Kansas committee hears bill to let animal health commissioner set fees, rules under Poultry Disease Control Act

The Kansas House Committee on Agriculture heard testimony on Senate Bill 89 on an amendment to the Poultry Disease Control Act that would authorize the state animal health commissioner to adopt rules and establish limited participation and testing fees.

The bill would allow the commissioner to adopt rules and regulations to administer the act and to set annual plan participation fees not to exceed $50 and certification fees for testers not to exceed $50. It also would allow a per-visit testing fee for on-site testing related to pullorum, typhoid and fowl typhoid of up to $100 per participating location and would allow the commissioner to revoke participation for noncompliance or repeated outbreaks. The bill would require poultry shipped into Kansas to be from sources that participate in, or meet the requirements of, the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) or equivalent standards.

Kyle Hamilton, committee staff, summarized the bill’s statutory changes and the sections of Kansas Statutes Annotated it would amend, noting the proposal removes the hatchery definition and adds fee-authority language. "Section 4 would amend KSA 2‑9‑12 to require each person participating in the plan to pay the commissioner an annual plan participation fee not to exceed $50," Hamilton said. He also explained that testing done by anyone other than the commissioner, an authorized agent, or a person certified under the act would not suffice for participation in the plan.

Samantha Boniface, a policy intern and Flinchbaugh Fellow at the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA), testified in support and described the role of the NPIP. "Kansas generates approximately $272,000,000 in total value of annual poultry industry production," Boniface said, and added that Kansas has participated in NPIP since 1945. She told the committee the KDA currently provides poultry testing and surveillance services at no charge, and that Senate Bill 89 would enable KDA to assess participant and service fees for voluntary NPIP participation.

Dr. Sarah McReynolds, assistant animal health commissioner at the Division of Animal Health, answered operational questions about exhibitions and testing. "Currently all exhibition poultry are required to have a pullorum-typhoid test before exhibition," McReynolds said. She clarified that exhibition birds do not currently have to be NPIP participants and that the on-site test is typically done with extension agents at fairs, sometimes at check-in or prior to the fair, and that the pen-side test takes only minutes.

KDA staff provided a fiscal estimate showing increased agency expenditures for salaries, routine surveillance and antigen supplies. The fiscal note stated enactment would increase expenditures by $35,500 in fiscal year 2026 and $40,500 in fiscal year 2027 from agency fee funds and estimated revenues of $11,250 per year for certified tester registrations and $7,000 per year for on-site testing.

The Kansas Livestock Association (KLA) supported the bill. "KLA is in support of Senate Bill 89 because it does more freely allow those that are receiving services from the department to also pay their fair share," Taylor Nickel, representing KLA, told the committee. Nickel said the bill broadens the pool of industries paying into the animal disease control fund beyond swine and cattle.

Committee members asked whether the bill would affect 4‑H and youth exhibition poultry. McReynolds replied that the proposed fees apply to NPIP participants and would not change the current, no-cost pullorum testing for exhibition birds performed by the division. Representative Mosher asked if the section 5 language applied to all poultry exhibited in Kansas; Hamilton and McReynolds confirmed it applies to all poultry taken to public exhibition, and McReynolds reiterated that current exhibition testing would remain available.

No committee vote was taken on Senate Bill 89 at the hearing. Several members of the poultry industry submitted written testimony in support; one corporate veterinarian submitted written-only testimony. The hearing record closed with supporters and agency staff available to answer follow-up questions.