Idaho Brand Board seeks higher fee caps, interest retention to shore up shrinking budget

The Idaho State Brand Board asked the Idaho Senate Agricultural Committee to approve Senate Bill 1016, which would raise statutory fee caps and allow the board to retain interest on its dedicated fund to address recent budget shortfalls.

The measure was presented by Cody Berlisle, director of the Idaho Brand Board and Idaho State Brand Inspector, who told the committee Idaho is “home to more than 2,500,000 cattle” and that the state’s livestock industries are Idaho’s second-largest agricultural sector. “Last year Idaho’s brand inspectors verified ownership on 2,200,000 head of livestock,” Berlisle said, adding the board recovered and returned livestock valued at “over $250,000” and prevented “more than $600,000 of questionable ownership funds” from being wrongfully distributed.

Committee members were told the Brand Board operates as a self-governed agency housed within the Idaho State Police and runs on dedicated funds from the livestock industry. Berlisle said the board collected and processed more than $3,300,000 in assessment fees last year for multiple commodity and control funds and that rising personnel, vehicle replacement and fuel costs have eroded the buying power of those dedicated dollars. “In FY23, we closed the year with an $85,000 deficit,” he said, and “we closed the year with a $340,000 deficit” in FY24. He said the board’s cash balance has decreased by “over $500,000 in the last 2 years.”

Why it matters: brand registration and inspection provide a third-party record that helps establish legal title to livestock and supports theft investigations and returns of stray animals. The board’s presentation described SB 1016 as the product of an industry stakeholder process intended to keep the program solvent and avoid service disruptions.

What the bill would do: Berlisle said SB 1016 amends sections of Idaho Code related to brand regulation (Title 25, Chapter 11) to: raise statutory caps on certain service fees that have not been updated since 2011 (and in some cases since 2006); clarify the board’s process for setting fees under those caps; and allow the board to retain interest earned on its dedicated fund rather than reverting that interest to the general fund. He estimated the proposal would have an estimated negative impact of about $40,000 on the state general fund and an estimated positive impact of roughly $300,000 to the Brand Board’s dedicated fund, with additional indeterminate benefit over time from fee adjustments.

Questions from lawmakers and answers from staff: Senators asked how stakeholder input was gathered. Berlisle said a working group that included the Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Dairymen’s Association, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation and the livestock market association met “over a long period—20 meetings plus and over 2 years” to review operations and options. When senators asked whether the bill affected horse-brand rules, Berlisle replied the changes “do not affect anything within the horse inspection program” except a brand recording and renewal fee that applies to all livestock owners. On enforcement, he said most brand inspection staff are commissioned law enforcement officers and enforcement actions are handled by the brand department using dedicated funding; any fines or citations revenue does not flow to the board but reverts to the general fund.

Support and testimony: Witnesses who testified in favor included Bob Nierbaugh (government affairs, Idaho Dairymen’s Association), Spencer Black (president, Idaho Cattle Association), and Ted Vanderskoff (producer; chairman, Idaho Brand Board). Nierbaugh described the measure as “industry funded” and said the stakeholder process included debate and negotiated limits—such as an annual limit on increases—designed to protect producers. Black and Vanderskoff said producers and the board supported a long-term plan to bring the program up to modern standards and maintain services.

Outcome: Senator Leahy moved to send SB 1016 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation; a second was recorded and the committee advanced the bill to the floor by voice vote.

Next steps: The bill will proceed to the Senate floor for further consideration.