State outlines BGAP flood-recovery awards, monitoring and set‑asides for agriculture

Brett Long, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Economic Development, told the Agriculture Committee on Thursday, Jan. 23 that the Business Emergency Gap Assistance Program, known as BGAP, was created to get recovery funds quickly to businesses and nonprofits damaged by flooding.

"So yes, I'm here to talk about the business emergency gap assistance program, which is really kind of 3 programs wrapped into 1," Long said, describing BGAP’s structure and who is eligible.

The BGAP program began as a flood-recovery fund and has been run in separate rounds. Long told the committee BGAP 1.0 started with a roughly $20,000,000 appropriation plus about $436,000 from license-plate and other proceeds, for a total near $20,436,000. BGAP 1.0 awarded about 560 grants to 538 businesses, with an average award near $33,000; applicants self-classified industries and about 134 awards were identified as agriculture.

Why it matters: the program directs federal and state resources to businesses and farms that suffered physical flood damage — not to business interruption — and includes explicit set‑asides for agricultural operations and BIPOC awardees in later rounds. That affects how recovery dollars flow to rural communities and farm operations hit by recent storms.

How the program works and who qualified

Long said awards are paid against “net uncovered damage.” Applicants submitted repair or relocation estimates and disclosed other assistance such as insurance or crowdfunding; BGAP subtracts those amounts from damage estimates to calculate a net uncovered damage figure and applies the program’s percentage to that number.

Eligibility is limited to businesses and nonprofits that experienced physical flood damage. Long emphasized the program does not cover revenue loss from customers being unable to reach a business. Nonprofits were eligible only if they were ineligible for FEMA assistance. Municipalities and individual homeowners were not eligible.

BGAP 2.0 and recent award totals

Long described BGAP 2.0 as having multiple appropriations. One appropriation of $5,000,000 addressed remaining 2023 damage, and a separate appropriation totaling $7,000,000 targeted 2024 flood damage. For the 2023 “new damage” bucket, the department had made 41 awards totaling just under $1,000,000 (average roughly $22,000) and had moved toward pro rata supplemental awards for applicants who sought additional funds.

For 2024 damage, Long said the department had issued about 140 awards totaling roughly $3.7 million. Awards in those rounds were generally set at 30% of net uncovered damages; for 2023 awards the cap was $50,000, while later awards could reach up to $100,000. One appropriation included a 40% set‑aside for agricultural businesses and a 10% set‑aside for BIPOC awardees.

"In this program we awarded 30% of net uncovered damages up to $50,000," Long said when describing one tranche, and later noted higher caps for other awards.

Program delivery, reconciliation and monitoring

Long told the committee BGAP pays awards on estimates so funds get out quickly, and the agency is now collecting documentation to reconcile spending and verify use. That process has produced returned funds in several ways: some recipients later received larger-than-expected insurance payments and returned excess BGAP awards; others sold properties or decided not to complete repairs and returned leftover funds; and monitoring is still identifying applicants who cannot substantiate their use of funds.

Long also described administrative constraints: awards are made per physical location; applicants with multiple properties may be eligible for awards on up to three locations. He said processing times vary "as quick as a few days, as long as a few months," largely because applicants sometimes do not submit all required documentation promptly.

Role of agriculture agency and local technical assistance

Nicole Dubuque, chief operating officer at the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, told the committee the agency reviewed applications that self‑identified as agricultural and assigned them to staff with farm familiarity for a closer review.

"We essentially deployed multiple staff within the Agency of Agriculture to work on this effort," Dubuque said, describing how applications routed through the ACCD portal were assigned to agriculture reviewers and field staff who helped spread the word.

Long also said the department had carved out some funding to support regional development corporations to provide technical assistance to applicants. He said the regional developer in Washington County helped applicants through the portal, a step that some applicants needed to complete an application.

Outstanding questions and next steps

Committee members pressed on whether awards had been used for mitigation as well as repair. Long said monitoring is still early and that the agency could not yet specify how much spending went to mitigation versus cleanup; he said the department expects clearer data in the coming months.

Long said the department is discussing whether a standing disaster recovery program should be created, but said no final decision had been made.

Speakers: Brett Long, deputy commissioner, Vermont Department of Economic Development; Nicole Dubuque, chief operating officer, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets; Mary Montour, Agency of Agriculture staff reviewer; Meeting chair (name not specified), Agriculture Committee.

Ending: Committee members asked for follow‑up on county and farm-level details including counts of dairy applicants and whether award funds were being invested in mitigation steps. Long and agency staff said they would return with more specific monitoring results and applicant-level breakdowns on request.