Committee drafts appropriations letter urging higher funding for food security, conservation districts and working-lands programs

The Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry committee reviewed a draft letter to the Appropriations Committee that recommends restoring or increasing funding for multiple agriculture and food-security programs and asked staff to finalize language before a formal vote, which the committee postponed until the chair returned.

The draft letter seeks to transmit the committee’s priorities—requests heard during testimony and discussion—to appropriators. Members discussed specific dollar figures, where they appear in the governor’s recommended budget, and which asks are intended as base funding versus one-time support.

Committee members focused on several specific items: a small-farm diversification program that committee members said was cut to a $150,000 pilot after an original $500,000 request; a Natural Resources Conservation Council (NRCC) request for $3,000,000 to stabilize district workforce capacity (members noted last fiscal-year base funding of $612,000 plus a one-time $100,000); and a Vermonters Feeding Vermonters request that members described as seeking a $2,000,000 base plus additional one-time funds to support response readiness. Members also discussed “Crop Cash” and “Crop Cash Plus” programs used at farmers markets and the possibility of naming both in the letter.

"Any eligible vendor, so any vendor that is providing for selling fruits and vegetables can accept crop cash coupons," said Joanna (speaker). "The Crop Cash Plus expansion would expand that to any vendor that is selling any SNAP-eligible item."

Heather (staff member) summarized the draft’s structure and next steps: "The first section of this is the things that are in the governor's recommended budget. We, as far as I know, are happy with all of those things... and then the second section is items that are not in or are partially in." She told members she would edit the letter while the chair stepped out and circulate a revised draft for a vote when the chair returned.

Members debated how aggressively to press dollar amounts in the letter. They noted the governor’s recommended budget includes smaller amounts (for example, a $500,000 base referenced for one program) while agencies and advocates requested substantially higher sums. One member described how state funds can leverage federal and competitive grant dollars, arguing that state investments often multiply federalgrant access; in committee discussion a member summarized that NRCC assistance tends to bring roughly nine dollars of federal and other grant funding for each dollar of state funding.

The committee asked staff to add clarifying language in the letter about how particular programs support both farmers and food security—for example, noting that the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program sources from local/regional farms—and to include lists of advocates and partner organizations behind particular asks. Members also asked staff to mark which requests are intended as base funding versus one-time appropriations.

No formal committee endorsement of the letter was recorded before the chair stepped out. Members agreed to wait for the chair’s return to take a formal vote.

The committee’s drafting session also recorded several program- and project-level examples that informed members’ priorities: sawmill and small-grant projects funded through the working-lands initiative (members said about 15 small grants were issued under the pilot funding), a small-farm example involving poultry and on‑farm processing, and local requests tied to flood resilience. Members asked staff to cite last fiscal-year base amounts (for conservation districts, cited in discussion as $612,000 base plus one-time funding) so appropriators would see the history behind their recommendation.

The committee did not take a final vote at the meeting. Staff were directed to incorporate language changes discussed in the session, insert partner/advocate names and clarifying numbers where available, and present the revised letter for a formal vote once the chair returned.

Ending: The committee paused the vote and will reconvene the drafting item when the chair returns; staff were assigned to finalize edits and to add requested clarifications and partner lists.