Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Restore topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel to press Appropriations on Bridges funding after veto; warns against creating policy via budget adjustment
Summary
Committee members endorsed including a recommendation to restore Bridges funding (previously provided by UVM Extension after H.91 was vetoed) in a letter to Appropriations and asked that BAA not be used to create policy such as return-to-office mandates.
Committee members agreed to request that the Appropriations Committee consider restoring funding for Bridges, a program whose appropriation in H.91 was vetoed and that has been temporarily supported by UVM Extension.
Speaker 1 explained the situation: the legislature had appropriated funds for Bridges in H.91, but that bill was vetoed; UVM Extension provided interim funding and Bridges has asked that the committee recommend Appropriations find the roughly $167,000 to keep the program operating until the FY27 budget is adopted. A member asked where the appropriation would come from, and staff clarified that Appropriations would need to find the funding within the governor’s appropriation "box."
The committee also debated language to include in the draft letter expressing concern about the administration using a budget-adjustment appropriation to create policy without legislative vetting. Speaker 1 said the return-to-office lease was executed and that the committee should note it felt inappropriate to adopt policy through the midyear appropriation and that such policy ought to be vetted in the FY27 budget process. The panel reached a straw consensus to include both the Bridges request and the policy-concern language in its draft letter and will straw-poll the letter at the next meeting.
No formal appropriation decision was made at the meeting; the committee will forward its recommendation to Appropriations, which has the authority to reallocate funds.
