Appropriations committee finalizes FY26 adjustment language; leaves voucher and payment-reform decisions to conference

The Appropriations Committee met to close out the fiscal year 2026 budget adjustment and finalized language on several items, including transfer changes, prior-year reversions and contingency authority for housing vouchers, while deferring a final vote until a brief reconvening.

The meeting centered on a set of technical edits and fiscal updates presented by Joint Fiscal Office staff. Committee materials showed the governor had recommended transferring about $1,600,000 from the general fund to the criminal history records check fund; a separate roughly $67,000 transfer to a pilot special fund that the governor proposed was not funded by the House and is omitted from the committee’s concurrence. Staff also reported roughly $4,900,000 in additional direct applications from special funds into the general fund based on updated estimates, including changes in transfers from the cannabis regulation fund and several Department of Financial Regulation accounts.

Committee members reviewed prior-year reversions identified under the commissioner of finance’s year-end authority. "There was an additional $4,600,000 worth of reversions," a committee presenter said, bringing total FY26 reversions to $35,900,000—about $25.8 million more than the amount assumed when the FY26 budget passed. Those reverted amounts become available for reappropriation in the budget-adjustment package.

Members debated language tied to a $50,000,000 contingency already available to the Emergency Board and how that fund could be used if federal appropriations did not cover Section 8 voucher needs. Rather than earmarking a fixed $5,000,000, proposed language would allow the Emergency Board to transfer part of that contingency for voucher support while the General Assembly is not in session. "The language would move it to the emergency board; it wouldn't set aside a fixed amount," a committee member said, noting the approach preserves flexibility while leaving the exact dollar amount to conference committee refinement.

The committee also addressed Disability Services payment reform for designated agencies, where staff estimated the transition would cost a little over $9,000,000 in combined state and federal funds, with about $3,900,000 in state general funds to cover immediate cash-flow needs. Agency of Human Services would first seek to cover costs within its budget and, if necessary, the commissioner of finance and management could draw from the human services caseload reserve as a backstop.

Other adjustments included a proposed $50,000 addition to Meals on Wheels (bringing one-time grant funds to $80,000 when combined with a House appropriation), technical language clarifying $380,000 added for Meals on Wheels, and edits consolidating Land Access and Opportunity Board programs under a Homes for All/resilience grants rubric.

Grady Nixon of the Joint Fiscal Office summarized the packet of language changes as largely technical and intended to clarify onetime payments and program structure; he asked members to allow JFO and staff to finalize the text for a vote. Committee members instructed staff to swap draft language on voucher distribution so that funds would be made available "proportionally based on the number of housing assistance payments they need statewide as of Jan. 1," and directed staff (Brady and JFO) to draft final bill text for a vote.

The committee recessed briefly to allow staff to prepare the final bill language and planned to reconvene in about an hour to vote.