H 91 conference committee agrees draft language, sets Jan. 15 implementation plan and reporting for FY26 appropriations

The H 91 conference committee reviewed and agreed on draft bill language, set an implementation plan due Jan. 15 and discussed how Fiscal Year 26 appropriations in section 8 will be distributed, during a meeting in which committee members clarified which departments will prepare reports.

The committee’s decisions matter because the draft spells out who must produce implementation materials and fiscal distribution reports — language that directs which state departments will provide accountings of funds and when those reports must be delivered.

Members said the implementation plan requirement appears in the draft on page 23 and is due Jan. 15. The text on the next page, committee members noted, directs the “distribution of fiscal year 26 appropriations pursuant to section 8.” Committee members discussed that the draft requires a report prepared in consultation with the appropriate department or legal agency because more than one department will be involved. One member summarized the reporting arrangement: “The intent is that we get a report from VDH right. When the $5.15 is gone,” attributing the expectation that the Department of Health (VDH) will report on at least part of the spending. Speaker 2, committee member, also said: “And we get a report from DCF about the amounts and when these other, payments are made.”

Committee members agreed to revert the transition-planning language on page 31 to the prior wording that separates “05/2015” to BDH, saying that the earlier language better reflected the intended fiscal split. They also noted that subsection b in section 5 should read so that the department “shall report on the distribution of appropriations made in this section pursuant to section 5 b 1 b,” and that the cross-reference implies DCF will consult with other departments as necessary to produce the report. The transcript records this exchange as discussion of how the bill text allocates lead responsibility and consultation duties between departments.

No roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript excerpts provided. At one point members indicated they would sign a clean copy to finalize the draft; one participant said, “We can we can sign and shake. Okay.” A committee member praised the work, saying, “The creativity that you put into this is really, really significant. Your whole committee has worked really hard on it.”

The committee discussion also touched on regionalizing program delivery so people in an area receive help from the region, and on clarifying which agency leads specific reporting duties. The transcript does not specify dollar units for the figure referenced as “$5.15,” nor does it record a formal vote or final enactment; it records agreement on draft language and next-step logistics, including preparing a clean copy for signature.

Committee members said the draft’s implementation plan language and the section on distribution of Fiscal Year 26 appropriations will govern near-term reporting and that DCF and VDH are the primary agencies named in the draft as responsible for producing those reports.