The Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources opened a hearing on Senate Bill 89 to consider amendments to the State Poultry Disease Control Act that would align Kansas requirements with the federal National Poultry Improvement Program (NPIP) and authorize new fees.

The bill would prohibit the shipment of poultry into Kansas unless the birds meet NPIP requirements and would authorize the state animal health commissioner to adopt rules establishing fees. Tamara Lawrence, reviser of statutes, told the committee the measure updates definitions, allows rulemaking for fees, and would take effect July 1 after publication in the statute book. Lawrence also said the proposal is similar, but not identical, to House Bill 2608 from the previous year.

Deputy Secretary Kelsey Olsen of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, who spoke in support, said the NPIP is a cooperative federal-state program begun in the 1930s to reduce a hatchery disease that can cause high chick mortality and be transmitted through hatching eggs. "NPIP is a cooperative agreement between federal and states, where the objective is to ensure that there's effective testing, and improvement of the poultry and poultry products based on the established standards that the program outlines," Olsen said. She noted the state has provided NPIP-related services without charging fees and that the proposal would introduce three capped fees: an annual plan participation fee not to exceed $50, an annual certification fee for testers not to exceed $50, and a service fee for requested testing visits not to exceed $100 per location.

Olsen and Assistant Animal Health Commissioner Sarah McReynolds described how the fees would be applied. "There's a fee to be a participant to be recognized as an NPIP participant in the state," Olsen said. She added that larger facilities sometimes certify an employee as a tester (the certification fee) and that a facility requesting the department to perform testing could be charged a per-location service fee; the bill allows charging for up to 300 tests at that site depending on flock size. McReynolds told senators that the strain targeted by the NPIP amendments does not infect the food supply and primarily affects hatching eggs and chicks: "This is not a disease that infected the food supply. It mainly affected the birds that were laying the hatching eggs."

Committee members asked how the proposed fees relate to current funding and program costs. Olsen said the department has been absorbing costs from animal disease control funds and other federal/state funds and expects the fee amounts would not fully cover program costs. "I'll be honest, we are probably not going to be recouping all of our costs with these fees," Olsen said, adding the department discussed potential participant fees in the $30–$40 range but had not chosen a final number.

Senators also pressed technical points about who must participate. The bill language would allow poultry to be shipped into Kansas if they meet NPIP requirements or an equivalent standard; Senator Chris Steineger (questioner identified by role in transcript) and others asked whether that "equivalent" language could allow a producer to avoid plan participation while claiming compliance. Olsen and Lawrence said interstate movement commonly relies on a certificate of veterinary inspection and accompanying NPIP documentation; they suggested the committee could consider tightening language to require plan participation for interstate shipments and for birds entering public exhibitions.

Representing the Kansas Livestock Association, Taylor Nickel, director of the Stock Growers Division, testified in support and said KLA policy favors broad-based fee collection when state animal health services are provided. Nickel said the agency's animal disease control fund has been supported by other livestock industries and that it is appropriate for poultry participants to contribute to the fund that supports testing services.

No formal committee action or vote was taken on SB 89 during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing after hearing proponents and questions and encouraged members to contact interested stakeholders for further information.

The bill also would authorize the commissioner to revoke plan participation for failure to pay the annual fee after a 60-day grace period, and reviser Lawrence noted the measure contains technical cleanup provisions to the 1985 act.