Committee advances bill to raise fee caps, let Brand Board keep interest to shore up budget

Senate Bill 10 16, which would adjust fee caps for Idaho Brand Board services and allow the board to retain interest on its dedicated fund, was advanced to the Senate floor with a do-pass recommendation by the Agricultural Affairs Committee.

The bill’s sponsor and the Idaho State Brand Inspector told the committee the changes are intended to address a projected long-term funding shortfall for the board, which inspects and verifies livestock ownership across the state.

The Idaho Brand Board’s role and the need for change

"Idaho is home to more than 2,500,000 cattle," said Cody Berlisle, director for the Idaho Brand Board and Idaho State Brand Inspector. He told the committee that brand inspectors verified ownership of about 2,200,000 head of livestock last year, recovered and returned livestock valued at over $250,000, and prevented more than $600,000 in questionable ownership distributions. Berlisle said the board operates on dedicated funds, not general fund appropriations, and that those dedicated funds have lost purchasing power due to inflation.

Berlisle and other witnesses said fee-cap adjustments in the bill are the product of a multi-stakeholder working group. "After approximately 20 stakeholder meetings, over an 18-month period, the working group established the proposed changes encompassed in Senate Bill 10 16," Berlisle said.

Why the bill matters

The bill would change sections of Idaho law governing brand inspection (Idaho Code Title 25, Chapter 11) to update fee caps that advocates said have not been adjusted since 2011, and in some cases date back to 2006. It would also allow the board to retain interest earned on its dedicated fund rather than reverting that interest to the state general fund, and it would add statutory language clarifying the board’s process for regulating service fees under the caps.

Berlisle provided the committee financial context supporting the request: the board reported a roughly $85,000 deficit in FY2023 and a $340,000 deficit in FY2024, and said its overall cash balance fell by more than $500,000 over two years. He told senators the proposed changes are expected to produce an estimated $300,000 positive impact to the brand board’s dedicated fund and an estimated $40,000 negative impact to the state general fund because interest currently reverted to the general fund would instead remain with the dedicated fund.

Stakeholder support and process

Multiple industry witnesses testified in support. Bob Nierbald, government affairs for the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, said the stakeholder process involved lengthy debate and negotiation: "It wasn't like everybody goes, 'yeah, this is good.' It's 18 months — there was a lot of debate," he told the committee. Spencer Black, president of the Idaho Cattle Association and a member of the working group, said the industry asked the brand board to convene the group and that membership review and approval were part of the process. "We put criteria on the brand, and they met that criteria," Black said.

Ted Vanderskoff, chairman of the Idaho Brand Board, described the board as a producer-led oversight body housed administratively within the Idaho State Police. He told the committee the board anticipated the shortfall and sought a long-term, 10-year plan to maintain solvency while continuing services.

Questions and clarifications

Committee members asked how stakeholder representatives were selected and how the fee figures were determined. Berlisle said the working group included representatives from the Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Farm Bureau, Idaho Dairymen’s Association and the livestock market association, and that proposed caps were modeled on projected 10-year expense projections and compared with other states’ charges.

On enforcement, Berlisle said most brand inspectors are commissioned law enforcement officers and that enforcement actions and any citation processes are funded through the board’s dedicated revenue streams; citation revenue does not return to the board but to the general fund.

Final action

Senator Leahy moved that the committee send Senate Bill 10 16 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation; a second was recorded but not named on the transcript. The committee voice-voted the motion; the clerk recorded the motion as carried and the bill advanced to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.

Ending

Proponents told the committee the bill is intended to preserve a longstanding, industry-funded service that certifies livestock title and helps resolve theft and ownership disputes. Committee members did not record any opposition during the hearing.