Secretary of Administration says Vermont’s Act 27 monitoring found no triggered federal‑fund cuts through December
Loading...
Summary
Sarah Clark told the House Appropriations Committee that monthly reporting under Act 27 found roughly $12 million in quantified federal reductions through December but did not meet the statute’s thresholds that would trigger formal reduction plans; she flagged close calls and ongoing monitoring as federal appropriations move in January.
Secretary of Administration Sarah Clark told members of the Vermont House Appropriations Committee on Jan. 13 that a new tracking mechanism created in Act 27 found no functional‑area reductions large enough to trigger the statute’s formal response process through December.
Clark described a two‑tier threshold established by Act 27: a lower trigger of 0.5% of federal appropriations or $2,000,000 (whichever is greater) that requires notification to the Joint Fiscal Committee and preparation of a plan, and a higher threshold between that lower trigger and 25% or $50,000,000 (whichever is lower) that would require Joint Fiscal review and an Emergency Board recommendation. "We did not trigger that at all," Clark said, summarizing the initial reports.
Agency Finance & Management collected monthly submissions from state departments (July–December) on actual federal adjustments rather than projected threats. Clark walked the committee through specific reductions that were quantified across several agencies, including: termination of a local food purchase cooperative agreement in agriculture (March 2025); a reduction in Help America Vote Act funding in the Secretary of State's office (from about $1,000,000 to roughly $272,000); canceled solar grant awards and associated limited‑service positions in the Public Service Department; several Department of Health grant cancellations and non‑extensions (including a COVID immunization supplement that accounted for an estimated $4 million of the combined reductions); an early rescission of an ARPA mental health block grant (about $750,000); SNAP‑Ed reductions (about $347,000 in state fiscal '26); and Department of Labor unemployment equity funding that was terminated early (about $900,000) but was completed using state language‑access funds.
Clark told the committee that the rescission of technical assistance funds for USDA NRCS regional conservation partnership work in the Agency of Natural Resources brought that functional area close to the $2,000,000 threshold because direct support to farmers and forest landowners had also been cut. Taken together, Clark said, the quantified reductions through December totaled just over $12,000,000. "It could have been worse, but it still impacts people," a committee member said; Clark agreed and urged continued vigilance.
Committee members asked about contingency spending authorities. Clark reviewed contingent appropriations included at the end of fiscal '25: $50,000,000 set aside to the Agency of Administration, $30,000,000 reserved in the general fund for future appropriation, and another $30,000,000 also reserved for broad use (including Medicaid, property tax relief and housing). Clark confirmed some of the contingency money was used to bridge SNAP obligations during the shutdown: "we came up with these contingency plans" and the administration provided temporary loans to affected providers during paused federal reimbursements.
Clark also highlighted a major competitive award: Vermont secured approximately $195,000,000 in rural health transformation grants, which the administration must obligate and spend under terms to be reviewed. Committee members pressed whether the federal clock measures grant compliance from the award announcement or from vendor obligation; Clark said she had not yet reviewed the grant terms and would follow up with the committee.
Clark closed by reminding members that Act 27 monitoring remains in effect through the fiscal year and that the administration will continue monthly reporting to track whether any triggers are met as federal appropriations activity resumes in January.
The committee asked follow‑up questions and scheduled continued monitoring; no formal motions or votes were taken on Clark’s report during the Jan. 13 meeting.
