Vermont growers ask lawmakers for $250,000 fund to expand vineyards, citing tourism and local jobs

At a virtual meeting of the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry, vineyard owners and industry advocates asked lawmakers to create a dedicated $250,000 fund to help new and expanding growers cover steep startup costs for planting, trellising and equipment.

David Keck, a vineyard owner who farms leased land in Cambridge and Jeffersonville, said the state’s young viticulture industry faces a capital shortfall that grants targeted at agriculture have not addressed. “What I’m proposing is that $250,000 divided, amongst growers exclusively for viticulture, not as a generic agricultural grant, could result in a million dollars in wine production the next 3 to 4 years,” Keck said.

The case for a targeted program rested on two arguments: high up‑front costs and a multi‑year payback period. Keck and others described planting costs of roughly $4 per vine (about $4,300 for 1,000 vines), trellising and anchors of $5,000–$10,000 per acre, and total vineyard installation costs of roughly $10,000–$14,000 per acre. A 5‑acre commercial planting, they said, can require $50,000–$75,000 in initial outlays and usually does not reach full production until year three or four.

Those figures underpinned the presenters’ revenue examples. Keck said a five‑acre site that produces at modest yields could generate about $150,000 in retail revenue at $20 per bottle and approach $300,000 a year when combined with on‑site tasting‑room sales.

Steve Wilson, owner and founder of VT Vineyards, framed the pitch with comparisons to other regions and markets. “The optimism can be found due north,” Wilson said, pointing to investment and marketing activity in Quebec and the Eastern Townships. He and Keck also discussed the growing use of hybrid grape varieties in the region, the industry’s current scale (Keck estimated just shy of 200 acres of plantings and about 28 commercial wineries), and the climate risks growers face, particularly increased precipitation that favors fungal disease.

Presenters and committee members discussed existing funding pathways and possible alternatives. Keck said applicants have applied to established state programs but often have not been successful; he and others suggested either carving out a viticulture‑specific pool inside existing programs such as the Working Lands Enterprise Initiative or creating a new dedicated grant or low‑interest revolving fund. Representative Byrd asked whether excise taxes or liquor‑sale revenues could be redirected; committee members noted the Department of Liquor and Lottery collects excise taxes but said it was unclear how those revenues are currently allocated.

Committee members suggested several next steps raised during the discussion: pursuing meetings with the Senate committee that oversees related issues, working with Working Lands staff on program design, and reaching out to individual legislators for support. Keck said he and other growers have contacted representatives and planned further outreach and grant‑writing assistance.

The presenters also highlighted infrastructure and workforce constraints: limited local suppliers for vines and equipment, few crews available for pruning and seasonal work, and the need for training in vineyard tasks. Keck said one Vermont propagation operation supplies much of the region’s hybrid planting material, and that industry growth could increase local supply chains.

The hearing did not include a formal vote. Committee members encouraged offline follow‑up and additional meetings to explore design and funding options.

Looking ahead, presenters asked the committee to consider targeted support that acknowledges viticulture’s multi‑year timeline and high capital intensity, while committee members identified the Working Lands program, excise tax conversations and direct legislative outreach as possible avenues for further action.