The Vermont House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry committee met to review a long list of bills and agreed to request a staff side‑by‑side comparison of a Senate farm‑security bill, S.60, and a House companion, H.229, with an eye toward amending rather than re‑drafting if the committee decides to advance language this session.

The committee chair and members said the two measures appear similar in many respects but that the House version includes some provisions offering relief to loggers and parts of the forest products industry that do not appear in S.60. Committee members asked staff to prepare a side‑by‑side and come back with specifics so members can determine whether to amend S.60 or move forward with the House draft.

Why it matters: the bills aim to create or tighten pathways for farm security and protections related to agricultural land; differences between the House and Senate versions will shape what the House may send to the Senate or request as amendments. Committee members noted funding and Senate willingness to take up amended language remain uncertain, so timing and strategy matter.

Details and process: committee staff (Mike) agreed to produce the side‑by‑side comparison and to schedule follow‑up committee time for testimony and discussion. Several members proposed forming small subgroups to dig into policy components — for example, pairing members who have already worked on housing‑in‑current‑use questions with representatives of housing and natural resources agencies and stakeholder boards such as the Housing Conservation Board and relevant natural resources councils. Members named Greg, Michelle, Heather and Chad as potential subgroup participants to work on the housing component of current‑use bills.

Members debated whether to try to pass language now and send it to the Senate or to build momentum over the summer and transmit in January. One rationale for waiting is procedural: a bill sent to the Senate and placed “on the wall” over the summer might receive less attention than a fresh filing in January. Others suggested the House could forward an amended S.60 to give Senate counterparts time to review during their slower periods.

Committee staff and members also noted outreach to local officials is still incomplete. The committee said it has not yet collected testimony from municipal listers, town clerks, or assessors about administrative burdens for current‑use changes. Members reported receiving a written communique from a state chief assessor (Tom Vickery) offering perspectives the committee has not yet heard and suggested inviting assessors and other municipal officials to provide input.

Next steps: staff will produce the side‑by‑side and the committee will schedule dates for testimony and subgroup meetings. No formal motion or vote was recorded during the discussion.