Committee refines draft disaster‑relief payments for farms and forestry, drops income‑modifier for next draft

A legislative committee discussed revisions to a draft bill that would create a "security special fund" to make payments to farms and forestry operations after weather‑related disaster events.

The committee's legislative staff said they had reviewed the existing statute for language on fire events and therefore proposed using both the terms "forest fire" and "wildfire" in the bill. "I wasn't able to get in contact with anybody from FPR, but I looked at the statute. And forest fire or wildfire is used in statute, so I just use both terms," the legislative staff said.

Why it matters: the bill would establish a state fund intended to provide relief payments to agricultural and forestry operators after qualifying weather or fire events. Committee members debated eligibility rules, how awards would be calculated, and administrative triggers that would limit when applications are processed — matters that affect how many applicants the program could reasonably serve and how quickly aid would be distributed.

Key provisions discussed

- Eligible events and wording: Committee staff recommended that the bill explicitly cover both "forest fire" and "wildfire" to match statutory language and encompass fire incidents that occur in meadows, pastures or open areas as well as in forests.

- Award cap and funding rule: The draft retains a cap that limits the annual award per qualified applicant to $150,000, and ties total annual awards to 5% of the undesignated and nonreserved balance in the fund — but in all cases no applicant would receive more than $150,000 per fiscal year. Staff clarified the $150,000 cap is measured against the state fiscal year.

- "Grants" retitled as "payments": The text was revised throughout to replace the term "grant" with "payment."

- Application timing and secretary discretion: The draft keeps an open application model — "application may be made at any time" — and allows the secretary to close applications only when appropriated funds for the fiscal year have been awarded, giving agency staff discretion over how funds are allocated through the year.

- Reporting and eligibility documentation: The committee noted the year‑end reporting provision should require farm or forestry operation income and expense reports. The draft also defines "person" broadly (including individuals and business organizations) so that owners operating as LLCs or corporations remain eligible.

Board membership and conflict of interest

The draft adds the commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation (or designee) to the special fund review board and proposes adding two forestry operators to the board's membership, while removing a prior reference that assumed those operators were recipients of previous relief (the draft removes that assumption). The bill would adopt the state ethics code definition of conflict of interest and give the secretary discretion to appoint alternates to preserve a quorum.

Debate and unresolved issues

- Income‑based modifier: Senator Hardy had proposed a modifier that would scale awards based on an operation's annual net income relative to a median. Several committee members and witnesses, and representatives of groups such as NOFA, expressed concerns that (1) the state lacks a reliable median net income benchmark for all farms and forestry operations, (2) an income test could add administrative complexity and delay relief, and (3) it could inadvertently disadvantage smaller operations. After discussion the committee directed staff to remove the income‑modifier language from the next draft.

- Disaster‑declaration trigger: Members raised concerns that an open application system could be inundated by many small, localized claims after frequent localized events (for example, short intense storms that flatten a small number of acres). Multiple members asked whether a formal declaration — at the town, county, or board level — should be required to trigger application review. The committee agreed to follow up on whether existing draft language already requires or allows a declaration and to consult staff (one participant suggested checking with Michael Grady).

- Eligibility of small operations and AMT requirement: Members discussed whether very small operations (for example, a small sugarbush operation) would be required to follow applicable agricultural management/registration rules (referred to in the discussion as subject to the AMTs). Staff said applicants must be farming under the relevant reporting/registration requirements.

- Program funding and dedication: Committee members suggested exploring dedicated revenue sources for the fund to ensure sufficiency (examples raised included small surcharges or other dedicated streams). Members also expressed skepticism about whether a dedicated fund could remain protected from future reallocation and noted that larger dedicated revenue would be needed in the event of intensive multi‑site disasters like those in 2023–24.

Next steps and follow‑up

The committee directed staff to remove the income‑modifier language for the next draft and to follow up on (1) whether the bill already includes a disaster‑declaration trigger, (2) how to define eligibility for forestry contractors and logging operations, and (3) funding options. The committee planned to hear from the forest products association next on the agenda.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to return with revised language addressing those points; no formal vote was recorded during the discussion excerpt.