- Redevelopment efforts should be careful to separate governance from operations.
- Planning for diversified revenue streams is more realistic than relying solely on participant fees in public-private partnerships and community programs.
- Recognize that program intensity drives cost. Incubator initiatives that combine technical assistance, workforce training, and community programming require more staffing and external support than a straightforward lease-based model.
Introduction
Sustainable redevelopment of underutilized facilities is a unique challenge for communities, but there are case studies emerging across the country from which one can glean practical lessons, particularly in the space of food systems. A former grow house near Salida presents just such an opportunity to return a large controlled-environment agriculture facility to productive use while supporting local agricultural business development, workforce training, education, food-system resilience, and broader community benefits. The core issue is not simply how to bring the space back into productive enterprises, but also, what governance and operating structure can sustain a large, shared facility over time.
This study compared six organizations and facilities – Old Fort, Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA), New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, Viva Farms, the Smiley Building, and Fresh Meals on Wheels of Sheboygan County (see Table 1 below). These cases had some shared challenges with the property of interest, a former commercial cannabis cultivation facility near Salida: a 13.26-acre property with an approximately 20,000-square-foot commercial/support building and more than 100,000 square feet of greenhouse space. Existing infrastructure includes controlled-environment greenhouse systems, fertigation controls, wells, water treatment, septic service, and substantial electrical capacity.
Key Takeaways
No single model can offer the right-fit solution for financial sustainability, agricultural entrepreneurship, workforce development, community participation, and operational simplicity. Instead, the appropriate direction depends on Chaffee County stakeholders’ priorities, demonstrated demand, facility condition, available partners, management capacity, and acceptable level of long-term financial involvement. So, the cases suggest phasing development, using professional management, diversifying revenue, and clearly separating governance, facility management, and user roles.
Cross-Case Implications for this Greenhouse
The cross-case findings provide some of the most valuable and generalizable lessons from this project. The strongest common principle is functional separation: a governing body or owner sets mission, policy, budget, and major investment direction; professional management operates the facility; and growers, tenants, partners, or volunteers carry out their own production, businesses, or programs. Community participation can be meaningful without making users collectively responsible for day-to-day facility management.
The cases also show a direct trade-off between public benefit and operating complexity. Intensive incubator models require professional farm management, training, technical assistance, business support, and often market development. New Entry estimated that personnel can represent 60% or more of an intensive incubator’s operating budget. By contrast, the Smiley Building demonstrates a leaner model in which centralized management focuses on leases, utilities, maintenance, and incremental improvements while tenants operate independently.
The case evidence does not support assuming that an intensive community-oriented incubator can be financed primarily through grower fees. ALBA’s 2024 revenue was heavily grant- and contribution-supported, and New Entry and Viva Farms each reported substantial dependence on federal funding. Fresh Meals on Wheels demonstrates a more blended structure, combining grants/contributions with program-service revenue. The commercial Smiley Building provides the contrasting example: recurring tenant leases support routine operations, staffing, improvements, and owner returns.
Three Illustrative Governance and Operating Scenarios
Before selecting a governance model or committing to full-scale redevelopment, the project should move into a focused feasibility and validation phase. To streamline and inform future discussions and based on the key findings, three illustrative governance and operating scenarios were forwarded to community leaders to consider.
Table 2 below summarizes the key characteristics, strengths, and trade-offs of each scenario. These scenarios are intended to support discussion and comparison rather than recommend an immediate selection (see the full report for details). Key findings from the case studies were used to inform the scenarios and offered to motivate the next steps for the community leaders outlined below.
Next Steps for Chaffee County Leaders
- Validate user and tenant demand. Identify prospective commercial growers, nurseries, processors, beginning farmers, educational partners, nonprofits, and workforce organizations. Document space needs, willingness to pay, infrastructure requirements, and expected length of occupancy.
- Establish an operating-cost baseline. Complete a technical assessment of greenhouse systems and estimate energy, water, maintenance, insurance, staffing, security, administration, and replacement costs under realistic operating conditions.
- Conduct market analysis. Evaluate viable greenhouse products and services, buyer demand, distribution channels, pricing, competition, seasonality, and market-access requirements.
- Define the County’s financial parameters. Clarify acceptable capital exposure, operating subsidy, investment horizon, return expectations, and the role of grants, philanthropy, institutional support, and private investment.
- Identify operating and programming partners. Determine which entity could credibly manage the facility and which partners could provide business development, agricultural technical assistance, workforce training, education, food-system programming, or market support.
- Pilot before full activation. Where technically feasible, use a pilot to test tenant demand, operating costs, management systems, market performance, and partnership capacity before scaling.
Conclusion
Beyond the community initiative that motivated this study, there are lessons to share for other redevelopment projects that want to consider sustainability and community viability in their planning. Across the six case studies highlighted, consistent best practices included professional management, clear roles, diversified revenue, shared infrastructure, strong partnerships, market access, and phased development. These principles are useful for any community project where public-private partnership long-term governance or major capital commitments are made.
Prepared from: Nafisa Nawar Aava, CSU 2026 Extension Internships Report, Greenhouse: Governance and Operating Options for Sustainable Redevelopment, CSU, August 2026.
Mentors: Willie Wilkins, Derek Lowstuter, Dawn Thilmany and Monica Pless.