Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
USDA seeking public comment on beef carcass grade update
Agronomy Farm’s inaugural field day showcased soybeans
Clay Target league provides team experience for rural youth
Farm equipment sales down but combine purchases up in June
Corteva consolidates four seed brands under Hoegemeyer label
Gorman Heritage Farm showcasing ag with Farm Day Camps
Excessive rain has caused some issues; crop report still favorable
Drought followed by wet spring may mean less hay this year
Family-owned farm to open grocery store in Columbus neighborhood
KSU soil erosion research plots offer foundation for future conservation
Heritage Tractor, Martin Brothers celebrate 100 years of dealership
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Michigan’s ag budget in limbo; facing fewer cuts

By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

LANSING, Mich. — The budget for the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA), as envisioned by the State Senate, is shaping up to have way less in the way of cuts than what some feared. What makes it into the final budget remains to be seen.

Earlier this month the Senate unanimously approved a budget bill for the department, called HB 5875. The bill restores funding to a number of programs Gov. Jennifer Granholm was targeting; however, any of these items could be line item vetoed if the governor so chooses, but only under certain conditions, according to Senate Fiscal Agency staff.

Programs the governor targeted for deep cuts include the grain inspection program, Right-to-Farm, commodity inspection program, dairy inspection program and the migrant worker housing inspection program.

“We’ll see if the House and Senate go for it,” said Jeff Haarer, of the cuts that were restored to the grain inspection program. Haarer is manager of the producer security services section of the MDA. “We think it’s a very important program.”

The section Haarer manages is responsible for regulating some 200 grain elevators in the state to make sure they remain sound; the section also helps administer the Farm Produce Insurance Fund, which is a program that compensates participating farmers, who might otherwise lose their investment if a grain elevator goes out of business.

The governor had already cut the program for the current fiscal year. According to Haarer, the section lost two auditors and one administrative person after the cut last year and the program is “barely getting by.”

The Senate-approved bill adds $300,000 to the program, while the House bill adds $252,600.

The governor and House recommended a $150,000 cut to the Right-to-Farm program; the Senate rejected that cut. The governor and House recommended a $379,000 reduction to the plant pest management division, which oversees the commodity inspection program. The Senate bill adds back $250,000 of that.

“We are, as an apple committee, very pleased with the bill that came out of the Senate,” said Denise Donahue, executive director of the Michigan Apple Committee.

People in the apple industry have been complaining quite vociferously lately about the lack of apple inspectors, and how it’s hurting their business.

The governor also recommended an increase in dairy inspection fees to offset a cut of $500,900. Both the Senate and House rejected the fee increase and restored the money to the program. The governor recommended an increase in migrant worker housing inspection fees from $5 to $30 per worker to offset a cut of $537,900. The House rejected that fee increase and added back $400,000, with the Senate rejecting the fee increase, too and adding back the full $537,900.

The state doesn’t require landlords that house migrant farm workers to have their housing inspected by the state, but landlords like the program because they believe it can help them if their housing facilities are chosen for inspection by federal officials.
The governor, House and Senate leaders still have to work out their differences at an upcoming revenue conference. According to Senate Fiscal Agency staff, there is still a problem with the budget, besides the program issues: money for a three percent pay increase for unionized employees has yet to be budgeted for, but the employees will still get their pay increase, since the legislature did not vote it down.

Donahue said she’s concerned about how the pay increases will be paid for.

“My hope is that they don’t take it out of programs,” she said. “I’m concerned about furloughs because that’s caused us to lose sales.”

5/26/2010