Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the State Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Appropriations committee flags unfunded positions, housing and transport gaps during FY26 budget review

2910646 · April 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Appropriations Committee members reviewed the governor’s FY26 budget and House adjustments on April 8, flagging unfunded positions from the Flood Safety Act, reduced housing program funding, transportation and medical‑transport shortfalls, and other items they left open for follow‑up.

Senate Appropriations Committee members spent the April 8 hearing reviewing large sections of the governor’s fiscal‑year 2026 budget and the House adjustments, identifying several programs and positions policymakers described as underfunded or cut. Committee members asked agency witnesses for more detail and left numerous items open for further testimony before making final decisions.

Why it matters: House changes and base‑vs‑one‑time distinctions affect whether agencies can staff and operate programs the Legislature authorized in recent sessions. Committee members singled out public‑safety and environmental roles tied to the Flood Safety Act, housing‑program staff capacity, Fish & Wildlife license and fund transfers, and transportation‑related needs such as medical transport support.

Key items flagged - Flood Safety Act staffing: Committee members said the Flood Safety Act established about 50 new positions but the current budget includes funding for roughly 11 of them. Members emphasized dam safety, wetlands and river corridor roles as priorities and asked agencies to clarify which positions must be funded in base vs. one‑time appropriations.

- Land use review board and Act 250 modernization: Members flagged the need for more support staff for rulemaking and for the new Land Use Review Board as part of ongoing Act 250/modernization work.

- Fish & Wildlife funding: The committee discussed transfers and a one‑time supplement intended to support a new licensing structure and fund changes for Fish & Wildlife; staff said some transfers will appear in other sections of the budget and in dedicated funds.

- Economic development office in Montreal: The governor requested additional base funding for international business outreach. Committee members said the House removed the broader expansion but they heard that maintaining the Montreal office would require roughly $150,000 and urged staff to confirm exact costs.

- Manufactured homes and housing programs: The committee discussed a $2,000,000 program to fix up manufactured homes that the House left intact but reduced a $150,000 position request. The larger Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP) was discussed as having a $4,000,000 component; the House cut some of the governor’s base funding. Members repeatedly raised capacity concerns: agencies reported small permanent staffs and asked for additional permanent positions to administer expanded programs.

- Rental and homeownership programs: The House reduced a $15,000,000 rental revolving loan request to $7.5 million; committee members said the rental revolving loan fund has been effective in producing units and asked housing agencies to prioritize between capital and operating requests.

- Transportation and medical transport: Committee members flagged losses in volunteer medical transport capacity since 2019 and discussed seeking funding for recruitment support for public transit and ride services that bill Medicaid; members said some of the proposed $1,000,000 could be used to shore up medical transport staffing and recruitment.

- Shelters and emergency housing: The committee discussed repeated one‑time shelter and emergency housing appropriations and left several shelter‑capacity and emergency housing items open pending more information from the Agency of Human Services.

Process and next steps Committee members repeatedly left items “open” for follow‑up testimony, indicating a preference to gather more detail before finalizing base vs. one‑time decisions. The committee scheduled additional briefings (including an Agency of Human Services appearance) and asked agencies for written cost breakout and implementation language when the request involves creating or converting positions.