Committee reviews S60 changes to create farm-and-forestry payments program, delays vote

A legislative committee reviewed a revised draft of S60 on a proposed farm-and-forestry payments program but did not vote, instead asking staff to return with clarified language and scheduling a brief follow-up vote within days.

Michael Grady, presenting the draft, told the committee, “You should be looking at draft 2.2, then April 21 date in the 01:15 time stamp.” He walked members through changes that include replacing the word “grant” with “payment,” renaming the Farm Security Special Fund to reflect “farm and forestry operations,” and clarifying eligible weather conditions as those resulting from a forest fire or wildfire event.

Committee members pressed for specifics on funding and administration. The draft would allow awards up to 5% of the undesignated and unreserved funds at the start of the fiscal year, with a per-qualified-applicant cap of $150,000 annually. The committee also added a provision to allow up to $67,000 from the fund to be used for administrative purposes by the overseeing agency. A committee member summarized the intent: the 5% calculation should be based on the original fund balance at the start of the fiscal year rather than the remainder after earlier awards.

Members debated whether a new board should administer award decisions or whether existing agencies should do so. The draft creates a board that would include the commissioner of the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation (or their designee) and two forestry operators, with appointments made by the secretary of agriculture. Representative Morgan said, “I have reservations about the board. I just don't know that it's most expedient, as far as getting money out to the people.” Other members noted stakeholders disagree: agency staff prefer direct agency administration while farmer coalition representatives have pushed for a board.

The committee discussed eligibility of forestry-specific losses. The draft clarifies that payments may reimburse beneficiaries for items including repair of washed-out or otherwise damaged logging roads and loss or devaluation of harvested timber that cannot be accessed because of flooding or similar weather events. Michael Grady and other discussants described how some wood species can devalue quickly when left at landings (for example, pine susceptible to blue stain and insect damage) and said the list of reimbursable losses is intended to cover those situations.

On process, the draft returns to language allowing applications to be filed at any time; the secretary may close applications only after award of all appropriated funds for the fiscal year. The draft also includes expedited review timelines for the board—review within 15 days and payment movement within 15 days of approval—to accelerate distribution.

No formal motion or roll-call vote was taken; the committee identified three specific edits to include in the next draft (allow $67,000 for agency administration, strike a median-net-income modifier, and clarify that the 5% base is the undesignated and unreserved funds at the start of the fiscal year) and instructed staff to redraft. The chair said staff and stakeholders will be consulted further and that the committee will reconvene briefly in the next day or two to vote on a revised draft.

The discussion also noted reporting expectations: the board is required to recommend ways to improve fund effectiveness annually, and members asked that future reports clarify the source and use of funds.

The committee paused the S60 discussion to await another scheduled presentation (S45) and arranged a short follow-up meeting in the coming days to consider the revised draft.