mentioned 4.5% and 5% positions. Members emphasized that a separate proposal for an Office of Provider Rates (OPR) staff allocation was not acceptable at this stage and should be the subject of a longer conversation before any dollars are fenced.

Why it matters: child care funding and provider rates affect access and affordability for families and feed into provider reimbursement and state contract planning. A reserve and the programmatic choices the committee described would change how the state supports providers and families in the coming fiscal year.

Details from the negotiation: negotiators said they would accept the $5 million reserve language and would include apprenticeship funding and CACFP support in the package. They described the infant/toddler rate compromise as a negotiated landing point rather than a final statutory rate pending drafting. The group also said they were not comfortable committing to the separate OPR staff funding without additional review and information.

Process and next steps: committee members asked staff to fold the agreed language into the technical drafts and to return with final language and any consequential technical changes. Negotiators stressed these were internal agreements among the conference delegates and would need to be reflected in final bill text before becoming law.

Meeting context: the discussion occurred during a broader Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) technical review of budget language and one-time appropriations. Staff signaled they would reconcile draft language and bring technical letters back to the committee for final decisions.

Ending note: negotiators requested additional drafting and technical review before the agreements are inserted into the finalized conference report.","Negotiators on the conference committee for H.493 reported agreement in principle on a $5 million childcare reserve, apprenticeship funding and CACFP support, and discussed an infant-toddler rate compromise; they declined to fence a proposed OPR staff allocation pending more review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Joint Fiscal Office walks committee through technical corrections and recommends acceptances and rejections across multiple budget sections

Negotiators agree to Vermonters Feeding Vermonters funds, improve local food shelves and reallocate farm-to-school money

Conference negotiators flag $42,000 fee shortfall in Attorney General budget; reduction may be required

Conference negotiators tentatively agree to $5 million childcare reserve and related programs