Senate Agriculture Committee advances S.60 to create Farm Security Special Fund, seeks $7.5 million transfer

The Senate Committee on Agriculture voted to pass S.60, a bill that would create a Farm Security Special Fund at the Agency of Agriculture to provide financial relief to Vermont farmers for uninsured losses from extreme weather, and approved removing an appropriation in favor of a transfer and cutting the bill's appropriation section. The committee recorded yea votes from Senators Norris, Watson, Bruce, Lyons, Westman, Brennan and Perchley.

The bill would authorize grants of up to 50% of uninsured losses for eligible weather events — including high winds, extreme heat, flooding, abnormal freezing, widespread fire, drought or other severe conditions as determined by a board established by the Agency of Agriculture — with a maximum of $150,000 per farm per year. "S.60 creates [a] farm security special fund at the Agency of Agriculture to provide financial relief for those Vermont farmers that experience extreme weather events," Senator Joe Major said during the committee hearing.

The committee chair said the panel modeled the program on the state—s previous BGAP program and aimed for quick distribution: applications would be reviewed within 15 days of a completed filing and the secretary of agriculture would make awards. "One of the key things about this as well is it will be a 15 day turnaround from the time the application is submitted to being reviewed," the chair said.

Why it matters: Vermont lawmakers and committee members cited recent weather losses and long-term trends in the agriculture sector. "In 2023 alone, Vermont farms experienced over $16,000,000 in losses due to weather related events," Senator Major said, adding that weather impacts affected roughly 27,000 acres and that the number of dairy farms fell by 37 between 2012 and 2022. Committee members said S.60 is intended as a partial stopgap where federal programs or crop insurance do not fully cover losses.

Key details discussed at the hearing: - Funding request: $7.5 million from the general fund for FY2026 to seed the Farm Security Special Fund. The committee discussed removing the appropriation language and treating the money as a transfer in budget documents. - Eligibility and awards: Grants up to 50% of uninsured or uncovered losses, capped at $150,000 per farm per year; the secretary will base criteria in part on farm income and a board appointed by the secretary will determine eligibility. - Administration and timing: The program is modeled on BGAP forms and procedures; committee members said the agency already has templates and that the program could be implemented quickly after board appointments. The bill was written to take effect July 1, 2025. - BGAP precedent: Committee members referenced the state—s BGAP program as a precedent. The chair said BGAP delivered about $2.8 million to 84 farmers (about $33,333 per event) and that S.60 was designed to operate similarly while not duplicating existing insurance or relief.

Committee action and amendment: Joint Fiscal Office staff described the fiscal note as straightforward and flagged that per diem costs for the board would be nominal. The committee moved to remove section 3 (the appropriation section) and to change language on page 3, line 18 from "appropriated" to "transferred" to align with state accounting practice; members voted to pass the bill favorably with that change. The clerk was directed to draft the technical amendment language.

Next steps and context: Committee members noted the bill is not in the governor—s recommended budget and discussed informal indications that limited state funds might be available; one committee member said roughly $2 million had been mentioned but not pledged. The committee—s favorable report advances S.60 to the next legislative stage, and budget staff indicated that, if appropriations remain, the committee typically moves funding language into omnibus budget bills later in the session.

Votes at a glance: Committee recorded recorded yea votes from Senators Norris, Watson, Bruce, Lyons, Westman, Brennan and Perchley; no nay or abstentions were recorded in the transcript.

Funding, eligibility, administration and the short turnaround timeline were the principal points of discussion; committee members emphasized the bill is intended to complement — not replace — existing insurance and federal aid.