Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Although the same length of the weekend for most of us. Anyway, welcome to Addison from NOFA.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Thank you so much. Thanks for having me, everyone. We really appreciate you taking the time to hear from me and Joanna today about NOFA's budget request for the FY '27 budget. For the record, Maddie Kempner, Policy and Organizing Director at NOFA Vermont. I want to once again thank the committee for your strong support of S60, the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund. I'm getting really good at saying that without messing it up. I hope you all are too. And we want to ask you to please include an appropriation of $15,600,000 in your FY 2027 budget memo to the Appropriations Committee to support the Fund's implementation. Without an appropriation in the FY '27 budget, the fund will not be implemented for the upcoming fiscal year based on the current language. And unfortunately, we know that climate change and extreme weather conditions are here to stay, and farmers and loggers need state based rapidly available financial support to recover when they inevitably experience losses. We understand particularly this year that you have hard choices to make. And in order to help you make those choices fairly and with as much information as possible, we wanted to present you with a request that's based on the demonstrated need from the past three years of data that we have. Our working lands businesses cannot shoulder the costs of extreme weather alone. Over the last three years, Vermont's Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation and Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets have gathered some important indicators of the economic impacts on farms and forestry operations from floods, untimely freeze events, and the recent historic drought, finding just over $94,000,000 in losses over the last three years. These losses were reported to the state in survey responses or as part of applications for BGAF funding. So this is an overview of that data, and I'm going to walk you through a little bit more of the detail of what's in this pie chart. So in 2023, you can see here that the total losses that are documented from both farms and forestry operations are $57,500,000 And those are losses from the late spring freeze that impacted primarily fruit growers in May 2023. The summer flooding, that resulted in an estimated or documented $44,700,000 in losses from farms and then an additional $2,800,000 in reported losses from forestry operations based on an FPR survey. In 2024, we have a reported loss total of $18,500,000 again from record flooding in the summer on farms that resulted in 13,500,000.0 in losses and another 5,000,000 in losses for forestry operations. And then finally, in 2025, so far, the agency of agriculture's drought dashboard shows a total documented losses of $18,010,000 resulting in that $94,000,000 that I talked about. We also know that the documented losses are likely less than the total losses actually experienced by farmers and forestry businesses over the past three years. And we want to emphasize that the creation of the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund will help the state to better track the impacts of extreme weather on farms and forestry operations over time, which will provide more accurate data for future appropriations, and potentially future policy change as well. So just showing you here what our formula the formula that's in the bill, that the agency of ag and the review board are required to report on is equal to half the average documented losses due to eligible weather conditions from the previous three years. So that's where our math comes from with this request.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: 94,000,000 is 2023, 'twenty four, and 'twenty five added together. Yes. And 'twenty three was that freeze in May was the first event. Yes. And then drought, or rather flooding, Yeah, flooding, drought, yeah.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: We wanna really emphasize with regard to this request that investing in the viability of Vermont's working lands businesses is an investment in significant economic activity in our state. You can see here in 2022, the sale of Vermont farm products alone totaled just over $1,000,000,000 That $1,000,000,000 in farm gate sales was the foundation for $11,500,000,000 in total economic output when you account for, food system wide activity. Ensuring our farms can rebound when extreme weather hits is one thing we can do to protect not only the heart and culture of our state, but a substantial economic engine that creates jobs, circulates dollars in our local economies, and inspires young people to move here or to stay to make their living on the land, as you all know. And then finally, we really wanna be clear that state funding is needed in order for the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund to achieve its goals. We know too well that federal funding to support our farms in times of disaster is not responsive nor reliable if available at all. The fact that the state is still waiting on millions appropriated by Congress in December 2024 is evidence of that. Farmers and loggers cannot afford to wait a full three years to receive relief when catastrophic weather hits. While federal funds are deeply needed, state based appropriations for this fund are as much a buffer for our farmers as they are against the lethargic pace of federal support. Farmers are always responding to their environment, as many people on this committee know directly, often immediately and with great innovation. The state needs to respond to farmers who suffer loss in the same way to ensure our farms can continue to produce the food we all need. Again, please include $15,600,000 for the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund in your FY twenty seven budget memo to the appropriations committee. Thank you for your time and your commitment to our working lands and those who tend them. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Sure. Maybe you see this as a one time catch up on the previous three years. And then going forward, how would you always tie it to that formula that you just showed us?

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: So the formula that I mentioned, and I'm happy to go back to this slide actually because it has language that's really similar to what's in the bill, is written into the current language of the bill, as a report. So it's not directly tied to the appropriations since there's not actually an appropriations section in the bill. But the formula would be the same in theory going forward, that you would take the average of the previous three years of documented losses divided by two. That's the formula that's currently written in the bill as to be reported on, at least by the agency and the review board.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: But you take the previous three years and divide by two?

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: You take the previous three years average across those, which is on this screen you see here, dollars 33,340,000.00, and then divide by two. And the reason for dividing by two is that the payments for individual applications are up to 50% of otherwise uninsured or uncovered losses. So the fund is intended to cover up to half of the actual losses that the folks who would benefit from this fund would experience.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Right, I get that. I'm just trying to figure out, say, this summer, we have enough to travel. When could farmers expect to see potentially some state help from that? Once you do this, would it catch up and be a yearly thing? Or would you always do sort of a three year like this is?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: Then

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: It would be an annual appropriation based on the three years immediately prior. With regard to the question about this summer, that could be either addressed by the appropriation that goes into this fund for the upcoming fiscal year starting on July 1 theoretically, or it could be addressed regularly through a BAA appropriation as well if there are extenuating circumstances. This is the best formula that we could come up with that I think is a starting point based on what we've experienced in recent years. But it's not necessarily perfect. And it's not to say that it won't necessarily change over time because extreme weather is incredibly unpredictable. Unfortunately, we've seen over the last three years it's consistent in being costly to farms. But this is the best estimate that we could come up with to try to address the need that we know is there.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So it's always the previous three years.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: And the idea is that every year, there is an appropriation that's based on the three years immediately prior. Does that answer your question?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yeah, I'm just trying to think then, for example, 2025 in 2028 would have three potential tranches dedicated to that, because it's part of the formula.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Well, the formula for going into FY 2028, the formula would, based on language in the bill right now, be based on documented losses from 2025, '26, and '27. Right. Like, I'm still not answering your question.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So let me say this, and maybe it won't help. Yeah. It's it's intended to this 15.6 isn't intended to cover any prior losses at all. It's in fact, I don't think prior loss would qualify, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. But this is saying we can if the last three years are reliable predictor of what this year is gonna be, we average the last three years, we're gonna see 33,000,000 in losses this year from bad weather or drought. So half of that is 15,000,000.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: It's intended to cover the applications for losses going back for the prior year. But the formula is based on a longer time scale to account for variability year over year. So we don't want to necessarily just take the prior one year of losses as an indicator of what firms might deal with because we know there are pretty significant fluctuations. From 57.5 to 18 is the range that we've been facing over the last three years. But the actual applications for the funds during a given time would be looking back one year.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So this would almost cover the draft losses, the documented draft losses? Close. Even though Although

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: yeah. Well, you're covering 50% of

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: your five days would be Right. So you'd have some left over then.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: The other thing to consider with the drought in particular is that maple producers might, for example, have losses that are connected to the drought that are not known yet. And a lot of producers even who reported their losses or who have not reported their losses through the agency's drought survey might not actually know the amount of their losses at this point because there's such a long tail when it comes to dairy producers who are having to buy in feed that they're not normally buying in. That's going all the way up to next spring. So the formula is also trying to account for some of those losses that aren't immediately known, but that lasts much longer after the actual weather event.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So now, but in this case, twenty three and twenty four farmers who suffered losses wouldn't get any?

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Based on the language in the bill, I don't believe that they could apply for funds for those losses. And hopefully, the federal funds Hopefully, the federal funds through those assets.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: For some of that. That's 31 or 30 something.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: 31.5 is what the agency is supposed to be getting from The US. I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: don't mean to shame anybody, but I was a math teacher. And I want to just suggest taking another look at the map there on the bottom line when we're offline. Okay. That will do. Not sure it's exactly right. Okay. Should we move on to the second half of your request?

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Yeah. Unless anybody else has questions about this one, happy to get Joanna up here. Right. We couldn't do that.

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: Now I'm worried about my math. Don't know anything. Wasn't my strong suit in school, so here we go. For the record, I'm Joanna Doran. I'm the local food access director with NOFA Vermont. Thank you for having us. And I'm here to talk with you about our request for $500,000 in the FY twenty seven budget for our food security programs, Crop Cash, Crop Cash Plus and Farm Share, and to request that you include this request in your budget memo to the Appropriations Committee. So just for a refresher, because it doesn't hurt, a quick overview about these programs. Crop cash doubles Three Squares Vermont or SNAP benefits at farmer's markets and can be used to purchase fruits and vegetables. The program is federally funded, but it does require a local match. And that's where state funds come in. State funds will allow us to continue to meet the increased demand that we've seen over the last few years and to maximize federal funding. The state's investment in the Crop Cash Program is matched one to one with federal funds. Crop Cash Plus expands the Crop Cash Program to meats, eggs, dairy, bread, and more, while this extends the program's impact to all agricultural vendors at farmers markets and supports Vermonters in accessing the full gamut of grocery products. State funding is necessary to continue this critical program so that hundreds more farmers will benefit and thousands of low income Vermonters can purchase more local fresh food. And the Farm Share program has subsidized CSA or community supported agriculture shares for low income Vermonters for over thirty years. The Farm Share Program pays 25 percent to 75% off of the cost of a CSA share to make local food accessible to folks over the course of the season. And state funding would allow us to support up to 700 families in purchasing a consistent supply of locally grown food. So thank you so much to this committee for your support. Last session, with your support, we were able to get an appropriation, a one time appropriation of $450,000 for these programs to maintain increased food security in Vermont. It also allowed us to bring back the Crop Cash Plus program, which we did not have the funding for in FY '25. With this funding, we've been able to successfully grow our program levels and help meet the demand of people wanting to access locally produced food. State funding is helping us shorten our program wait lists, bring more funds to local farms and ensure more households can afford a consistent supply of food. So a little more specifically, this graph might not make sense on its own, but I'm gonna explain it and show a little bit more about the impact that state funding has. So actually first, I'm gonna give some more overarching numbers of impact. Through the Farm Share program this past year, and in huge part because of state funding, we've been able to support over five thirty households to access a full season of locally grown food at a price that's affordable to them. And that's over 1,400 individuals. In the 2025 season, which includes the 2026 winter farmers markets, Crop Cash is on track to invest $200,000 in over 40 summer farmers markets and 20 winter farmers markets and draw over 10,500 snap transactions at farmers markets. Crop Cash Plus has also provided an economic boost to farmers by, again, doubling the number of farmers that can receive income through these incentive programs at farmers markets. And between July and December, the first half of the fiscal year, dollars 77,000 in Crop Cash Plus was spent at farmer's markets. These dollars have directly contributed to farmer income and increased food security for those community members. So, okay. So now time for this graph. So the blue is the money that NOFA Vermont has brought in through funding sources, including state funding and also other, you know, grants and federal funds. The green is the additional revenue that these programs have leveraged. So that includes the SNAP dollars that are spent at farmer's markets. It includes the participant cost sharing of the CSA program. So when NOFA contributes 50% of a CSA share cost, the participant and other community support will contribute the other 50%. That's in the green. So I just wanted to show this to indicate how impactful state funding is and how when we invest in these programs, it brings even more economic activity to farmers markets and through CSAs and to farm stands. So over the last two years of receiving the state support, which again was $300,000 in FY '25 and $450,000 in FY '26, these programs have leveraged around 1,600,000 in local food purchases through those other funding sources like snap transactions and other community contributions. This season alone, we're on track to direct $850,000 in revenue to Vermont farms through the PropCash, PropCash Plus and Farm Ship programs. Okay. So just a real quick as you're thinking as this committee is thinking through the programs that it wants to support in this budget process, I wanted to hopefully provide a helpful visual and some points The differences between NOFA's local food security programs and the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program. It is, as you know, we work with the Vermont Food Bank and our food security coalition. And these programs meet different needs and are very complimentary in meeting the full needs of Vermonters and making sure that everyone is getting the food that they need where they need it. So because there are some similarities, I just wanted to touch on these real quick. So the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program is a food purchasing program where the food bank purchases food directly from farmers and then distributes that food through their channels, like their network partners, like food shelves, through meal sites, through Veggie Van Go, and then eaters will go to those sites and access the food there. Crop Cash and Crop Cash Plus incentivize customers to go to a farmer's market, spend their SNAP dollars and get those coupons to spend on farm products. And they will be purchasing those products directly with farmers. So there's not the intermediary of the food distribution site, they're directly doing a transaction with a farmer. And they're typically investing some of their own dollars in that transaction as well. So that's another difference. And then of course, the Farm Share program is also direct with the farmer, but through a CSA. So I'm happy to go more into that if there's more questions, but I just wanted to draw that distinction between those programs and share, just reiterate that they are all incredibly important to our state's food security. They meet different needs for different people, and they occur in different types of locations, which may work for some people differently than others.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien, do want me to add?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: If I'm a farmer with a CSA program and someone on SNAP comes to me, do I have to sort of opt in to the Snap program in order to say use their EBT card to buy a CSA?

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: Yeah, so Snap is a program that retailers and a farm could be a retailer do opt into. At NOFA, we support I provide some technical assistance to farms that want to become SNAP authorized. And then once they do that, a customer can use their SNAP dollars to spend on their portion of a CSA if they're participating in this program.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: And then presumably the farmer would inform them that NOFA would partially subsidize this CSA share?

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: Yeah, I wish hope so at least. Yeah, they can let them know that they could apply for the farm share program and then we could partially subsidize.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So it's an application.

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: It is an application, yeah. So again, all of these programs together form a food security package that benefits local farms through market expansion and benefits the eaters by making sure that they can get the food where they need it. So back to NOFA's programs, Crop Cash, Crop Cash Plus and Farm Share are programs that people count on every week. And the state of Vermont has shown that it can be a leader in investing in these vital food security programs. They've been pivotal in the last, particularly the last few years, but for decades. And the state can count on this investment in being used to create the best possible outcome for Vermonters and Vermont farmers. Food security can and should be achieved for everyone in Vermont. And at the same time, we can support our farmers in ensuring that they can get a profit from the food that they grow and that we all eat. Crop Cash, Crop Cash Plus and Farm Share are proven programs that help Vermont achieve both of these goals. So please include NOFA Vermont's request for $500,000 in ongoing funding for these programs in your budget memo to the Appropriations Committee. You for your time, and I'm happy to answer more questions.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Representative Brian? Just one more. In previous years, you've broken out, let's say, of the 500, how much you would like to target? Have you done that with this?

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: Yeah, we do an estimate of how they will be broken out. Fluctuates throughout the year based on the demand of each program, how many people are applying for the farm share program, how many people are visiting farmers markets. And so what we had done for the FY '26 appropriation was we estimated around We would appropriate around $60,000 towards crop cash for the direct incentives, around 100,000 for crop cash plus around 100,000 for farm share, and then some additional funds for outreach for printing the Crop Cash Plus coupons, staff time, and then we provide some stipends for the farmers market managers to operate those programs. Yes, that's fine. Those numbers have between the programs, the FarmShare, Crop Cash, Crop Patch Plus programs, those numbers have moved around a little bit. We've seen, I think, a little bit more demand in crop cash than what we expected or what we estimated, which is great. We love to see that, that people are using that program. So we've shifted a little bit of funds towards that, things like that. So it's a moving target.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Just because, I mean, we certainly had discussions on that appropriation priority sometimes with like, okay, we can fully fund prop cash, but we don't have enough to fully fund our cash plus, for example. So I your numbers were.

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: Now that I'm thinking I think my number I'm getting in my head about math and numbers. I think we had appropriated more like 150,000 or something for Crop Cache Plus. I can I could get you the actual numbers? Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The question I had, excuse me, was whether, it ties to this, is whether the governor's budget has funded 500,000 or any number.

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: No, this is not in the governor's budget.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Base or or one time? Neither. Okay. First Bennington?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. I was just wondering, and this is also numbers, so I'm not sure if you know, but I believe that you mentioned when you were talking about farm shares that it was over 500 households and that was 1,400 individuals or something like that. Do you have a comparable number in terms of the crop cash category? Like how many people are impacted?

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: That's a really good question. And that's something I've struggled to get a number on because we don't track individual transactions at farmers markets. I do have the number of snap transactions that we see, which correlate to a crop cash transaction as well. That doesn't tell us unique individuals, but it's Yeah, our estimate for this year is between 10,011 over the course of the year. And yeah, we just don't have like an unique individuals number.

[Patricia (Committee Staff)]: Other questions?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I was also gonna ask Maddie, and you can pass question on, but S-six, I think, is still in Senate.

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: That's my opinion.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: It's in the works.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Don't think it's been voted out yet. That's another thing for us to be aware of. Okay, thank you very much.

[Joanna Doran (NOFA-VT, Local Food Access Director)]: Thank you so much. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I believe it's in Senate Ag, And it's not subject to a crossover definitely working on bills that need to get out of their committee before crossover, and then turn their attention to this after. And Maddie just gave me a note. It was a tight note in the formula, and it doesn't affect important number, which is the 15.6 that. Alright. So we we've are, got a few minutes here just to talk amongst ourselves and we've got, and then we've got testimony again at 02:00 and at 02:30. And then tomorrow we'll have a little more testimony on budget requests. But I think at that point, we'll have heard nothing will be coming that we haven't already had yet some information about. Context here, of course, is that appropriations are sending all kinds of signals that there's not going to be a whole lot of funding available to do anything one time. Although we know that lurking in the background is the possibility of buying down the education fund tax rate. So yes, there might be funding available if collectively we agree that any of these things should be a higher priority than taking a penny or half a penny or some fraction of a penny off of the tax rate. So that will be ultimately the calculation that people are making. And we've had I don't have a list of them here, but if you think back of the requests that have come before us now, we've got the food bank we just saw in numbers up there. We have

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: That's the 2,000,000?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. And this 500, I think neither of which is in the governor's budget. There's funding for conservation districts, some of which is in maybe all of which is in the governor's budget. Is also to stand up a new to provide some money for navigators in light of cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. That was, I think, 5,800,000 rural lands. What was that? 5.8? What was that? Yeah. That to train navigators to make sure that those who are eligible for SNAP and Medicaid don't fall off because it's harder to stay enrolled. So that was 5.8.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Is that in the governor's recommend or no? No.

[Patricia (Committee Staff)]: It's 4.95.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: 4.95, okay. Thank you for a voice just said correcting me.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: And where that in, Where

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: would it end up in the budget? Like, an agency? It would be, yeah, yeah. I think in human service DCF.

[Patricia (Committee Staff)]: So the proposal is for all of the organizations to get the funding the way they normally would, because a lot of them already have credits and contracts, so it would have gone through various departments and divisions of the EHS if the Appropriations Committee had registered that construct.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: So in other words, what they got last year they'd get this year? Or what their base is?

[Patricia (Committee Staff)]: So in other words, they have already a grant on contract, they would get the amount that's in the big request for their organization added to whatever grant or contract they already have for the statement.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do we have a letter or request, something that came in? I feel like we did.

[Patricia (Committee Staff)]: You have a handout from me and Charles' testimony from Hayami, Deepak Okay, and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: how did they get that number wrong?

[Patricia (Committee Staff)]: The original number was higher, and then there was a question raised in the Human Services Committee, and we adjusted the amount to reflect the correct answer to that question. Then,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: working lands is another major one. There is a million dollars in the government health amendment project for that, The request was to add additional half million, I think, for base, then one time bringing it up to five total. I think everything that I just mentioned is sitting in our budget folder. So if you have an interest in going in and digging in more And then, as I said earlier, the agencies have pulled together or in the process of pulling together some information that we've requested that compares their staffing levels to a pre pandemic number, just so we can see how has the agency staffing changed and provided some context for new programming that they're handling, if that's the case. And then obviously dollars that are tied to that as well. And we would expect that over the course of the last seven or eight years, dollars would have gone up even with flat staffing. So that'll be interesting to see. We have that information from FPR. Patricia circulated it. I've asked everybody to come in tomorrow at nine. That's probably the only time that Commissioner Fitzgow can join us to walk us through those numbers. And then we're still waiting, I think, to schedule the agency with the same to hear their response. Dave, in our appropriation letter, traditionally we recommend

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: fully funding the governors recommend for the agency? Is that part of it?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I don't think that we've ever explicitly said that. And it's an interesting question. I think it's always been understood. But we were asked to look at things differently this year. So I think that if that is our position, we should say so. If we're advocating for another program and wanna be sure that that's the point we wanna make, then maybe we don't say so. But I think if we can say that we've looked at the agency's budgets and we are more or less comfortable with them, we can say that too. This is all, at the end of the day, there's a fixed dollar amount. If we're somehow successful in putting more money into some of these programs, it would ultimately have to come from something in the governor's budget because he's also budgeted a balanced budget, which is what the House will have to do. Michelle?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: It feels like we have kind of an impossible task. You started the conversation here saying, basically appropriation said we don't have any money for first time spending. So many of the things that we've heard about that are important. Are going to be one time spending that didn't make it in the governor's budget. So like, are we supposed to come up with like one that we beg for or like a fraction to keep them alive? I mean, I don't know how how we can make a recommendation without expecting that there's any money to fund whatever we believe in. Because honestly, all the things we've heard testimony about are worthy. And even just one of them, like not having money for people to stay on SNAP, well, and people are gonna lose food. How do we, it's like a Sophie's Choice, it's terrible. That

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: comment stands on its own, think again, Jed. Following

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: that, really important. Is there anywhere where any of these state agencies have put up and say, you know, we should probably cut 10% of our which may be layoffs because, like, rep Bosman said, I mean, there's some of these masks that are very important if we have historically put food in front of almost anything for those who are in the community. I'm reflecting on that. But there's some this isn't condescending, but the notion of bureaucracies, keep building and getting cost of living. Right? So this is you know, maybe, like, if we were running our small business, which some of us do, sometimes, and they don't even take a cut for a given year, self employed category, there a place in the budgeting where we need to take a hard look at some of them? Whether it's an hour or I don't know what they would be, but I would think by the state government, maybe to bring sales too. The EDC. Well,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: FPR, when they presented their budget, included some vacancy savings, which is not really what you're saying, but I'm going a little beyond. Yeah, yeah. The discussion. Yeah, I think it's the first time that they've done that, anyway. And I don't think that it was necessarily something that other agencies have done. So we didn't see that with the ag agency budget. And it may be that they would say, well, we don't actually project any vacancy savings. Have fewer vacancies or we've had success in hiring quickly and that's not gonna happen. It's not the same thing as what you're suggesting, Larry. I the

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: government budget recommends just keep it

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: more than 3%

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: above last year's budget, right? So I think they're all just going based off these recommended, and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: what the agency of Ag said they

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: were up to 1.8%, and I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Morrison Parks was right on 3%. So really that was the request made from the governor. Yeah, it's hard to, we know inflation is 3%, and it's hard to, at the staffing levels that people have, to do much better than that. And ag, it is less than that, 1.8, as you've said. Now there's a lot going on there. And there's obviously lots of money that grant funding that can change from year to year and other programming. And that 1.8 represents, I remember asking the question when they were in, it's basically salaries and benefits are eating up that alone.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Think an interesting exercise would be for this committee to say what appropriations we got last year through in this committee is sort of our base and to look at that, what beyond that is requested this year. And to your point, if the governor's made savings, it's by cutting the things we appropriated last year, not necessarily through an agency or the department, but NOPA's not in base four or one time. So they could almost point to that. At least the governor's team could point and say, well, we're saving 450,000 there because that's gone. So it's interesting how that push and pull starts to show up pretty quickly there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, gets confusing very quickly because we look at, yeah, how does it compare to last year? How does it compare to the budget? How much is one time? How much is base? How much is base? It becomes a bit

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Need a whiteboard to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: tell? Yes. Yeah. We need a whiteboard. So yeah. I'm gonna make a list of all these requests to look at them all. Always have trouble somehow pulling that list together. That's why I said it's all there in our FY twenty seven budget folder. So let me I mean, I suggest that people look for that. If anybody wants to volunteer, Michelle, let's No? Okay. Yep. The petition's volunteering, I saw him. The request and then send the governor's, if anything. So you and Patricia can work on that, John. And in fact, we may have

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: last year's would be useful.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You may have already gotten some thoughts on that. I feel like somebody emailed me with a a list.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: So how do we find our budget folder?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So so if you go to our web page Our web page. Yeah. Under other reports or Reports and resources? Yeah. Think so. Wait. No. Not that. Not that. Good to Other documents. Yeah. Other documents. F y twenty seven budget. Under what? I'm sorry. Under other documents? Yeah. FY twenty seven bugs. Other documents. Yeah. So right right there. Oh, I see what's under there. So if you want, and you'll browse by line.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: Let me go down.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yep. Dageville, other documents?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Other documents, and then f y twenty seven. That's it. Not showing up here.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: This is topics in agriculture budget adjustment request. Is it under that?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: I'm seeing where are we at? Other documents. It's not yours isn't scrolling. What day you want?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: It's defaulted to last session.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Does everybody see the other documents? Yeah. I'm I'm in I'm in it now. Click on other documents. And then what do you see? It it brings up. You're in you're in last year, think, John.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yeah. Keeps defaulting on that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Just for this. Okay. Well, when we go offline, we

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: can make sure everybody's got access to it. Yeah, Jed? Oh, I'm focusing on our food resiliency piece. It's not that we get political here, but we as a body for the last, since COVID, have benefited from a lot of fail, but it fast forward to last June when great big beautiful bill was passed. It was one of the startling challenges to our food resiliency. If I get this correct, the rules to receive certain benefits which didn't include SNAP, they include Medicaid benefits, and which part of why, for instance, Navigator request was meant to help families, you know, how to call someone like me who doesn't know how to navigate, you know, application forms on the internet naturally. So we're assuming that a lot of those former eligible and needy recipients will likely get left behind and go more hungry or less housed, which was that was sort of what stimulated the navigator request. That was. Yeah. I mean, this is a real dilemma, frankly, I think for this committee because one of our major charges is to make have help Vermonters have access to fresher and the interests are healthy food.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: it's really, I'm struggling here, you know, whether it's from the end of COVID compounded by this more recent federal legislation. It's a big delay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're yeah.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: McConnell, you're bringing up the dilemma, you know, if it's a catch 22 between providing these programs

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: and giving people a while, like,

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: the truth and he likes to turn giving people a hand up, right?

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: And we're, and also decreasing tax

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: burden, right? That, I think you have,

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: you can think of many examples of people who are on the edge of

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: property, and then another raise in their property taxes, it's gonna put them over the lines, you know, so it's like, there's that dilemma too. That's like it. I mean, that's the nature of the beast that we have to, that's part of our job, I guess, is to try to mitigate the reality of that situation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And it's a part, for better or worse, that we're not every day sitting here thinking about the way that some of our colleagues are in the appropriations committee. Here we are. Yeah, Michelle.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I mean, it almost feels it really feels like we're saving one child and drowning the other three or something. It just it feels to even say something pulling one of our babies ahead. It feels difficult to how do you prioritize when all of these things really are about they're all about food and feeding people one way or another. But I guess I think if we're looking at all the different possibilities and the one that would impact, I think the most people in terms of numbers might be the navigator. Because basically what happened with the big ugly bill was they made the paperwork more complicated with the hope that people are gonna not be able to stay on because it's too complicated. And so that's nasty, but that's the way it is. And so how can people stay on if they are in an income eligible position to get benefits, but they aren't necessarily savvy enough with the technology to figure that out? They might need somebody who's going to be able to help them with that role. And like, I've done that job before. I I've been a case manager and part of what I did was help people fill out applications and they're long. They're like 16 pages long or something. But if we say we need this money to go in because otherwise people are gonna lose their benefits, that's gonna keep people on snap. And a lot of these other things, Vermonters feeding Vermonters, I love that program. And it's important and it's gonna get food to food banks and we need that too. But if people lose their SNAP benefits, they're gonna have nothing. Some people are gonna have nothing.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: What were the estimates if we go over the percentage ceiling of errors, If that's what it's It was 22,000,000 or something, wasn't it,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we might be on the hook for? The worst case scenario. Yeah. I've not been It's a lot

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: of money. It was a lot

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: of We haven't gone over, but we also, if we don't have more help, we're more likely to, which will then mean even more people will lose their benefits.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't remember what the dollar amount was, but I think that is a concern that if people are not filing correctly, that would lead to a higher error rate and we could fall into that category.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: Yeah, Greg? Question, Chair. Something like working lands enterprise initiative, can we request that they go to, because we're trying to look for

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: money that leverages the most other money, right?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: The Navigators are gonna leverage federal, Yep. Rather than, so, know,

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: with the working lands, I would like to see

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: it go back to a 25%,

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: 50% match. So it's redeem work on our receiver. Yes.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Member)]: I agree. Can we request that? I mean, I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We can we we can request that

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt (Member)]: that be done to if their dollar shrink that they go further.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I have been a little bit negligent too, after the agency folks came in and made their presentations, they followed up and wondered if there was specific data that they could give us that they didn't give us to help us better make the case if we wanted to. So that's out there. If there are things that we would like to hear back from them, we can do that. And yes, we can certainly, we have all the leeway here to make those recommendations. It might be helpful to hear from the agency on how, because they used to do that, used to be a match, and then they moved away from it. And it may have been that the reporting required to do, that they for some reason decided wasn't worth that, that people were making a match anyway. I'm not really sure. You should ask. Why don't we, we have more time to talk about this later, but we take five minutes. It feels like we've got Terry Bradshaw from Portsmouth Extension coming in to talk about ParaFlopp. So we'll go we'll take a little break here, and don't go too far.