Senate panel reviews FY25 budget-adjustment web report, flags non‑general fund corrections and agency caseload shifts

The Senate Committee on Appropriations met to review the FY25 budget-adjustment web report and supporting worksheets used by the Joint Fiscal Office and fiscal staff to reconcile changes the House made to the governor's proposal.

The review focused on technical corrections to internal-service fund appropriations, several transfers from special funds to the general fund where expected revenue did not materialize, and larger caseload- and utilization-driven adjustments in Medicaid and related programs. Staff emphasized the web report lists changes for many non‑general funds that do not appear on the single general-fund summary spreadsheet and recommended committee members consult both documents before approving final language.

Why it matters: the web report, JFO staff said, shows fund-to-fund movements that can change which fund pays for a program and can shift spending authority between the general fund, special funds and federal matches. Several of the changes discussed — notably in the Agency of Human Services (AHS) and Medicaid/global commitment lines — affect the state’s largest program spending areas and will inform FY26 base resets.

Committee staff walked members through a set of technical corrections and program-level adjustments. The Agency of Digital Services had an internal-service over-appropriation that staff described as a technical correction matching the governor’s letter. In the Department of Public Safety, staff explained an expected special-fund appropriation did not materialize and the department proposed moving spending to the general fund. In Criminal Justice Services certain special‑fund appropriations were similarly unavailable and required reclassification to general funds.

AHS accounted for numerous adjustments across administrative, long-term care, developmental services and the global commitment Medicaid appropriation. Staff described large caseload and utilization increases in Medicaid that are being reconciled in the Medicaid/global commitment line (B307/B334 series) and noted some shifts between personal‑services and operating categories for specific projects such as CCWIS.

Education and other agencies also saw adjustments. The House reduced the Education Fund appropriation for state-based student costs by about $1 million based on updated estimates; that reduction drops to the bottom line in FY25. The governor’s recommended adjusted education payment for FY25 was reduced by $11 million after final town budget submissions. Nutrition program spending estimates were $2.9 million below prior budgeted levels, staff said.

Staff also flagged requests to add limited FY25 funding for personnel: an Attorney General’s Office solicitor-general position requested at about $50,000 for the remainder of FY25 with an annualized FY26 cost estimate of roughly $181,000; and additional positions requested for the Human Rights Commission (intake specialist and staff attorney/investigator), for which the FY25 incremental cost was described at $62,000 and full‑year costs reported in the discussion as roughly $100,000 and $132,000 respectively.

Other non‑general fund items discussed included technical reappropriations tied to Acts 166 and 181, a one-time appropriation proposal for the Office of Child Support mainframe transition planning (with federal match), and adjustments to the Vermont Veterans Home and Department of Corrections budgets intended to “reset” agency bases.

Committee members asked staff to provide updated sheets reflecting the House‑passed language plus the committee decisions so the panel can vote on a consolidated amendment set at its next meeting.

Ending: staff said they will provide an updated working document and annotated bill language for committee review before the committee reconvenes to vote and finalize changes.