MONTPELIER — The House Appropriations Committee passed a state budget Monday for the next fiscal year that is radically different from the one proposed by Gov. James Douglas in January.

In one sign of how difficult it has been to reach an agreement on that plan for spending more than $4.4 billion — about $1.1 billion of which is in state General Fund money — all four of the Republicans on the 11-member committee voted against the bill. Rep. Martha Heath, a Westford Democrat, said it is the first time the House committee has not passed a budget or "big bill" unanimously in the half-decade she has been chairwoman.

While Douglas' originally proposed budget would have relied on level-funding schools — requiring districts to either cut costs or raise local property taxes — the House budget instead relies on $24 million in new taxes. While the exact nature of those tax increases is not yet known, another House committee is considering income tax proposals among other ideas.

Another change would be the number of layoffs of state workers required under the competing budgets. Douglas originally proposed about 600 layoffs to save about $17 million. The House committee proposed $14 million in savings from some as-yet-undetermined combination of cost-savings, state worker concessions and — possibly — layoffs.

The spending plan is expected on the floor of the House by the end of the week. From there it will go on to the Senate and eventually the governor.

Democratic committee leaders said they were glad they could propose a budget with fewer cuts in programs for the elderly and the infirm — and one that would still fill a $229 million budget gap. But the governor is likely to make opposition to new broad-based taxes known between now and when the Legislature completes its work. Democrats said again Monday that Douglas' spending plan would have led to increased property taxes.

"Our job was to present a budget we could feel proud of," said Democratic Rep. Mark Larson of Burlington. "The rest of the process will play out as it should."

Not everyone on the committee agreed that they could be proud of the budget. Some of the four Republicans who voted against the measure said there are too many unknowns in the budget, including the shape of the tax increase.

"It's a hard decision to vote no on a bill you worked so hard on," said Republican Rep. John Morley of Orleans.

"We are doing it backwards," Rep. Joseph Acinapura, a Brandon Republican, said of budgeting before the tax increase is fleshed out. "I just know we are going to have a revenue downgrade in April (and by then) the budget will be out of my hands."

But Democrats in the Legislature said in order to complete their work they must stay on track. And the revenue increase will be worked out in other committees and on the floor, they said.

Lawmakers also used about $156 million worth of stimulus or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 money in their budget while the governor had originally proposed using less than that.

As the House committee completed its work on the budget and prepared to vote, James Reardon, the commissioner of finance and management, offered an alternative education spending proposal.

Under that plan the Douglas administration would acknowledge that the savings originally included in its budget from changes to education funding are not possible this year — particularly since most school districts have voted on their budgets.

Instead, under the new proposal, federal stimulus money would be used to fill some of the education spending needs for this year. But the governor's proposal to level-fund schools from one fiscal year to the next would be revived for fiscal year 2011 and income sensitivity — the program allowing most residents to pay property taxes based on income not property value — would be curtailed. Then, in 2012, a new school funding system would be put in place based on the results of a panel studying the problem, and legislative and administrative ideas, Reardon said.

"We have got to get past the notion that long-term planning is Memorial Day," Reardon said. The administration did not offer its proposal earlier because stimulus fund details and other information including the House proposal was not available earlier, he said.

But lawmakers said the administration's proposal was offered too late and they did not want to delay the budget further for an administration proposal that was offered minutes before their vote.

"Our schedule has been clear for a very long time," Larson said.

"Every time we lay out a plan they want to talk about process," Reardon countered. "I am interested in substance."

The House budget was essentially built from scratch, between discarding more than $60 million in savings from changing how schools are funded and getting more details about how much stimulus money would come from the feds.

There were other changes as well in the House Appropriations Committee budget.

— About $10 million in General Fund money will be made or saved in Medicaid through increase co-payments in the state prescription program for seniors, reducing the nursing home reimbursement increase, reducing how much hospitals get and other changes. Most of those are similar to proposals by the governor but do not go as far.

— About 51 state jobs will be eliminated through programmatic changes. Those positions is separate from the positions to be reduced purely to reduce the cost of payroll, and are about nine fewer than the governor's proposed budget would have eliminated. A position in the Department of Corrections for running programs for women and families would remain, and an environmental lab with eight positions would also remain in the budget.