The House Appropriations Committee convened a budget workshop on Jan. 9, 2026, to walk legislators through the state budget — commonly called the “big bill” — the timeline for forming it, and hands-on budgeting trade-offs. The chair of the House Appropriations Committee opened the session and said the goal was to help more legislators understand the budget process.

A presenter from the Joint Fiscal Office described the big bill as “a financial plan for the coming fiscal year” and said it functions both as a spending authorization and a policy document that reflects legislative priorities. The presenter emphasized that budgeting requires trade-offs and depends on forecasts that “are not always perfectly predictive of reality.”

Why it matters: the big bill is the primary authorization that allows state government units to spend money in the coming fiscal year. The committee was given a primer on fund structure: the budget is the sum of many funds, including the general fund, transportation funds, and capital or fee funds, each with different revenue streams and permissible uses. The presenter noted the general fund is typically the focus of appropriation conversations.

Key numbers discussed: JFO staff said the general fund for the referenced year was about $3.5 billion. They identified large recurring commitments from that total — roughly $225 million for teacher retirement and other postemployment benefits, about $713 million for Medicaid and related commitments, about $221 million for corrections, and just under $500 million for other human services. After those core commitments, staff said roughly $850 million remained as discretionary appropriation for other programs, and last year’s available discretionary gains were about $45 million.

Federal match and 'global commitment': Emily Burton of the Joint Digital Office explained how federal matching for Medicaid can affect state budgeting. “We spent a dollar or you owe us 56¢, and then we kick in our 44¢,” she said, using the example to show how state and federal shares are reconciled through mechanisms such as the Global Commitment Fund, which helps agencies manage federal/state flows and ensure the correct state match.

Revenue forecasting and mid-year adjustments: presenters reviewed the consensus revenue forecast schedule (typically January and July) and said the forecasts feed the governor’s and agencies’ budget plans. The presenters described the Budget Adjustment Act as the process used when actual revenues diverge from forecasts. As an example, staff said a July revenue downgrade forced the Agency of Transportation to reduce its current budget by $7.5 million.

Legislative path and veto rules: JFO staff outlined the legislative steps: agencies prepare budgets in the fall, the governor’s budget address is presented in January, House Appropriations holds hearings and completes its version by mid–late March, the Senate works through April, and a committee of conference negotiates differences. The conference report must be voted by both chambers and sent intact to the governor, who then has five business days to act; Vermont does not have a line-item veto and overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber.

Public input and transparency: attendees asked how public input is collected. Presenters and participants said the current mechanism is an online public input survey publicized through the governor’s office and advocates; historically, in-person hearings across the state were held. A legislator asked about standardizing agency budget presentations; staff said JFO circulated examples and some standard reports exist, but a single uniform template is challenging because agencies must tell differing programmatic stories.

Next steps: the workshop is the first of a two-part series; the second session will be Jan. 23 with a deeper dive into budget documents and additional exercises. The recorded presentation and materials will be posted online; the recording will be paused for the closed exercise portion.

The committee then moved into a hands-on budgeting exercise to practice the trade-offs discussed during the presentation.