House Appropriations Committee hears S.60 to create Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund

Montpelier — The House Appropriations Committee on April 30, 2025, considered S.60, a bill to establish a Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund administered by the Agency of Agriculture to provide direct payments to farms and forestry operations for losses from eligible weather conditions.

Committee counsel Michael Grady described the bill as creating “a special fund at the Agency of Agriculture to provide financial assistance in the form of direct payments to farmers and forestry operations that suffered eligible losses,” and said the measure adds a new subchapter to Title 6, chapter 207 and borrows structural elements from the Working Lands enterprise board model.

The bill is intended to fill gaps in existing federal and state programs, committee members were told. Grady and others said federal crop insurance often does not serve small or diversified operations and that the fund would offer a quicker, administratively streamlined source of relief for events that are not part of a federal disaster declaration.

Under the draft language reviewed by the committee, eligible weather conditions include high winds, excessive moisture and intense precipitation or flooding, extreme heat, abnormal freeze, wildfire, hail, drought and other severe growing conditions. Eligible reimbursements would cover wages or compensation, lost income from destroyed crops, livestock or timber, debt payments, costs for new planting, livestock feed replacement, infrastructure and equipment repair, and repair of farm or logging roads, among other losses identified by the secretary after consultation with the review board.

Applications: The bill requires a streamlined application that includes a brief description of damage, attestation of the eligible weather condition, an estimate of losses, and a year‑end report of operations and income and expenses. The review board is to evaluate administratively complete applications by majority vote within 15 days of receipt and recommend awards to the secretary; the secretary must issue awards within 15 days of the board recommendation, producing a potential 30‑day turnaround from complete application to award.

Funding and award limits: The draft ties the maximum award to the fund balance. Awards may reimburse up to 50% of unreimbursed, uninsured or otherwise uncovered losses. The bill sets a per‑applicant cap tied to the fund balance at the start of the fiscal year — up to 5% of undesignated and unreserved funds for that year — and also includes a backstop ceiling of $150,000 per qualified applicant per year in the current draft. Committee fiscal staff told members that a one‑time $1,000,000 transfer to the fund appeared in a recommended budget package under consideration; that transfer would set a practical ceiling of roughly $50,000 per applicant under the 5% rule if the $1 million were the available balance.

Administration, board and costs: The secretary may use up to $67,500 annually from the fund for administration and was assumed to support a half‑time FTE in the fiscal estimate presented. The bill creates a review board within the Agency of Agriculture composed of the secretary (or designee), the commissioner of forests and parks (or designee), the state recovery officer (or designee), three representatives of agricultural organizations with expertise across farm sizes and types, two farmers who previously received relief funding, and representatives of forestry operators. Terms vary by seat (one to three years) and the secretary may appoint alternates to avoid conflicts of interest; the bill references the state code of ethics for conflict rules.

Fiscal note and per diems: Tim Burnett of the Joint Fiscal Office said the per‑meeting cost for board members is estimated at about $870 (that figure includes a statutory $50 per‑diem plus mileage and other reimbursements) and that the total administrative cost depends on how often the board meets. Burnett also noted the $1 million transfer in the SAC (Ways and Means) recommended budget as the principal appropriation currently associated with the bill.

Questions and concerns: Committee members asked about repeated payments to the same farms in recurring flood‑prone locations, potential “double‑dipping” with loan programs in Commerce, and guardrails for applicants who might not have taken mitigation steps for repeatedly flooded fields. Grady and other presenters said program rules and eligibility guardrails could be refined in amendments to address those concerns.

Outcome: The committee discussed the bill and its fiscal estimate but did not vote. Members said they would seek additional clarification on funding sources, administration and possible amendments before any decision.

What’s next: Committee staff and bill sponsors will refine language and provide clarification on administrative funding, per‑diems and any overlap with other state programs; no vote was held at the April 30 hearing.