Committee reviews Senate change to H.398 that alters disaster loan eligibility review by VEDA

Members of the House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development on May 8 examined a Senate amendment to H.398 that would change how the Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA) determines eligibility for a disaster recovery loan fund.

The amendment would remove a House-added provision that barred businesses from receiving disaster recovery loans if they already had received disaster recovery financial assistance from the state for the same event, and would instead require VEDA to "consider whether a business has received disaster recovery financial assistance from the state for the same disaster event" when deciding on loans, legislative counsel Cameron Wood said.

The change matters because committee members said the loan fund is limited and the original House language made eligibility binary. The Senate Finance Committee, Wood said, viewed the House provision as "a little too strict" because the loans must be repaid and the Senate did not want to categorically preclude entities from access to funds.

Committee members raised two recurring concerns. One member asked whether the Senate language would increase the administrative burden on VEDA by forcing staff to gather and compare records about prior state assistance during an emergency. As one committee member put it, "Doesn't this new language put more of a burden on data that they wouldn't have had under our proposal, which was much more flip the switch on or flip the switch off?" The comment was directed to Cameron Wood and recorded in committee discussion.

Another member emphasized the operational reality that applications and decisions would occur during the immediate aftermath of a disaster, when speed matters. That member said, "This would all be done in the aftermath and perhaps the immediate aftermath of the disaster that everybody's hustling around trying to respond to." Several members noted that giving VEDA discretion could help because different situations will present different facts.

Wood said he had not heard testimony from VEDA in committee on this amendment and had not discussed the change with the authority directly. Committee members suggested inviting VEDA staff to a follow-up briefing; one member offered to bring VEDA into a Zoom meeting the next morning.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on the amendment during the meeting. Wood told members the matter "will be up for action tomorrow," indicating the committee expected to consider the amendment again at its next convening.

The committee returned to other scheduled business after discussing the amendment, and planned to reconvene the following morning before the floor session to continue consideration.