House Appropriations Committee reviews JFO’s first-pass FY26 budget spreadsheets

Burlington — On Wednesday, March 12, 2025, the Vermont House Appropriations Committee met to review the Joint Fiscal Office’s first-pass spreadsheets for the FY26 budget, focusing on base versus one‑time appropriations, interfund transfers and reserve calculations, Joint Fiscal Office staff member Emily Byrne told the committee.

Byrne said the top-line FY26 base appropriation shown in the spreadsheets is about $2.2 billion, reflecting annualized pay act costs, benefit increases and standard operating changes. She described separate tabs for ongoing “base” items and for one‑time appropriations so the committee could keep recurring and nonrecurring spending distinct. “For the record, Emily Byrne from the Joint Fiscal Office,” Byrne prefaced, adding the spreadsheets are a work in progress and “we will update them accordingly.”

The nut of the session was the committee’s review of how the governor’s recommendations and other adjustments net against forecasted revenue. The Joint Fiscal Office showed a set of transfers totaling about $105 million in the governor’s recommendation, including roughly $81 million to the debt service fund and $14.8 million to a capital infrastructure cash fund. Byrne noted there is an annual transfer into the Tax Computer Modernization Fund to support tax IT systems and a small transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Fund to address a shortfall.

Why it matters: as Byrne explained, after netting base appropriations, recommended base changes and expected revenues, the governor’s construct leaves roughly $70 million of recurring base revenue that the administration has proposed to use for one‑time FY26 investments. That choice, Byrne and committee members said, is a key policy decision for the legislature because shifting one‑time versus ongoing funding affects next year’s base budget.

Details and questions from members

Committee members pressed staff on several line items and on how federal funds and “global commitment” Medicaid matches are shown. Byrne said figures that appear on the spreadsheets are the general‑fund portions unless a total dollar was explicitly stated. She pointed to a pension line that represents a roughly $17 million increase over the prior year and to smaller line‑by‑line adjustments totaling about $2.44 million scattered across departments.

On revenue, Byrne noted some direct applications (non‑tax revenue sources applied to the budget) and described “earned federal receipts,” a technical accounting category in which federal reimbursements and indirect allocations contribute to available revenue. Rob Phillips (representative of the FFO) clarified that when agencies earn federal receipts and can retain them in a given year, those amounts appear as a revenue source in the construct presented to the committee.

Reserves and the Budget Adjustment Act

Byrne explained statutory calculations that determine several reserve lines: the human services caseload reserve and the payroll‑timing reserve for the 27th payroll and 53rd week of Medicaid. She told the committee those statutory reserve amounts do not change because they are formulaic, and said the budget stabilization reserve will change if prior‑year appropriations are changed after the budget adjustment process. “That number will get updated…It is what it is. It’s math and that’s what it is,” Byrne said.

One‑time versus base choices

Byrne flagged that the governor’s construct treats roughly $70 million of available base revenue as funding for one‑time investments in FY26. She said the legislature can recharacterize individual items — for example, an emergency housing proposal the governor labeled one‑time — as ongoing base items if the committee chooses. Members discussed the tradeoffs of using one‑time money for programs that might later require ongoing funding.

Accessing department detail

A large portion of the session was devoted to showing members how to find supporting documentation in the Joint Fiscal Office and Department of Finance and Management online repositories. Byrne demonstrated the Vantage reports and agency budget books that break out departmental appropriations, position lists and grants. She walked through an Agency of Human Services example to show where Medicaid and grant rollups appear and where members can find the underlying detail.

Next steps

No formal votes occurred during the hearing. The committee scheduled continued budget work and a walkthrough of H.219; Byrne will return to answer follow‑up questions on an ADS billing model they plan to review the next day. Representative Dave Iacobucci closed the session noting Emily Byrne and JFO staff will continue to update the spreadsheets and that members should expect subsequent briefings as the committee fills in numbers and reconciles other bills against the budget construct.

Ending note: the presentation was framed as an orientation and working session; staff emphasized the spreadsheets are iterative and will change as Ways and Means decisions, the Budget Adjustment Act, and other committee actions are finalized.