Maryland agriculture officials defend $124.7 million budget as analysts flag cover‑crop costs and audit gaps

The House Appropriations Committee’s Transportation and the Environment Subcommittee on Wednesday heard a fiscal 2027 budget presentation for the Maryland Department of Agriculture that showed an operating allowance of $124,700,000 and prompted questions about program spending, unresolved audit findings and a new electric‑vehicle charger inspection program.

Analyst Andrew Gray told the panel that the proposed operating budget rises about $2.6 million (2.1 percent) and that DLS identified two federal rescissions that reduced passthrough food‑purchase funding and a small spongy‑moth suppression grant. Gray recommended restricting $100,000 of MDA’s general‑fund appropriation until the department and the Department of General Services submit a report addressing findings 3 and 4 of the March 2025 audit, with a target submission date of 07/01/2026.

“DLS recommends that $100,000 of MDA’s general fund appropriation be restricted until MDA submits a report in coordination with the Department of General Services on the resolution of findings 3 and 4 of the March 2025 audit,” Gray told the committee.

Secretary Kevin Attic said the department disagrees with some of the DLS recommendations but described steps MDA has taken, including hiring a director of central services in January 2025, creating a procurement officer position, instituting inventory procedures and working with DGS to establish a new baseline for what must be inventoried. “We have instituted the program changes that we’ve needed,” Attic said, arguing that some requests for duplicate reporting are unnecessary.

Committee members pressed officials about the cover‑crop program after Hans Schmidt, assistant secretary for resource conservation, said FY25 was a “banner year” with record signups and that, as the record shows, “we spent $32,000,000.” Schmidt said MDA had anticipated lower payouts (roughly $26–30 million) and covered the difference by tapping carryover funds, Bay Restoration Trust Fund reserves and some federal dollars, and shifting certain payments into FY26 to meet obligations.

Schmidt described adjustments planned for FY26 and FY27 — including lowering base payments and some incentives — to keep the program within an expected $19–20 million envelope, while emphasizing cover crops’ environmental value. “Cover crops are our most cost‑effective measures of reducing nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay,” he said.

Members asked for a clear account of where the difference in payments came from and for a flowchart showing how trust and federal funds were moved to meet FY25 obligations; MDA agreed to provide requested documentation.

The committee also focused on MDA’s emerging electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) inspection program. Gray noted a new fee of $150 per port and a registration deadline that has been extended to 07/01/2026; Secretary Attic said MDA is discussing fee reductions with the Maryland Energy Administration and is pursuing reimbursable funding to offset the regulated community’s costs. Attic said the department aims to launch inspections and field training this summer and to staff the program with four inspectors and two supervisors.

Members raised personnel and equipment deficiency items: a roughly $500,000 personnel shortfall tied to vacancy‑savings projections and retiree payouts, and a $55,000 vent‑hood replacement at a seed‑testing laboratory that department staff described as a worker‑safety issue. Jeff Fretwell, MDA budget director, explained that transition costs, payout of accrued leave and past legislative reductions contributed to the shortfall.

The hearing produced several follow‑up requests: DLS asked for MDA to provide the audit‑resolution report plan, a one‑page explanation of the two deficiency appropriations, and a timeline/flowchart for how cover‑crop payments were funded. MDA committed to deliver outstanding items to the committee electronically within days.

The subcommittee heard public testimony supporting the governor’s proposed MDA budget from conservation groups, and the committee agreed to continue review as staff and the department exchange follow‑up materials.

The committee did not take a final vote on any MDA budget line during the hearing; members said they would consider DLS recommendations and MDA’s follow‑up material in subsequent deliberations.