Vermont agency reports heavy demand, modest awards from $2.3 million agriculture development grants

Abby Willard, Agriculture Development Division director at the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, told the legislative committee the Agriculture Development Grant (ADG) program received more than 500 applications requesting just under $44 million and awarded roughly $2.1 million to 25 projects from a FY24 appropriation of $2.3 million. "We received over 500 applications requesting just under $44 million," Willard said, and "we funded 25 projects at just over 2.1 million."

The grants were created after a 2023 Future of Agriculture commission recommendation and a statewide strategic planning process that highlighted infrastructure needs in meat production and processing, produce, and the maple industry. Willard said the Legislature directed the agency to target infrastructure investments to grow these sectors and that statute limited maple awards to 25% of the appropriation. The agency issued a maple request for proposals in fall 2023 and a combined meat-and-produce RFP in January 2024.

The program was heavily oversubscribed, Willard told the committee. Of the 503 applications, 178 scored 80% or higher on the agency's review scale—about $22 million of demand meeting that threshold—yet only a fraction could be funded. "We have three reviewers on every application," she said, describing sector-based review discussions that balanced impact, readiness and geographic and sector diversity to reach final funding decisions. Unsuccessful applicants were referred to other funding sources and to the agency’s navigator role for technical assistance.

Willard gave sector-level details: maple applications numbered more than 350 (331 deemed eligible) and received $542,000 in awards under the 25% cap; meat had 96 applications requesting roughly $15 million with $577,000 awarded; and produce had 76 applications and received just over $1 million. Funded awards ranged from under $20,000 to approximately $100,000–$240,000.

On project status, Willard said 18 of the 25 originally funded projects were complete, three were wrapping expenditures by the end of April, two had requested extensions to September, and one project was canceled. The agency used some unobligated funds to run an additional $26,000 harvest and post-harvest food-safety grant that targeted meat and produce operations under inspection, bringing the total number of supported projects to 27.

Willard highlighted common grantee outcomes including energy-use reductions, production-efficiency gains, workforce development and sales growth. She cited six examples: Bourbon Maple installed a vacuum pump and reduced energy use while increasing sap flow; a meat grantee expanded processing and cooling capacity and hired two employees; Dalestead Farm upgraded reverse-osmosis equipment and storage and cut fuel use; Bros Market upgraded HVAC to improve packing efficiency; Blue House Mushrooms expanded indoor production and saw annual sales rise from about $91,000 to more than $225,000; and Fox Glove Farm installed an upgraded evaporator, reducing wood fuel needs and labor.

Committee members pressed the agency on program design questions. Representative O'Brien asked how reviewers narrowed 503 applications to 25 winners; Willard reiterated the three-reviewer protocol and sector-based deliberations. Members also questioned whether the statutory 25% cap for maple limited the agency’s ability to fund high-quality maple proposals; Willard said each sector had sufficient high-quality, shovel-ready proposals to have used the entire appropriation on its own.

On matching requirements, Willard confirmed the ADG program did not require a cash match, though she said roughly 80% of grantees contributed in-kind labor or other resources and some provided cash. She cautioned that a mandatory match would have made some projects infeasible for smaller operations.

The committee agreed to invite Working Lands program staff back to present longer-term metrics, including historical return-per-dollar comparisons, to inform whether a future recurring program or different eligibility would produce greater economic impact. The agency said sector-specific review helped surface industry needs and that year-over-year funding would allow businesses to plan larger investments.

The committee ended with scheduling notes and procedural logistics for upcoming travel and floor time. The agency's reporting and the committee's request for additional metrics were identified as the next procedural steps.