Appropriations committee narrows budget adjustment; General Assistance and key housing funding left open

Members of the Appropriations Committee met Feb. 13 to reconcile the governor’s proposed budget adjustment with changes adopted by the Vermont House, closing most base adjustments and transfer items while leaving several high-profile allocations open for further review.

Committee members said they were comfortable closing the majority of the “base” adjustments and the single-agency (SLA) date- and cost-related updates, including a small update to court-ordered violent mental-health evaluations and an agreed increase in operating costs for sheriff and county attorneys. They additionally agreed preliminarily to the governor’s revisions that rename and refocus certain provider payments, including a move of substance-use funding into a provider-stabilization account that committee staff described as expanded in eligibility and funding.

The committee reserved judgment on multiple one-time changes tied to housing and General Assistance (GA). The House reallocated a $14.0 million bond-redemption payment so the money would be spent on three items instead of being returned to the treasury. Under the House plan, the largest piece would go to Vermont Housing Choice Voucher (VHCV) programs: committee discussion identified an $8.6 million increase for VHCV and an additional $2.8 million targeted to complete ongoing pilot projects, with roughly $1.84 million proposed for extending GA cold-weather assistance. Committee members noted those figures together were approximately $14.09 million as discussed in the meeting.

Several lawmakers raised timing and practicality concerns about directing the larger VHCV amount immediately. One member said VHCV may not be able to obligate or spend a large allocation before June, and suggested saving a portion of the $8.6 million for next year’s budget so projects and priorities can be judged in context. Other members said quicker funding could accelerate housing projects that are already under way, and suggested prioritizing funds for shelters and projects that move people into permanent housing.

The committee also discussed a range of transfers and fund fixes included in the governor’s proposal. Staff described changes to transfers provided in Act 113 and Act 181, including a repeal of a transfer tied to property transfer-tax allocations. The governor’s plan removed a transfer to the tobacco fund to keep that fund in positive balance and added general-fund transfers to several special funds (for example, to shore up the state employee health insurance fund and the correctional industries fund). The House’s only material change to those transfers was to move $3.0 million into the state liability self-insurance fund to cover an ED-5 payment, which increased the transfer total discussed to roughly $24.0 million.

Committee members closed out most transfer items for numbers only, while agreeing language changes could still be proposed. Staff committed to provide printed reversion and transfer sheets the next day and to list payments for committee review.

Other items left open for follow-up included: (1) GA funding line items (committee line 63); (2) BHCV/VHCV funding details and testimony from housing program staff; (3) flood-related ERAP payments to towns; (4) a potential $6.0 million reversion from the treasurer that could be restored to the bottom line; and (5) two proposed human-rights-commission positions and a position in the solicitor general’s office. The committee said it would hear from health and human services staff and VHCV representatives at a subsequent meeting before finalizing those items.

Committee staff also identified several smaller conversions and transfers — for example, converting an approximately $900,000 appropriation to a transfer for the Action 50 fund and bringing small, inactive special funds (the workforce-education-and-training fund and the Vermont traumatic brain injury fund) back into general accounting — which the committee treated as technical adjustments.

No formal votes were recorded in the transcript; members repeatedly used language such as “closed out” to indicate agreement on numbers while reserving the right to amend statutory language. Staff agreed to circulate additional documentation and to return with testimony and language options at the next meeting.