House Human Services advances FY26 budget priorities; sets COLA priority for community providers and approves one‑time savings

The House Human Services Committee continued its review of FY26 budget recommendations, advancing several priorities for home‑and‑community services, homeless shelter funding and substance‑use recovery programs and approving a one‑time saving tied to implementation timing in developmental services.

Committee members moved to make cost‑of‑living adjustments (COLAs) for home and community‑based providers a highest priority for the committee’s recommendations; the change was recorded by a straw poll and incorporated in the committee’s working sheet. The committee also approved a one‑time reduction tied to the timing of federally required conflict‑free case management in Developmental Services — delaying full‑year funding for that implementation by four months and identifying one‑time general‑fund savings of $794,320 — in a recorded committee vote, 11–0.

Why it matters: committee members said earlier, and again during the session, that gaps in funding for home‑and‑community‑based services leave less‑costly supports underfunded and distort where the state places money. The committee’s change elevates a policy priority the members said will be used in subsequent budget negotiations in Appropriations and by the Joint Fiscal Office.

Details of the votes and policy directions

- Conflict‑free case management (Developmental Services): The committee approved a one‑time reduction reflecting a four‑month delay in implementation in Developmental Services. The staff estimate recorded during the meeting identified $794,320 in general‑fund one‑time savings (and related Global Commitment entries shown in working calculations). The committee vote on that specific reduction was recorded as 11–0 in favor. The committee noted the full cost would need to be funded in FY27.

- COLA priority for home and community‑based providers: Committee members agreed that COLAs for home‑and‑community‑based services for older Vermonters and people with disabilities should be treated consistently and elevated to the committee’s highest priority. That change was advanced by straw poll and incorporated into the committee’s working recommendations. The committee discussed parity across Choices for Care, nursing homes and other community providers and flagged concerns that funding patterns have favored highest‑cost services.

- Reach Up ratable reduction policy (economic services): The committee indicated policy support for increasing the ratable reduction percentage used to calculate Reach Up basic needs benefits (an approach that slightly raises the benefit level). Committee members voted to indicate support for the policy direction; the recorded indication of support was 9 in favor, 2 opposed. The committee did not have a final dollar total at the time of the discussion and noted other legislative and fiscal reviews will fill in the cost estimate.

- Family and housing‑related funding package: The committee discussed multiple items that had been combined as a single recommendation package (shelter operations, Emergency Rental Assistance/ERAP positions, community action agency requests, microbusiness development and family voucher programs). The recommendation as presented was approved in committee by voice vote and tallied as 10 in favor, 1 opposed. Items in that package included: adding base funding for shelter operations through the Housing Opportunity Program (HOP/TOP), one‑time and base amounts for shelter expansion, ERAP staff positions to respond to the end of federal ERAP funding, community action agency requests for financial coaching and microbusiness supports, and a family voucher program to replace expiring federal funds (the family voucher request was described as $2,400,000 to support additional families and service extensions).

Other program decisions and requests

- Housing Opportunity Program (HOP/TOP): The governor’s recommendation to add $3.79 million to the base for shelter operations and $2.0 million one‑time to expand shelters was discussed; committee members also added a proposal to provide a 4% COLA for community‑based providers tied to the HOP base (the committee recorded a figure of about $1,043,959 for a 4% adjustment calculated on the prior base). Members debated whether shelter operators should be prioritized for COLA dollars and noted some of those providers had not received COLAs in recent years.

- Adult day services: Staff reported an estimated 34,267 hours of absence across 11 adult day providers during the first six months of the year. Committee discussion included a one‑time request (discussed as roughly $800,000) to partially address reimbursements lost to absenteeism; members discussed whether to treat the request as one‑time budget adjustment funding.

- Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP): Committee members reallocated and reprioritized ERAP‑related positions and funds that are ending at the federal level, and recorded priorities to support case management tied to temporary shelter and prevention work. A multi‑part recommendation tied to ERAP and shelter case management was advanced as high priority and incorporated into the family package vote noted above.

- Recovery centers and recovery residences: Committee staff and members proposed additional support for recovery centers (an $800,000 proposal was discussed for recovery centers specifically, distinct from recovery residences) and noted that recovery residences had already received some increases. Committee members discussed potential funding sources, including newly available prevention funds tied to cannabis tax revenues, and flagged recovery centers as a statewide investment (the staff presentation noted approximately 14 centers statewide). The item was discussed as a high/ highest priority for committee consideration; final dollar approvals will follow through the full budget process.

- Opioid Abatement Special Fund language and overdose prevention center: The draft language was edited to carry forward $1.1 million already appropriated for an overdose prevention center and to require the Department of Health to submit any unmet need in the department’s budget adjustment request. Committee staff and members discussed limiting the cap for FY26 unmet need language; the group settled on language directing the department to address up to $550,000 of additional unmet need in its budget adjustment proposal (committee members described that as recognition of development timing and startup costs). The text also added reporting and outcome language to the advisory committee’s duties so grant outcomes can inform future settlement‑fund recommendations.

What the committee did not finalize

Committee members repeatedly noted that many line‑item dollar amounts and the final distribution of Global Commitment versus General Fund spending would be resolved in Appropriations and JFO as the numbers are carried forward; multiple items were advanced as policy priorities rather than final dollar approvals. Several items — for example the recovery centers increase, specific split amounts for opioid‑funded appropriations, and some adult‑day reimbursements — were discussed and prioritized but left for later numeric allocation.

Context and next steps

The committee emphasized that these determinations represent its policy priorities and working recommendations. Members repeatedly noted the process is iterative: the Joint Fiscal Office and House Appropriations will reconcile the numerical estimates and global commitment/general‑fund splits, and the budget adjustment (BAA) process can be used to address unmet needs identified during the current fiscal year. The committee asked staff to circulate final language and to update the working document; members were asked to review the draft during lunch and return for the afternoon session, when additional votes and signoffs were expected.

Ending: The committee completed its scheduled items for the session and scheduled follow‑up work to finalize language and numeric estimates for submission to Appropriations and JFO.