Regional development and small‑business groups urge clarity on RIDDUP and state match funding
Loading...
Summary
Regional development leaders praised RIDDUP for de‑risking brownfield buys and creating jobs; the Vermont SBDC warned that level funding would prevent it from drawing down federal dollars and detailed match shortfalls the committee may need to address.
Officials and program directors told the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on April 8 that two separate pieces of S.3.27 language will affect regional industrial development and small-business advising.
Adam Groll, executive director of the Bradenborough Development Credit Corporation, described two RIDDUP projects in his region that used program awards to make brownfield acquisitions viable. He said the program’s award structure "derisked" projects that the RDC otherwise could not have taken on and credited the program with enabling private investment and hires.
"But for the RIDDUP, we would not have stepped forward and purchased that property," Groll said, describing one project that later invested in new equipment and hired staff after remediation and stabilization.
Groll said the committee’s draft changes—including a proposed shift from an 80/20 match to a 50/50 split and language about federal-impact properties—need clarity about whether existing grants can be adjusted to mirror new terms. He urged specific drafting so agencies can use prior awards or adapt terms where appropriate.
Linda Rossi, state director of the Vermont Small Business Development Center, testified that the SBDC relies on a 1:1 nonfederal match to draw down federal funds. She said level funding in the governor’s 2027 proposal would leave the SBDC unable to accept its full federal award without additional state cash or waived indirect costs from its host institution.
Rossi provided program output numbers: with an operating budget near $1.2 million last year, the SBDC reported serving clients across Vermont that resulted in jobs created and retained and nearly $9.7 million in capital secured for clients. She urged restoring or adding state match so the SBDC can continue to leverage federal dollars and maintain field advisers.
Committee members discussed timing, the mechanics of in‑kind university waivers that count toward match, and how the economic development bill language could be reinserted in the Senate appropriations process if the House seeks to preserve opportunities to draw down federal funds.
The committee did not take a vote; members asked staff to coordinate with appropriations chairs and stakeholders to address match timing and to clarify the bill’s language about award shares and brownfield interactions before final passage.
