Vermont House Appropriations Committee begins BAA markup amid federal funding uncertainty

The Vermont House Appropriations Committee convened Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026, to begin markup of the Budget Adjustment Act, reviewing spreadsheets and resolving routine technical adjustments while deferring larger policy and IT questions for later sessions.

Committee members framed the session as a first pass to "true up" amounts the Legislature previously committed and to identify issues that require fuller briefings. "The truing up part... is really about truing up things that were in the budget that we committed to last year," said Speaker 2. Members emphasized that adding new funding for programs would be an explicit choice rather than a mechanical correction.

The panel discussed multiple areas of near-term pressure. Speaker 4 used Vermonters Feeding Vermonters as an example of a group that requested $2,000,000 last year but received $500,000; Speaker 4 asked whether the BAA should be used to restore or increase such grants. The committee also cited uncertainty about a $75,000,000 reserve figure and recent federal volatility: "The Samsung money that we thought we were gonna lose yesterday, we were told it was 4 and a half million, then we were told it was 3 and a half million. And then by the end of the day, they said the money's been restored," Speaker 2 said, noting that shifting federal guidance complicates decisions about using reserve funds.

During the spreadsheet review the committee checked off several noncontroversial items, including homeowner and renter rebates. Members agreed to pause human services items (the 300 series) pending a presentation from Theresa Wood; the chair instructed staff to provide updated spreadsheets on Tuesday.

Agency-specific follow-up was requested in several areas. Judiciary and sheriff contract lines reflected higher-than-budgeted contract increases (staff reported contracts arriving around 7.5% versus a 4% planning assumption, increasing hourly rates for certain transport/security duties). Corrections-related contract changes drove a roughly $4.5 million increase tied to higher per-bed contract rates and additional out-of-state beds; the committee asked corrections staff for details on negotiations, vacancy rates and inter‑state comparisons. State police overtime was reported at about $757,000 statewide, and members asked agencies to explain overtime budgeting and vacancy impacts for next year.

Large IT and data items were highlighted for later review: a $2.5 million GainWell contract and $2,800,000 for the Medicaid data warehouse (MDWAS). Speaker 2 said those items have been on the committee's radar for years and that human services testimony is forthcoming. The committee also reviewed a $1,000,000 reduction in the universal school meals line after the House Education chair signaled the change was acceptable.

Other technical actions included restoring money for the land access opportunity board, clarifying cannabis fund transfers that displayed as zero due to intra‑fund offsets, and flagging pilot special-fund use by the Agency of Transportation. The panel asked Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) staff and agency contacts to explain whether pilot-fund uses require future payback to the general fund.

No formal votes were recorded during the spreadsheet pass; the committee recessed for a short break and planned to reconvene to review statutory language and the updated materials. The chair directed staff to circulate the carry forward and reversion report (dated Jan. 12) and to prepare paper copies for members ahead of the next meeting.

Next steps: the committee expects new spreadsheets and additional agency testimony on Tuesday and will continue markup over the next two weeks.