DACF presents AIIP applicant‑pool analysis showing large unmet agricultural infrastructure demand

Claire Hawkins, director of economic development for the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, told the Maine Agriculture, Food and Forest Products Infrastructure Fund advisory board on March 26 that an analysis of the Agricultural Infrastructure Investment Program (AIIP) applicant pool shows demand that far outstripped available funding.

The AIIP solicitation, funded through the Maine Jobs and Recovery Program using American Rescue Plan Act dollars, allocated about $20,000,000 for agricultural processing infrastructure. DACF and its third‑party administrator CEI received more than 800 eligible proposals that cumulatively requested roughly $180,000,000, Hawkins said; DACF made 64 awards totaling about $19,300,000.

The analysis concentrated on terrestrial agriculture and did not include aquaculture, seafood or forestry, Hawkins said. She described the slide deck shared with the board as a first synthesis of a roughly 60‑page report and said DACF plans to consider sharing the full report with advisory board members for deeper review.

Hawkins said the applicant pool was geographically concentrated: Aroostook County produced the largest number of applications, followed by Cumberland, Kennebec and Waldo counties; Franklin and Piscataquis had comparatively few applicants. She cautioned that the county pattern partly reflects the concentration of farms and processors in those counties and noted geographic equity as a policy consideration.

Sector and business‑type patterns in the application data were central findings. Vegetable operations accounted for the largest share of applications and of total dollars requested, followed by meat and poultry, fruit, dairy and grain. Most requests came from farms and farm processors (farms that do some on‑site processing), while standalone processors submitted fewer but often larger proposals.

Hawkins summarized the most commonly proposed uses of grant funds: capital improvements to expand capacity, equipment for growing/processing/manufacturing/storage, construction and utilities upgrades, and packaging/handling or warehouse equipment. She said applicants most commonly expected benefits in operational efficiency and profitability, and that 78% of applicants reported their project would create at least one new full‑time, part‑time or seasonal job; most applicants anticipated creating three or fewer direct hires.

On early program impacts, Hawkins said self‑reported monitoring data show about 42% of awarded projects were complete by the end of 2024. Awardees reported creating approximately 85 new jobs (including full‑time, part‑time and seasonal positions) and estimated about 247 farms and 60 processors had benefited indirectly through supply‑chain relationships or shared infrastructure.

Hawkins emphasized important caveats: the dataset reflects proposals from 2021–2022 and therefore may not capture current need precisely; the analysis excludes forestry and marine sectors; and applicants tend to mirror solicitation priorities, which can bias observed needs toward the program’s stated objectives. She recommended continued direct stakeholder engagement to validate and update these findings.

Why this matters: the AIIP analysis is intended to help the advisory board and fund designers prioritize sectors, business types and geographic outreach for future investments. Hawkins highlighted the vegetable and meat/poultry sectors as the largest remaining investment opportunities by frequency and dollar need, and she flagged shared infrastructure (for example, cold storage and commercial kitchens) as an oft‑cited priority with practical and governance nuances.

Hawkins also noted earlier economic impact work with the University of Maine School of Economics that informed program design and recommended that a formal pre/post economic impact study could help quantify processing capacity increases once more projects reach completion.

Next steps Hawkins identified included sharing the fuller AIIP report with the board, conducting targeted stakeholder outreach to validate sector and regional priorities, and producing a comparable analysis for forestry and marine sectors in coordination with other agencies.

Ending: board members asked questions about whether utility upgrades in AIIP included renewable energy; Hawkins confirmed the AIIP guidelines did allow solar and that some awardees used funds for renewable energy installations. Hawkins also agreed to follow up about sharing the full AIIP applicant‑pool report and related appendices.