Amendment to S.60 would require farms to list state grants, prompt concern about scope and delay

Legislative Council staff and state representatives discussed an amendment to S.60 that would require applicants for disaster assistance to list any state grants or loans they received in the past five years.

The provision, introduced as part of Representative Granting’s amendment to S.60, would add a subdivision directing the Agency of Agriculture’s streamlined application to include a list of state grants or loans, with amounts, sources and purposes. Mike O'Grady, Legislative Council, said, "This will inform the secretary and the review board regarding any award, but there is no disqualification or mandatory reduction in award. It is just an information collection provision."

The change is intended to give the secretary and a review board more information when they consider awards for farm and forestry disaster relief; it does not, as written in the amendment, automatically reduce an award or disqualify an applicant. Maggie Kistner of NOFA‑Vermont said the organization "is fine with this amendment, the way it's written, we'd support it and, we've looked at it and we're happy with it. That's basically all I wanna say."

Lawmakers raised concerns about the provision’s scope and potential effect on timeliness. Representative Byrd said she was "a little surprised" the amendment would ask for five years of state grant records and warned the requirement could slow an expedited process: "it just seems unnecessary to me." Representative Dawson described the sponsor’s original concern as preventing "what she called double dipping, getting paid twice for the same disaster," and said earlier sponsor language would have limited repeat awards unless mitigation had occurred.

Staff and witnesses clarified limits in the amendment as drafted. Mike O'Grady and other staff noted the amendment, as written, limits the disclosure request to state grants and loans; it would not, on its face, require applicants to disclose federal assistance, philanthropic aid, or commercial loans. A coalition partner who spoke later said coalition members were comfortable with the current language, but several participants suggested confining the lookback or limiting disclosures to disaster‑related funding to reduce irrelevant reporting.

Participants agreed to consult the amendment sponsor and coalition members before further action. No formal vote on the amendment was recorded during the discussion, and the committee paused to allow the sponsor and stakeholders to consider narrower language or technical changes before proceeding.