Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Benchmarking Working Lands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Benchmarking study points to technical assistance, LOI screening and integrated capital as design priorities
Summary
Consultants and a longtime Vermont official told Maine’s Working Lands advisory board that Massachusetts, Michigan and Vermont programs emphasize technical assistance, letter‑of‑intent screening, integrated capital and clear evaluation metrics — lessons the Maine board may incorporate into fund rules and scoring.
Consultants from InCommon Group and Eric DeLuca presented a benchmarking review of working‑lands funds from Massachusetts, Michigan and Vermont at the April 30 Maine Working Lands Enterprise Advisory Board meeting. Ellen Koehler, executive director of the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, described Vermont’s Working Lands Enterprise Fund and how its structure and processes inform grant outcomes.
Eric DeLuca said the benchmarking compared program design across each state and highlighted implementation features that influenced outcomes. He emphasized three recurring themes: treating food and forest sector development as economic development, prioritizing business technical assistance, and designing networked, integrated capital that combines grants, loans and other instruments. “The thing that’s gonna make the biggest difference is the business technical assistance,” DeLuca said during the presentation.
The benchmarking report flagged several practical design choices other states use. Massachusetts has moved from speed‑focused ARPA rapid deployment toward more deliberate scoring that includes social equity measures; the state’s scoring now dedicates a substantial share of points to impact and defined equity indicators. Michigan uses a two‑stage application with regional department liaisons that help prospective applicants before a smaller appointed commission reviews full proposals. Vermont uses a short letter‑of‑intent (LOI) phase to calibrate demand and funnel quality applications into a full review; the LOI helps the program estimate application volume and direct unsuccessful applicants to technical assistance.
Ellen Koehler said Vermont intentionally ties fund decision‑making to statewide strategic plans. Vermont’s Working Lands program is guided by a ten‑year food‑system strategic plan and a separate forest‑sector roadmap; those plans, she said, inform grant priorities and help the board measure impact. Vermont’s board structure reflects the economic development framing: the secretary of agriculture (or designee) chairs the board; designees from commerce and forestry serve; and three ex officio members — the Vermont Housing Conservation Board, Vermont Economic Development Authority and the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund — provide continuity and subject‑matter expertise.
Koehler gave a capsule of Vermont’s scale and results: over approximately 12 years the Working Lands program received state appropriations that totaled about $8,800,000 and supported 555 projects, leveraging roughly $30,900,000 in matching funds. Aggregate reported program outcomes include approximately 1,000 jobs employed across grantees, benefits to about 24,000 acres, 539 jobs created and more than $55,000,000 in sales from grantees over the period. Vermont’s grant types include small business enhancement grants (roughly $15,000–$35,000 typical), supply‑chain and infrastructure grants and occasional larger awards up to $250,000 when funding levels permit. Koehler said the board deliberately budgets a portion of funding (often 30–40%) to technical‑assistance providers who work directly with businesses.
Presenters also identified administrative design choices that affect accessibility and equity. Payment structures vary: some programs reimburse after work is completed; others pay in milestones — an approach that mitigates the need for applicants to front the full project cost but requires closer project monitoring. Several states pair grants with bridge loans or other capital to avoid excluding applicants who cannot advance reimbursable expenses.
Board members discussed tradeoffs between application simplicity and administrative rigor. Eric and Ellen advocated for a LOI stage that keeps initial barriers low while preserving the ability to conduct deeper review for larger awards. Panelists repeatedly returned to the role of technical assistance — both to help applicants prepare high‑quality proposals and to reduce project failure after awards — and to the value of embedding fund priorities in statewide strategic plans so that evaluation metrics can be consistent with statutory goals.
Ending: The benchmarking findings — especially the LOI funnel, calibrated scoring, payment-milestone options and emphasis on technical assistance — will inform the advisory board’s work on draft fund structure and scoring. Board staff signaled plans to circulate summarized takeaways and to use the results as input for upcoming facilitated discussions and the board’s iterative fund design timeline.
