Citizen Portal
Sign In

Recovery partners warn cuts would disrupt recovery centers; ask to renew $800,000 and protect reengagement/residence funding

Legislative budget committee (referred to in transcript as "the committee") · February 18, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Recovery Partners of Vermont and allied witnesses told the committee rising demand and insurer/operating costs make recent one-time funds essential; they asked to level-fund recovery centers at $800,000 and defended $300,000 for recovery residences, while noting department and rural-transformation funds as possible alternatives.

Susie Walker, executive director of Recovery Partners of Vermont, asked lawmakers to "Please level fund recovery centers with another $800,000" from prevention funds to maintain recovery-coaching, outreach and operations at centers facing increased demand and greater complexity in services. Walker said recovery centers provide life-saving services, peer support and connections to housing and other community partners, and warned that losing the funding would force curtailment of essential services.

A second witness, identifying himself as Jeff, echoed the importance of centers to recovery residences and said there are currently 150 certified recovery beds statewide, with a departmental goal of 400 certified beds by 2030. Jeff described reengagement beds available through treatment partners as an important safety net and supported anything in the governor's budget that would help expand certified residences.

Committee members noted the $800,000 for centers and $300,000 for recovery residences were one-time appropriations in the FY26 budget. Witnesses said that was correct and that reintroducing recurring funding is the purpose of their request; they also flagged alternative funding avenues (for example, rural transformation funds) that could help scale services if committee priorities require shifting resources.

The witnesses did not present a formal motion and no committee vote occurred. Committee members asked about grant execution; witnesses reported grants had been executed recently and operations reimbursements were being processed quarterly. The committee deferred decisions to later budget deliberations.