House Appropriations Committee reviews compiled draft of one‑time general fund requests totaling about $291 million

Helen (House Appropriations Committee member) told colleagues at the March 11 meeting that staff compiled a new draft listing one‑time general fund expenditures and transfers so members could see all committee requests in one place.

The compilation, which combines the governor’s one‑time recommendations with committee letters and public/advocate requests, shows roughly $291,000,000 in unduplicated one‑time requests after the committee removed a $52.5 million transportation transfer that does not use general fund dollars, members said.

Committee staffer Maria (committee staff member) said the materials are a work in progress and that numbers highlighted in orange indicate rate increases that need reconciliation. "The stuff that's in orange, those are the rate increases and the big numbers," Maria said. She also flagged a yellow highlight for an adult learning plug figure that the administration will confirm the next day.

Why this matters: Committee members said the consolidated list helps prioritize a limited pool of funds and creates a repeatable template to reduce duplication of requests across committees. Members emphasized that the administration’s budget decisions and the committees’ requests may not align, so clearly documented asks help the Legislature respond quickly if additional funds become available.

What the draft contains: The packet includes a small page drawn from the governor’s budget book showing one‑time items and larger pages with two columns: left, committee recommendations; right, requests from advocates, departments and public testimony. The draft attempts to avoid double‑counting identical asks that appeared in multiple committee letters or public testimony.

Committee members discussed several specific items the draft records: the State Board of Education’s request (noted as appearing in committee testimony and on the advocates’ list), a $5,000,000 advocate request for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) mentioned during health hearings, and examples of smaller, high‑impact projects—one member cited a prior $40,000 allocation for a driver's‑ed vehicle in the Northeast Kingdom.

Members warned that committee recommendations are not guarantees of funding. "We were told no" by the administration in some cases when departments testified, one member said, underscoring that departments may support larger asks in testimony even when the administration has not allocated funding for those items.

Next steps: The committee did not take formal action on the draft at the March 11 meeting. Members said staff will continue reconciling figures and that the committee will resume review at 9 a.m. the following day to examine additional letters and begin narrowing priorities.