Maine advisory board narrows design for new agriculture, food systems and forestry fund; weighs $500,000 pilot between grants, loans and technical assistance

Lily, the new fund coordinator at the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF), opened a virtual advisory-board meeting that focused on shaping evaluation metrics and design choices for the Agriculture, Food Systems and Forestry fund and how to use an immediate $500,000 allocation.

The meeting centered on three framing questions from InCommon consultant Eric: how the fund should balance individual business grants with supply‑chain or infrastructure investments; how to define a credible need for funding; and how to define “historically marginalized, underrepresented and underserved” communities for scoring and evaluation. “There’s really a through line in this conversation on what we’re gonna look at at the end of after the money is spent and what we’re looking at now before the applications come in,” Eric said, framing the trade-offs.

Why it matters: board members said the pilot round should both deliver demonstrable impact for producers and generate stories to justify larger future capital. Several participants argued for different tools depending on sector: forestry breakout participants favored low‑interest loan instruments for equipment and logging needs, while agriculture and food‑system participants emphasized small grants and technical assistance to help small farmers and processors access funds.

Key points and debate

- Scope of the pilot: Board members confirmed the $500,000 is an initial tranche rather than a final capitalization. Eric and others emphasized the questions are “evergreen” and that design choices will matter more with larger capital. Senator Craig Hickman said the fund’s fully capitalized vision could be far larger, while others referenced past proposals in the millions; no formal capitalization decision was made.

- Grants vs. loans: Dana and others argued a revolving loan fund can recapitalize itself and have lasting impact, while agriculture representatives stressed that many small and mid‑scale producers need grants rather than loans. “With a small amount of money that’s heavily dictated upon by legislative appropriations… my vote is to have that revolving loan fund,” one participant said; another noted that interest-bearing loans can create barriers for some community members who “can’t accept interest.”

- Two‑track approach: Multiple speakers recommended a dual track—micro or small grants for individual business needs (examples discussed around $10,000) alongside larger grants or loans for systemic, supply‑chain investments (some suggested caps around $50,000 for larger grants as a working figure). The board did not adopt formal caps or eligibility rules in this meeting.

- Defining credible need and equity: The board discussed whether to require formal proof that applicants cannot obtain other funding (a strict “but‑for” test) or to rely on softer benchmarks, industry surveys, third‑party assessments and self‑identification to lower application barriers. Eric noted benchmark programs use both federal anchors and state geographic measures; several members favored allowing applicants to self‑identify while the board refines definitions.

- Technical assistance (TA): Members debated TA delivery models and funding levels. Options included embedding modest TA allowances in grant awards, competitively funding TA providers, or purchasing TA wholesale for the TA ecosystem. A suggestion from previous emails that 10% of funds be set aside for TA was noted but not adopted. Participants agreed TA should prioritize gap areas—such as engineering/design help for plant expansions—where federal TA funding is retracting.

Breakout findings and public comment

- Forestry group (facilitated by Jody) prioritized logging‑sector equipment needs and low‑interest loan support; workforce development grants were discussed as a secondary need.

- Food systems/processing group discussed blue‑sky investments (e.g., dairy processing, cold storage) that would be transformative at scale but said the $500,000 tranche should seek compelling pilot projects that produce strong stories to attract further funding.

- Agriculture group emphasized small and medium grants that are catalytic and accessible, combined with TA and streamlined applications so administrative burden does not outweigh grant value.

Bradley, director of sustainable agriculture and food systems at Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), urged designing flexible, low‑cost loan features to reduce collateral barriers and noted that federal TA programs that historically supported underserved communities are shrinking.

What was decided and next steps

No formal motions or votes occurred. The board directed InCommon to prepare a report and proposed evaluation metrics based on today’s feedback; DACF staff will draft fund‑design language and circulate it for board reactions ahead of the next meeting. Lily said materials will be sent 10 days before the next meeting and that staff will follow up with one‑on‑one conversations as needed.

Quotes

“’We’re not making decisions now… but it’s really to get the wheels spinning for everybody,’” Eric said, describing the session’s exploratory purpose.

“’We want to structure something that could have the option for both,’” Commissioner Amanda Beal said about combining grants and loans over time.

“’There’s a possibility to do 0–2% loans, which is very impactful,’” Bradley of CEI said, urging low‑cost loan options to reach applicants who lack collateral.

What remains unresolved

The board did not finalize eligibility criteria, interest‑rate limits, grant size caps, TA budget percentage, or a formal decision about whether FAME or another entity would manage loan execution. Definitions for “credible need” and the exact scoring for socially disadvantaged communities were deferred for later meetings and for written proposals from staff and consultants.

The advisory board will reconvene with a draft report from InCommon and proposed fund design language for further refinement; no vote on fund rules or allocations was taken at this meeting.