Lawmakers, Agency Staff Flag Gaps in S.60 Farm Security Special Fund Proposal

The committee heard agency testimony and lawmaker questions on S.60 on the need for an agricultural disaster-relief program and several gaps the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets says must be fixed before the bill could operate as intended.

Nicole Dubuque, chief operating officer for the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, told the committee: "I think we all agree that there's a gap" in immediate disaster relief for agriculture, but she warned multiple parts of the bill as written would limit timely or equitable payments.

The agency raised four central concerns. First, the bill’s definitions appear to exclude many one-off farm-structure events — such as barn collapse or fire — that agency staff said are common and often uninsured. "Those structures are not frequently insured because it's very expensive to insure them," Dubuque said, noting the program as drafted may not cover those losses.

Second, S.60 creates a Farm Security Special Fund to award grants after review by a board; Dubuque cautioned that using a review board could trigger open-meeting requirements. "We would have to host the review board meetings, and the public could watch those," she said, and she flagged risks from disclosing applicants' personal financial information if meetings are public.

Third, the bill relies in part on applicants’ Schedule F tax forms to determine income eligibility. Dubuque said that would exclude many farms: "Not all farms that file a Schedule F would be under the RAPs, and not all farms that comply with the RAPs would file a Schedule F," meaning LLCs and other farm business forms might be left out unless alternative documentation is accepted.

Fourth, the bill ties awards to grants and reimbursement processes that may be slow and impractical for small operators. Dubuque described the distinction between grants (reimbursement after work is done) and beneficiary payments (up-front aid), saying, "As far as giving the farmer cash flow on the front end to be able to make the fixes, I think we would wanna talk about it being more of a beneficiary payment than a grant." Committee members and farmers pressed for a faster, more flexible payment mechanism.

Lawmakers and witnesses also discussed program structure and funding limits. Committee members raised concerns that a first-come, first-served grant process would advantage the most organized applicants and could exhaust limited funds quickly. The bill sets individual awards "up to $150,000," and Dubuque and other members urged the committee to add parameters so a single large award would not deplete the fund.

The agency said capacity is another constraint. Dubuque warned that the agency lacks extra staff to run a wide-scale, rapid-pay program and that board meetings and grant administration could slow delivery: "Grants can take a while," she said, adding that review-board logistics and open-meeting posting requirements could add time to payments.

Committee members discussed federal funding already authorized by Congress. A witness noted a $220 million federal allocation for disaster assistance that will be distributed to states through USDA and the Farm Service Agency; the witness cautioned that federal rules include forestry and that state eligibility definitions must be reconciled with USDA rules if federal funds are accepted. Dubuque said the agency has not yet received Vermont’s share and was meeting with USDA to learn more.

Members identified technical design choices the committee must resolve: whether payments should be grants or beneficiary payments; how to document and verify losses (and which tax forms or alternative proofs to accept); whether the review process should be public or handled in executive sessions to protect financial privacy; how to set award formulas so funds stretch across a wide disaster; and whether forestry should be explicitly included in S.60 to match anticipated federal funding.

The committee requested additional information, including examples of how the Farm Service Agency and other existing federal or state programs structure payments, and signaled it will take further testimony from forestry and parks officials at a subsequent meeting. The bill will return to committee for technical fixes and further hearings before any final votes.