Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Food Security Local Economy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House panel splits on Farm to Food Bank grant program; bill fails second reading

2675021 · March 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 649, a Farm to Food Bank Grant Program to buy Montana‑grown food for food banks, failed second reading after members expressed support for the concept but concern about a $3 million general fund appropriation.

House Bill 649, sponsored by Representative Fient, would establish a Farm to Food Bank Grant Program to connect Montana producers with food banks and regional hubs, create grant criteria and reporting requirements, and include a proposed appropriation of about $3 million over the biennium. The sponsor said the bill would create new local markets for Montana fruit, vegetables, meat, eggs and dairy while assisting food‑insecure residents.

Supporters described the program as a low‑cost way to strengthen local food economies and provide healthy food to communities, noting local examples such as the Arlee Community Development Center’s food bank purchases of locally produced eggs. Representative Thang urged colleagues to “go green.” Representative Fient said the bill’s administration costs were cut from 20% to 5% in committee.

Opponents pointed to the overall state budget and questioned appropriating $3 million from the general fund for the program. Representative Fielder said, “$3,000,000 is a lot to ask out of his general fund,” and voted no on fiscal grounds. The clerk recorded the final second reading vote as 48 ayes and 51 noes; House Bill 649 failed second reading in the House.

Discussion centered on balancing support for local agriculture and food security against general fund priorities and the timing of other state expenditures. The bill’s sponsor emphasized the program’s local benefits, but a majority of House members voted no on second reading and the bill did not advance.