Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brand Fee And Surcharge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nebraska agriculture panel hears case for raising brand inspection fee cap and restoring travel surcharge
Summary
Sen. Barry DeKay told the Legislature's Agriculture Committee LB 11-87 would let the Brand Committee set per-head inspection fees up to $1.50 and replace mileage reimbursement with a flat travel surcharge (statutory cap $30 per stop). Producers and market operators urged the change to shore up Brand finances after inspection declines and a regional packing‑plant closure; others pressed for more transparency on past mileage billing practices.
Senator Barry DeKay asked the Agriculture Committee on Feb. 12 to recommend LB 11-87, saying the bill would raise the statutory cap on per‑head brand inspections and revert the travel reimbursement structure to a flat surcharge. "LB 11 87 would do 2 things. First, it would increase the statutory maximum per head inspection fee from the current dollar a head to a dollar 50 a head," DeKay told the committee during his opening remarks. He said the bill also would "eliminate the actual mileage travel cost component of the inspection fee and revert back to a flat surcharge collected each inspection location," with the surcharge capped in statute at $30 per stop.
Why it matters: supporters framed the proposal as a stopgap to stabilize the Nebraska Brand Committee's cash reserve after a string of revenue pressures: an inspector fee reduction enacted in 2021, COVID-era inflation, declining inspection counts and higher insurance costs. Several witnesses said the unexpected closure of a major packing plant in the state (Tyson) has reduced a material revenue stream and increased urgency to act.
Proponents from across the cattle industry told the committee the brand program provides valuable third‑party verification of ownership at sale barns and public markets. Bryce Dibbern, executive director of the Nebraska Livestock Markets Association, said the bill only raises a cap, not an immediate fee increase: "That's the cap. That's not the fee that they're initially gonna go to. They just have the ability to go to a dollar 50." Producers said modest cap authority gives the Brand Committee flexibility to respond to unpredictable revenue shocks without repeated legislative fixes.
During questioning, senators pressed Brand Committee representatives for details. Duane Gangwish, who testified for the Brand Committee, provided recent budget figures and acknowledged implementation problems with mileage billing under current law. He told senators the committee's FY25/26 revenue was roughly $6,567,682 and estimated FY26/27 at about $6.8 million; he also said the recent Lexington packing‑plant closure caused an estimated six‑month revenue impact of about $120,000. Gangwish acknowledged the committee had struggled to implement mileage reimbursement fairly after LB572 (2021) and said a simple surcharge reduces administrative burden and disputes over per‑stop mileage allocation.
Concerns and oversight questions: senators and some testifiers pushed back on past charging practices. Committee members asked whether producers had been overcharged when the program collected surcharges instead of mileage; Brand witnesses said their data were noisy but estimated that about half of certain charges were over by small amounts. Gangwish took responsibility for past compliance problems and described a short‑term plan to move toward clearer, auditable procedures.
What's next: LB 11-87 is not a final rate change but a statutory cap increase and a direction to let the Brand Committee adopt a travel surcharge within the $30 cap. Supporters ranged from ranchers and market operators to the Farm Bureau and Nebraska Livestock Markets Association; opponents were few at the hearing, which concluded with the sponsor's closing remarks and the record of proponent and opponent letters.
