State officials report heavy demand, limited awards from FY24 Ag Development Grant program

Abby Willard, Ag Development Division director at the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, told a legislative committee that the agency used a FY24 legislative appropriation of $2,300,000 to fund an Ag Development Grant (ADG) pilot aimed at the meat, maple and produce sectors. "We need a diversification in production and processing within our agricultural sectors in Vermont," Willard said, describing the program as a response to industry growth identified in recent planning documents.

The ADG program received more than $44,000,000 in requests across all three sectors and more than 500 applications in total, Willard said. The agency awarded about $2.1 million in grants and kept a few hundred thousand dollars for program administration; 25 grants were awarded across the three sectors. "There was over $44,000,000 in demand," Willard said, and the agency made awards to a limited number of applicants across the state.

Madison Barry, agriculture development specialist and one of the program managers who ran the review process, described the application and review mechanics. "Every application gets reviewed 3 times, by 3 different... by 3 different reviewers," Barry said, noting the agency recruited roughly 110 reviewers from Vermont and regional institutions to score applications. The review criteria included long-term impact, and the agency prioritized projects that expanded processing, storage or other infrastructure with multi-year usefulness.

Maple, meat and produce demand and awards differed by sector. According to materials shared with the committee and discussed in the briefing: - Produce: roughly $11,000,000 in requests from 76 eligible applications; the agency awarded just over $1,000,000 in seven grants, with many requests focused on post-harvest wash/pack and storage capacity. - Meat: about $11,100,000 in requests from roughly 73 applications; awards included three grants totaling about $118,000 for producer-side equipment and limited on-farm slaughter infrastructure. The agency separated meat production (livestock) and meat processing in its assessment. - Maple: about $18,000,000 in requests from more than 331 applications; the agency awarded the 25% carve-out required by the appropriation—just over $540,000—to 12 grantees. Applications largely sought evaporators, reverse osmosis units, storage and other production-efficiency investments.

Applicants and committee members asked why the agency awarded relatively few grants and how it set award caps. Representative O'Brien asked more bluntly, "How the heck did you pick 25 out of a 100?" Willard and Barry said oversubscription, a desire to distribute awards geographically, and reviewer scores guided selections. The agency also said it used stakeholder feedback to set per-project caps; for example, combining meat and produce in a single request for applications affected cap levels and contributed to larger awards for some produce applicants.

The ADG pilot intentionally waived a match requirement for FY24 to broaden access, the presenters said. That choice drew questions from committee members and applicants about whether a future program should require matching funds. Several committee members and producers urged a 50 percent match for future rounds, arguing it would reduce speculative applications and make awards more bankable.

Staff said startups were eligible; the agency funded at least one maple cooperative startup. Willard said the program was meant as a multiyear investment rather than a "one-and-done" pilot, but she noted that the administration did not receive an FY25 appropriation for ADG. The Future of Ag Commission and the agency's own strategic plan recommended larger, sustained investments; as Willard summarized, the commission had proposed substantially larger funding levels than the $2.3 million enacted for FY24.

Several applicants described their application experience to the committee. One maple and beef producer who applied said the application took several days and that she "did get an email saying that I was not awarded." Presenters acknowledged the strain on applicants and staff caused by oversubscription and said they intend to tighten eligibility and consider separate RFAs for meat processing, livestock production, produce and maple in future rounds.

Willard and Barry also noted coordination with other funding sources. They referred applicants to USDA programs, NRCS/EQIP funding and the Agency of Agriculture’s water-quality grants when appropriate and said they consulted Working Lands Enterprise Initiative staff to avoid duplicative awards and to stagger announcements so applicants could pursue alternate funding if not selected.

Committee members pressed on market access and long-term viability. Presenters described existing agency efforts — trade-show assistance, specialty-crop and ACER grants and work with distributors and food hubs — to expand markets for Vermont products and said data from ADG applications will feed future planning and impact reports.

The briefing closed with committee-members and agency staff noting next steps: the agency will provide more granular applicant data by sector and size, continue internal review of RFA design (including match and cap policies), and await the governor’s next budget to learn whether a recurring ADG appropriation will be proposed.

Ending: The committee and agency agreed to follow up with additional data on award sizes, applicant scale and geographic distribution. Agency staff said they will return with impact reporting after grantees complete projects and with recommendations for program design if additional funding becomes available.