Appropriations committee revises FY26 draft: treasurer item cut, $103M in one-time asks, $5.19M shortfall remains

The Appropriations Committee met April 18 to review a consolidated set of Budget Adjustment Act (BAA) changes and the FY26 budget proposal, with staff presenting line-by-line adjustments to base and one‑time appropriations and revenue assumptions.

Fiscal staff said the committee will remove a previously listed $14,000,000 appropriation to the State Treasurer and update reversion dates for municipal flood‑impact grants. Committee fiscal staff also reported moving multiple BAA amendments into other sections of the large bill (including transportation and the capital bill) or removing them where duplicative, and said remaining BAA language will appear together in a new “F” section at the end of the bill.

Why it matters: the review reallocates and reconsolidates dozens of small and mid‑size items, clarifies whether funding is treated as base budget or one‑time, and sets the committee’s starting point for forthcoming negotiations with the House, Senate and administration.

What staff presented and what the committee discussed

Grady Nixon, fiscal office staff, summarized the structural edits proposed for the BAA: certain section amendments (for example, sections described in the meeting as moved from the original H.489 BAA text) will be consolidated into specific sections of the large bill; a treasurer appropriation will be removed; and some prior‑year reserve language will be eliminated. Nixon also flagged that language changing “DigSafe” statutory notice from 48 to 72 hours is being carried in the transportation bill and therefore will be removed from the BAA text to avoid duplication.

Emily Burn, fiscal staff, guided the committee through three consolidated sheets: FY25 carry‑forwards, base adjustments, and one‑time appropriations. Burn reported updated FY25 figures that reduce the earlier projected carryforward from about $140 million to $138 million: unclaimed property receipts appear to be roughly $3 million lower than previously anticipated, partly offset by an increased transfer from the Department of Financial Regulation. That change reduces available FY25 carryforward funds to the FY26 baseline.

On base budget items, staff identified a series of restorations and adjustments including: - Additional positions and funding in the Attorney General’s Office (solicitor general, a home‑repair fraud coordinator) and funding for court diversion and judiciary technology; - Funding additions for the Office of the Defender General (an item presented as $700,000 in the draft); - Restoring funding for county pre‑charge diversion ($300,000 noted for counties ready to start that work); - Moving urban search and rescue from one‑time to base (house and senate figures differed; the updated proposal places $500,000 in the base); - A set of health and human services rate increases and provider supports summarized as global commitment adjustments (examples discussed: FQHC/RHC increases totaling roughly $10.7 million; home and community‑based provider adjustments around $6.8 million; a 2% community provider increase of about $12 million; and a 2‑1‑1 increment near $332,000).

On one‑time appropriations, Burn said the draft identifies roughly $192 million available for one‑time investments after transfers and carryforward use; the committee’s working list of one‑time appropriations (as presented) totals about $103 million. Notable one‑time items discussed include $2 million for brownfield revitalization, $1 million for municipal technical assistance, $1 million moved into the base for education transformation (with $1M/year in the base for four years), a proposed $1,000,000 grant line for local food shelves, and targeted investments in recovery housing and related services. Staff noted several items that the committee or other committees might prefer to fund in the capital bill (for example, fire apparatus and certain infrastructure items).

Revenue side and outstanding issues

Burn and other staff explained revenue updates on the record: the draft books in committee include $3 million of anticipated additional cannabis revenue. The senate‑passed S.51 (an unpaid caregiver tax credit referenced in meeting materials) is estimated in the fiscal note to cost the general fund about $6 million; that measure was in House Ways and Means at the time of the meeting. The presentation also carried $4 million of other revenue adjustments intended to reflect remaining negotiations on tax credits and credits the House has held for later resolution. Committee staff said the current construct remains a work in progress; after the one‑time transfers and adjustments described above, the draft budget still shows a gap (deficit) of $5,190,000 before adding back certain items such as comprehensive payment reform for health care.

Discussion items and planning

Committee members pressed for clarifications on several programmatic items and implementation mechanics: whether specific position requests already have base funding or require conversion from limited‑service roles; how the “Westman construct” (a timing approach staff described to delay some rate increases until October 1) would protect against potential federal budget actions; and where particular line items should sit (capital bill vs. one‑time operating funds).

Sarah Lyons, a committee member, asked staff to consider a $500,000 request from the Chittenden County community resource center, noting local shelter capacity and the center’s low‑barrier model. Members also discussed small line items such as local event and economic development requests (for example, previously funded small grants for lake and fisheries events) and where those items should be placed in the overall package.

Next steps

Staff told the committee they will continue to reconcile the sheets and bring draft language to the next meeting: JFO language editing is expected over the weekend and draft bill language was planned for presentation at the committee’s next meeting (staff said a tentative target to finalize committee action remained later that week). Staff also said they would continue to work with the administration and other committees on outstanding revenue and policy choices.

Limitations and pending actions

No formal committee votes were recorded in the transcript excerpt. Several items noted as “removed,” “moved,” or “concurred with the House” reflect staff instructions for the draft bill text rather than recorded roll‑call votes. Committee staff identified outstanding interbranch and intercommittee negotiations (House/Senate, capital vs. operating placement, federal budget timing for certain rate increases) that could change amounts or placement.

Ending note

Committee staff will circulate updated sheets and draft language before the next meeting so members can review the line‑by‑line edits discussed April 18 and prepare for floor presentation and subsequent votes.