Autumn Bowman, an advocate on federal nutrition policy, told the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry committee that changes in HR 1 and a recent federal funding lapse have immediate and downstream effects across Vermont’s food system. “This will cost the state $6.3 million in the first year and about $8.4 million annually thereafter,” she said, summarizing the Department for Children and Families’ estimate of increased administrative costs for the state.

Bowman said HR 1 shifts SNAP administrative cost‑sharing so that states will pay 75 percent of administration beginning Oct. 1, 2026, and warned the law also could require states to pay 5–15 percent of benefit costs depending on a state’s payment‑error rate. “To stay below the 6 percent error threshold, we need to invest in administration and benefits navigation,” Bowman told members. She said reporting and eligibility changes will impose new paperwork and affect thousands of Vermont households.

Local grocers and market managers described how those changes and the short federal lapse translated into lost sales. Zev Wirtz, owner of the Georgia Market, said SNAP accounts for under 2 percent of his store’s sales but that the loss still affects local vendor purchases and community giving; he warned that falling revenue can lead to staff cuts and higher theft. “Two percent is still two percent,” Wirtz said.

Mary Malali, general manager of the Hunger Mountain Co‑op in Montpelier, described larger declines at her co‑op: she reported a falloff in SNAP/EBT transactions during October and November (she cited a 52 percent drop in October and larger drops in subsequent months). Malali said SNAP/EBT sales make up roughly 1.2 percent of total sales for her co‑op but that even small percentage swings can push thin grocery margins into loss and ripple to 429 local vendors who supply the store.

Joanna Doran of NOFA Vermont summarized state incentive programs that helped mitigate the gap: PropCash and PropCash Plus, plus a farm‑share subsidies program, channeled about $360,000 this season back into local farms ($200,000 in PropCash/PropCash Plus and more than $160,000 in SNAP at markets). Doran said NOFA will request $500,000 in ongoing FY27 funding for Crop Cash Plus and Farm Share.

Sherry Marr, manager of the Brattleboro Winter Farmers Market, described a rapid local response when SNAP benefits were delayed: market organizers created a fundraising match (“the SNAP gap” campaign), used a $20 PropCash Plus incentive from state funds and supplemented that with market coupons so SNAP shoppers could continue to buy from producers. “There were hugs and tears of gratitude,” Marr said, calling the match a win for customers and farmers.

John Veil, CEO of the Vermont Food Bank, outlined the emergency distribution: the state emergency board approved two weeks of SNAP benefits using state dollars and provided $250,000 to the Food Bank for immediate food purchases; the Food Bank distributed the $250,000 to 56 food‑shelf partners that could spend the funds quickly and then used $150,000 in philanthropic donations to reach additional partners. Veil said Veggie Van Go distributions in November averaged about 45 percent higher than a four‑year baseline and warned the spike in demand will likely continue through the winter.

Witnesses urged the legislature to prioritize (1) maximizing federal funds where possible, (2) expanding benefits navigation and outreach to help beneficiaries meet new reporting rules, and (3) consider targeted state funding (both short‑term emergency and ongoing supports) to stabilize vendor and market programs. Bowman summed the policy tradeoffs: “No state can replace every lost federal dollar, but targeted investments in administration and market incentives can keep $150 million a year flowing into Vermont’s economy through ThreeSquares Vermont.”

The committee asked for written details and cost breakdowns; multiple witnesses offered to submit grant lists and further data. The emergency board action that supplied two weeks of benefits and $250,000 to food shelves was taken outside this hearing but was a central fact in witnesses’ accounts. The committee scheduled follow‑up briefings and asked witnesses to provide written summaries of grant amounts, outstanding reimbursements and program requests for the January session.