Working Lands Enterprise Initiative reports $18.8M in grants, faces smaller $1M base for FY25

Allison Eastman, deputy secretary at the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, opened a briefing for a legislative committee by tracing the Working Lands Enterprise Initiative to its creation by the Vermont Legislature in 2012 under Act 142 and noting the board’s role in guiding grants anchored to both agriculture and forestry.

The Working Lands Enterprise Initiative has funded 555 projects since 2012, distributing $18,800,000 in Working Lands funds and leveraging about $30,900,000 in additional investment by grant recipients, agency staff said. Grantees reported roughly 25,000 acres benefitted and about $92,000,000 in sales generated by award recipients; staff said approximately 540 new jobs have resulted from funded projects.

"The expertise of the board, the flexible funding, and our very rigorous participatory review process are all elements of the program that I that allow us to make catalytic investments," said Elizabeth Sippel, program manager for the Working Lands Enterprise Initiative at the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets.

Why it matters: the program funds business grants, service providers and occasional larger supply‑chain projects that can be transformational for forestry and food processing infrastructure. In fiscal year 2024 the program had just over $3,000,000 to award and received more than $16,000,000 in requests, staff said; fiscal year 2025 has a base of $1,000,000, which staff and board members said restricts availability of large supply‑chain awards.

Board structure and review process

Sippel described the Working Lands Enterprise Board as a 20‑seat body whose members represent expertise across forest and agricultural supply chains and several government agencies. Every application undergoes a participatory review process: three sector reviewers plus a business financial reviewer score applications and record strengths and weaknesses. Staff said reviewers are vetted for conflicts of interest and that review conversations now occur in sector‑focused meetings to handle the larger volume of applications.

Grant types and award sizes

Staff and board members summarized the program’s principal grant lines and typical award ranges: the business enhancement grant (about $10,000–$50,000 in the most recent cycle), a one‑time small farm diversification and transition grant (previously $5,000–$15,000), and larger supply‑chain or market‑level grants that have been available when the program received special appropriations (up to $250,000). In FY25 the program eliminated the routine matching funds requirement; staff said applicants may previously request a waiver but that the waiver process was confusing, and removing the match was a response to grantee feedback.

Examples of funded projects

Staff and presenters gave multiple examples of FY24 grants to illustrate program impact: - Felter Family Partnership (South Burlington) received $250,000 for milking robots; staff said the project would save 105 milking hours per week and shift labor to higher‑skill tasks. - Sunday Bell Farm (Danville) received $50,000 to install a pipeline milking system, allowing the two‑person operation to milk more cows in less time. - Sweetland Farm (Norwich) received $190,000 for biomass and solar‑fueled winter production and storage aimed at producing year‑round crops without fossil fuels. - Laffingstock Farm Forest Products received $250,000 for a sawmill expansion that staff said would double capacity and enable about 4,000 board feet per day of milling, an output the presenter equated to roughly one average house framing worth of lumber per week from local logs. - Champlain Valley Grain Center (Ferrisburg) received $150,000 to build grain cleaning, drying and storage capacity; staff said the center expects to support more than 300 acres planted in grain in its first year and to provide processing for human food and distilling.

Equity and workforce focus

Staff noted a new impact category emphasizing equity and engagement with historically underserved communities. Examples included Ananda Gardens (East Montpelier), a BIPOC‑owned farm that received $62,000 for a permanent farm stand, and projects that explicitly hire and support Spanish‑speaking workers. The program also funded human resources and workforce development work: a pilot with the law firm Paul Frank & Collins provided on‑site HR reviews, employee handbook development and training for participating farms and forestry businesses.

Service providers and producer associations

Beyond direct business grants, staff highlighted investments in service providers and producer associations that support many businesses. Examples included the Sprout Loan Program (in partnership with the Vermont Community Loan Fund), which uses Working Lands funds to lower interest rates on startup loans, and a producer‑association grant that helped the Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers Association create a "pick‑your‑own" searchable directory adopted by more than 40 farms.

Limits and next steps

Presenters repeatedly cautioned that FY25’s $1,000,000 base allocation reduces the program’s ability to make large market‑level awards. Elizabeth Nance, grant programs manager at the Department of Economic Development, said the base had increased from $584,000 three years earlier to $1,000,000 for FY25 but that special appropriations and ARPA funds in prior years had allowed one‑time, larger investments.

"This is a custom grant program designed for the needs of the working lands in Vermont," said Danielle Fitsco, Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation, who described several forestry projects funded with Working Lands awards and said larger grants have enabled transformational investments in sawmills and harvesting equipment.

Staff said they will return to the committee with additional grant recipients for in‑person testimony and that they remain available to answer committee questions about program design, review and outcomes.

Ending

Agency staff and board members asked committees to consider the program’s demonstrated leverage and the way special appropriations enable larger, supply‑chain or infrastructure projects. They also emphasized continued outreach and technical assistance for unfunded applicants: in FY24 staff received many more qualified applications than they could fund and said they direct unfunded applicants to other state programs and service providers for application support and follow‑up.