Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farmer Lender Mediation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee lays over bill to extend farmer‑lender mediation program for five years
Summary
The House Finance & Policy Committee heard testimony supporting House File 36 92, which would extend Minnesota’s farmer‑lender mediation program for five years. Testifiers from the program, the Department of Agriculture and farm groups described high settlement rates and the program’s role in keeping farms operational.
Representative Smith moved to lay over House File 36 92 and described the bill as a straight‑forward extension to preserve the farmer‑lender mediation program for another five years. The bill, Smith said, contains no policy changes and is intended to ensure continued access to mediation for farmers facing creditor enforcement.
Mary, identified in testimony as the director of the farm lender mediation program, told the committee the program has operated since the mid‑1980s and offers a 90‑day mediation process that helps farmers and lenders negotiate solutions short of bankruptcy or foreclosure. She said the program handled roughly 1,700 mediations last year and that in "nearly 90%" of completed cases parties reached a mutually agreeable resolution. Mary also told the committee the program handled about $166 million in creditor claims last year and that mediation often allows the farm operation to retain control while parties restructure obligations.
Tom Peterson, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, expressed the department’s support and described the role of the agency’s farm advocates, who provide confidential, free assistance and sometimes participate in mediations. Hunter Peterson of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation and Stu Lawry of the Minnesota Farmers Union each urged passage, saying mediation requests are rising amid a difficult farm economy and offering farmer anecdotes of cases where mediation "bought time" and enabled operators to remain in business.
Committee members asked about funding sources and program history; Mary said the program does not receive Farm Aid funds and that it began as a pilot in the mid‑1980s. After discussion, House File 36 92 was formally laid over in committee for further consideration.
The committee record shows no final committee vote on adoption of the bill at this meeting; the motion recorded was to lay the bill over. The committee moved next to informational presentations on the state’s agricultural research and extension programs and the Forever Green Initiative.
