Joint Fiscal Office presents FY27 legislative estimate of $25.7 million; explains re-basing and internal service adjustments
February 12, 2026 | Appropriations, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Scott Moore, vice finance manager for the Joint Fiscal Office, presented the legislative branch's FY27 budget packet to the House Appropriations Committee on Feb. 11, estimating total costs of $25,685,794 — about $1.1 million above the FY26 adjusted appropriation.
Moore said the packet was prepared with budget guidance that emphasized a 3 percent target increase while accounting for estimated health-care and pay-act impacts. He explained a $1.5 million one-time addition in the prior year had been backed out so lawmakers could compare "apples to apples." He described a $166,000 difference between the figures presented to the Joint Legislative Management Committee and the current packet as a result of final internal service fund and health-care cost numbers.
"We're estimating, $25,685,794," Moore told the committee, and he noted that about 88 percent of the reported overall budget growth is tied to pay-act salary and benefit changes, with the remainder attributable to IT operating expenses and multi-year contract escalators.
Moore also described an internal reallocation of staff and dollars — roughly $900,000 and several positions — from the general assembly budget into Legislative Council and the Joint Fiscal Office to reflect a clearer division of fiscal and legislative support responsibilities. He said that accounting treatment produces percentage increases and decreases across departmental columns but does not change the total legislative burden borne by the branch.
Committee members asked about single point of entry security and whether costs were included. Moore and other staff said the physical equipment is already in place and any additional expense would be personnel costs (overtime or staffing) and is not included in the FY27 packet; such costs could be proposed in a future budget adjustment act.
Moore closed by pointing the committee to a line-by-line appendix of budget items and reminding members that the packet is pre-BAA; if internal service fund changes exceed certain thresholds, the JLMC can be reconvened to review increases.
The committee thanked presenters and recessed for a break.
Moore said the packet was prepared with budget guidance that emphasized a 3 percent target increase while accounting for estimated health-care and pay-act impacts. He explained a $1.5 million one-time addition in the prior year had been backed out so lawmakers could compare "apples to apples." He described a $166,000 difference between the figures presented to the Joint Legislative Management Committee and the current packet as a result of final internal service fund and health-care cost numbers.
"We're estimating, $25,685,794," Moore told the committee, and he noted that about 88 percent of the reported overall budget growth is tied to pay-act salary and benefit changes, with the remainder attributable to IT operating expenses and multi-year contract escalators.
Moore also described an internal reallocation of staff and dollars — roughly $900,000 and several positions — from the general assembly budget into Legislative Council and the Joint Fiscal Office to reflect a clearer division of fiscal and legislative support responsibilities. He said that accounting treatment produces percentage increases and decreases across departmental columns but does not change the total legislative burden borne by the branch.
Committee members asked about single point of entry security and whether costs were included. Moore and other staff said the physical equipment is already in place and any additional expense would be personnel costs (overtime or staffing) and is not included in the FY27 packet; such costs could be proposed in a future budget adjustment act.
Moore closed by pointing the committee to a line-by-line appendix of budget items and reminding members that the packet is pre-BAA; if internal service fund changes exceed certain thresholds, the JLMC can be reconvened to review increases.
The committee thanked presenters and recessed for a break.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
