<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2TjoWu_0vix0JBV00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2TjoWu_0vix0JBV00" width="1200" height="799" ><figcaption>An alfalfa field in Imperial County. For the first time in more than two decades, the county of Imperial is considering overhauling its service fees charged by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, one which would significantly impact seed producers. | PHOTO COURTESY OF TOP NOTCH SEEDS INC./SCOTT EMANUELLI</figcaption></figure>EL CENTRO — For the first time in more than two decades, the county of Imperial is weighing a significant overhaul of the service fees charged by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, and the farming industry isn’t pleased with some of the proposed changes. Specifically, a proposed 300 percent hike in inspection fees has drawn criticism from local agricultural leaders, who made their opinions known during a public hearing and presentation at the Imperial County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday morning, Sept. 24, warning the increases could damage competitiveness and reduce revenue.The proposed fee adjustments is part of a long-overdue review of the Agricultural Commissioner’s fee structure, which hasn’t seen an update since 2003. The new fees would affect a range of services, including phytosanitary (plant health) inspections, pesticide registration and certified producer certificates. While the adjustments aim to better align fees with the costs of providing these services, industry representatives argue that some of the increases could have severe financial consequences for local farmers and exporters.<figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=0JzrHn_0vix0JBV00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=0JzrHn_0vix0JBV00" width="681" height="967" ><figcaption>Scott Emanuelli, Imperial County Farm Bureau president and Chief Financial Officer of Top Notch Seeds Inc. of Brawley | PHOTO COURTESY IMPERIAL COUNTY FARM BUREAU</figcaption></figure>The proposed fee schedule is based on a study conducted by a consultant in 2019, which found that many of the fees charged by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office were outdated and did not cover the full cost of services. According to the study, the county was recovering only 72 percent of its costs, leading to a shortfall that the fee adjustments aim to address. The study recommended significant increases to bring the fees in line with actual service costs.Total revenue from the present fee schedule is $948,994. The proposed changes all together would be $1,269,427, according to the Wohlford Consulting study. “I understand, we run a business; I understand that fees are increased. I agree with most of them. The one that seems very egregious to me is the 300 percent increase on the PQ, the inspections,” said grower Scott Emanuelli, who also spoke in his advocacy role as Imperial County Farm Bureau president. The inspection fees in question, related to phytosanitary inspections, or plant/pest quarantine (PQ) inspections, have a more direct impact on farmers’ bottom lines than many of the other proposed fee increases. “I’ll end up having to cut my services by probably 80 percent, from 5,000 (acres) down to 1,000, which will in fact lower your guys’ revenue substantially because it’s gonna make us not competitive,” Emanuelli added.Specifically, the phytosanitary field seed inspection now costs $451. The proposed cost would be $40,590. The study projects that the Ag Commissioner’s office would see projected revenue of $121,770 alone from that one inspection.The county board shared its thoughts following a presentation by Agricultural Commissioner Jolene Dessert and Assistant Ag Commissioner Rachel Garewal. Dessert and Garewal detailed the necessity of the proposed increases, but despite the rationale behind the new fee schedule, members of the board — which include one farmer in District 5 Supervisor John Hawk — expressed concerns about the potential impact on local businesses, with some suggesting a more gradual approach to implementing the new fees.“I think the issue that plagues the county on multiple fronts, multiple different agencies, is the fact that we hit the consumer because we have not adjusted fees for two decades,” District 1 Supervisor Jesus Escobar said. “We’re always behind the eight ball on fees.”Escobar proposed a tiered approach to fee increases to better allow for industry to adjust over a longer period of time, while also ensuring that the county stays ahead of long-term increases, avoiding situations like this one in the future. <figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2YZYMm_0vix0JBV00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2YZYMm_0vix0JBV00" width="928" height="616" ><figcaption>Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner Jolene Dessert presented a new proposed fee scheduled for her office on Tuesday, Sept. 24. The hearing was continued until Nov. 5. Here she is seen a few years ago going over the livestock report. | CALEXICO CHRONICLE FILE PHOTO</figcaption></figure>“We always get, with all due respect, screwed at the county with fees. We never do it the right way. We’re always one or two decades behind,” Escobar said.His proposal outlined a 10-year period in which the county incrementally increases fees up to the highest consultant recommendation, thereby staying up-to-date while also reducing the strain on industry.District 4 Supervisor Ryan Kelley weighed in. “I do support this being staged over time. I don’t know about the consultant recommendation as the base though.”He mentioned that when the board previously used consultant recommendations for building permits, the cost to apply for a water heater permit was higher than purchasing the actual water heater.“I think the department has come up with proposed fees and there’s a rationale behind that,” Kelley added, before reaffirming his support for incremental fee increases.Ultimately, the board decided on a continuation of this public hearing at a later date after hearing more comments from Emanuelli. In an impassioned plea to the board, Emanuelli made the case that industry should be given a seat at the table in the fee schedule discussions. He cited multiple examples of fees that could be increased far above the new proposal without hurting the agricultural industry, and others that are far too high given the processes involved. Emanuelli assured the board and the agricultural commissioner that members of the industry could give the county greater insight into their fee scheduling needs than “a consultant who has never had boots on the ground in Imperial County,” he said.“So, if we involve industry, we have a lot of brains up here that can really help you guys, and we try to do our best,” Emanuelli added. “In this situation, we can look through the numbers, and we can come up with a plan that gets us more ground without losing revenue.”The board settled on Nov. 5 as the continuation date for this public hearing, with District 2 Supervisor and board Chair Luis Plancarte emphasizing the flexibility in how Ag Commissioner Dessert might proceed.“Whether you choose to do this with input from industry, how you get to it, that’s up to you guys. Obviously, you brought the initial, and if you bring this one back, that’s what you bring back,” Plancarte said. “If you bring something modified, that’s what you bring back.”Despite the tension around the fee increases, Emanuelli expressed confidence in the agricultural community’s commitment to excellence. “We’re good stewards of what we do, and I can speak for the entire industry on that. Everybody wants to be the best. We’re proud of this county,” Emanuelli said.</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Imperial County Weighs First Ag Fee Hike in 21 Years

EL CENTRO — For the first time in more than two decades, the county of Imperial is weighing a significant overhaul of the service fees charged by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, and the farming industry isn’t pleased with some of the proposed changes. Specifically, a proposed 300...