Appropriations committee reviews FY26 one‑time requests, focuses on recovery centers and nursing‑home aid

Members of the Appropriations Committee reviewed a list of FY26 one‑time funding requests during a working session, highlighting a $1.5 million request for recovery‑center services and a $500,000 request to support nursing‑home recruitment and retention.

The focus on those two items came as members also discussed a proposed change to QMB (qualified Medicare beneficiary) eligibility that a speaker said would make the program more administratively efficient but carry an estimated cost of about $416,000. Committee members said they would collect succinct, one‑line funding requests from applicants so staff can add them to the committee spreadsheet and prepare a consolidated JFO budget for the next meeting.

Why it matters: one‑time appropriations shape short‑term services for health, housing and emergency response. Committee members said the list contains both public‑health and municipal requests that could affect access to recovery services, primary care in underserved areas and emergency infrastructure support for towns.

During the meeting a committee member described the recovery‑center request as support for a 15‑bed facility intended to serve people leaving incarceration and managing fentanyl‑related recovery needs. That same member asked for committee language so the $1.5 million could be available if the committee chooses to pursue it as a one‑time appropriation.

Separately, members discussed continuing a $500,000 nursing‑home recruitment and retention pilot that had received one‑time funding the prior year. A committee member said the funds had been used for retention incentives and that the sector had spent large sums on travel nurses; the one‑time request was framed as a modest attempt to target longer‑term workforce stability.

Committee members also flagged other one‑time asks and points of interest: - Primary care training/clinic support for a program described as Maple Mountain (a residency/primary‑care expansion), which a speaker estimated “about a million” in early years and described a multi‑year transition in which costs decline as residents generate clinical revenue. The speaker noted the program’s viability depends in part on the Medicaid share of participating community health centers in the service area. - A treasurer’s climate‑fund modeling study described by a member as a one‑time ask (a speaker initially referenced $700,000 for modeling and later referenced $7.7 million; the transcript did not resolve the discrepancy). Committee members agreed the study would also likely require a limited‑service staff position and contract modeling funds. - A request to expand a pre‑charge diversion program statewide, with an apples‑to‑oranges account of base funding already in place and a $600,000 figure floated as the amount needed to extend the program beyond the largest counties. - A request to restore or increase funding for conservation districts and for Brownfield Revitalization Fund support; members noted the governor’s and the House’s differing proposals on those items. - Food‑security funding that members discussed routing to front‑line food shelves via the state food bank to minimize administrative costs and ensure protein and other targeted items reach families in need.

Committee process and next steps: members asked that organizations submit a one‑line, specific ask plus a short breakdown if needed; the chair asked that those be sent to the member and to the committee assistant (Kiki) for inclusion in the committee spreadsheet. Staff said JFO (Joint Fiscal Office) will prepare a budget model so members can see the impact of one‑time and base changes at the next meeting. Members reserved the right to add additional requests in future sessions.

The session did not record formal votes on any of the one‑time items; members repeatedly noted some requests remained “not specified” or needed clearer language before the committee could act.

The committee scheduled further review of base budget items at a subsequent meeting and signaled it would prioritize collecting clearer cost and program language from requestors before making appropriation decisions.