Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farm Security Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews competing S.60 and H.229 to create farm security fund; H.229 adds forestry
Summary
Legislative counsel outlined differences between S.60 and H.229 to the House Agriculture Committee, including H.229's inclusion of forestry operations, different application and review requirements, and divergent approaches to initial funding and reporting.
Michael Grady, legislative counsel, briefed the House Agriculture Committee on the differences between two bills that would create a farm security fund to provide grants for losses to agricultural operations caused by eligible weather events.
The briefing highlighted the bills' most consequential differences: H.229 expands the program to include forestry operations and uses the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation definition of "forestry operation" (10 V.S.A. §2602); the bills differ on required application materials, review timelines, board membership, reporting, and funding intent.
Why it matters: the bills set the scope of a new relief program and how quickly and with what funding it might be available to help farms and forestry operations recover from weather-related losses.
Grady said, “I'm going to run through a quick side by side of s 60 and h 2 29,” and noted that H.229 repeatedly inserts “and forestry operations” where S.60 does not. He summarized committee changes made in the Senate, saying, “the committee downstairs did not like distinguishing between small, medium and large farms, and any reference to that was removed.” He also said the senate committee removed two findings about state funding ensuring viability and “continuously investing in farms.”
Key differences explained to the committee: - Scope and definitions: H.229 explicitly includes forestry operations throughout the bill and adopts the forestry definition from 10 V.S.A. §2602. S.60 confines the fund to farms only. - Application documentation: S.60 requires submission of a Schedule F; H.229 would accept a year-end financial statement instead. - Review and award timelines: H.229 gives the review board one week to review an administratively complete application and then two weeks from the board’s recommendation for the secretary to make an award. The Senate version moved both timeframes to 15 days. - Board membership: H.229 would add forestry operator members and frames board representatives as persons with experience receiving relief funding; questions were raised about whether that should be limited to recipients of state relief programs or any state source. - Reporting: S.60 required an annual report to the General Assembly documenting Vermont farm financial losses averaged over the previous three years; that reporting requirement is not present in H.229. - Funding: S.60 as passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee included $7,500,000 in general funds for the security fund, but the Senate Appropriations Committee removed that appropriation and left funding unspecified, saying it would be addressed in a larger appropriations bill. H.229 includes a funding intent and a report tied to future appropriations in fiscal year 2027 based on average losses.
Committee members asked practical questions about board member eligibility and conflicts of interest if board members had previously received relief. Grady advised that any potential conflict would likely be considered by the State Ethics Commission and that members would “have to remove themselves from review of the application for assistance” if a conflict existed.
Representative Bossa questioned removing findings that framed the fund’s purpose, saying the deleted language “feels important to me” and arguing findings can clarify legislative intent for outside readers. Grady responded that legislative counsel generally limits findings to factual assertions with documented evidence, avoiding prescriptive “the state should” language.
No formal vote was taken on either bill during this session. Committee members agreed to take testimony during the week from farmers and farm advocates and noted there will be testimony from the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation at an upcoming meeting to inform whether forestry operations should be included and how the fund should be staffed, funded and governed.
Ending: The committee deferred further action pending testimony from agricultural stakeholders and a scheduled departmental presentation; members indicated they will revisit the bills and funding timing after receiving those inputs.
