Comments on: Great Northern Pasta to Expand Distribution
Newest First
By TallTree on 12-08-12 @ 12:36 am
A grant is an award of money WITHOUT the expectation that the funds will be repaid.
Why were grants given instead of loans to these private businesses? I don’t see how these
grants meet the program’s eligibility requirements…
According to the Montana Growth Through Agriculture Program Information:
(http://agr.mt.gov/agr/Programs/Development/GrantsLoans/GTA/pdf/GTAbackground.pdf)
The Council may award grants up to $50,000. In addition to meeting the general criteria for
funding, grant applicants MUST have at least one of the following to be applicable:
o The project will benefit ADDITIONAL agricultural companies,
o The project will accomplish research that will benefit agriculture as a whole, or
o The applicant is a nonprofit entity.
Aren’t these grants similar in tone to the Obama administration’s giving money to various green
private businesses it favors? That is, this Montana program is a government entity favoring
some private businesses over others by giving them money? Sounds like socialism?
By Levelheaded1 on 12-08-12 @ 4:17 pm
Had the original had the previous commentator actually not selectively edited their response, and actually shared the complete language, which goes on to say: “to be considered for grant funding,
the applicant must include information int eh application that proves at least one additional grant
eligibility requirement has been met”). Those three “additional grant eligibility requirements” are not
the General Criteria that must be satisfied first.
The primary (“General Criteria”) are:
1. Primarily adds value to Montana’s agricultural products,
2. has the prospects for commercial success given current personnel, experience and resources
of the applicant,
3. has the prospects to create and/or retain jobs in Montana,
4. primarily processes or adds value to Montana’s agricultural products currently produced or
potentially produced in the state, and
5. has the management structure to allow the Agriculture Development Council to reasonably
conclude the the participant will comply with ongoing reporting and monitoring activities.
In addition, matching contributions are required, “in an amount that is at least equal to the GTA
funds requested for the project”. Other state grant funds cannot count toward matching funds, for
instance, because the view is that it’s really from the same source (the state).
There are also restrictions in what costs are eligible. And it is a competitive application process.
Not all applicants get funded, and the total annual pool of funds available is limited.
The previous commentator apparently has a dim view of what government’s role is in stimulating
commerce. Both the USDA and the Montana Dept of Agriculture have taken an aggressive role in
developing local food sources, and varied crops. I applaud both these government agencies for
taking the big picture view of helping startups with their visions, and allowing new entrants to
explore/expand into new products and markets.
By TallTree on 12-08-12 @ 11:37 pm
Re: Levelheade1
Your comment: ‘Those three “additional grant eligibility requirements” are not the General
Criteria that must be satisfied first.’
I did not dispute that, However in sake of clarity - not due to selective editing as that is
why I also included the link - I only included the point I had a question about. That is, the
“Additional Grant Eligibility Requirements”.
Note the program’s statement where I have emphasized the word you have apparently missed: “In
ADDITION to meeting the general criteria for funding, grant applicants must have at least one of
the following to be applicable: “
Now the private businesses may have met the additional grant eligibility requirements… I don’t
know as it is not obvious from the article.
Your other parts of your comments muddy the waters and don’t serve the purpose of my original
questions which you did not attempt to answer:
1. Why a grant and not a loan?
2. How were the additional requirements met?
Re: your last paragraph. Before you get too high up on your supposed moral high ground… am I
taking a dim view of what government’s role is in stimulating commerce? Perhaps I was
commenting on a potential similarity between the Obama administration - who some accuse of being
socialist - and the MT government, of which I haven’t heard charges of socialism. Also, grants
- free money - can tip the scale favoring one business over another another. Since a government
entity is doling out what some consider ‘business welfare’, I as a citizen can wonder if proper
care was made in the decision and whether all the rules were being followed. After all, there
has never been a history of a private interest unduly favored by a government action, has there?
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.