Committee previews H.472: fee increases, new surcharges and enforcement changes for professional licensing

For the record, my name is Tim Devlin, local state's council, said Tim Devlin as he introduced H.472, a miscellaneous Office of Professional Regulation bill, to the House Ways & Means Committee, describing several fee and enforcement changes the office plans to present in full at a later session.

The bill would authorize the secretary of state to collect revenues for optional services, add or raise several license application and renewal fees, create a $250 disciplinary-action surcharge, increase a civil penalty for unauthorized practice to $5,000 and remove an explicit prohibition against charging renewal fees for years a license lapsed, Devlin told committee members.

H.472 matters because the changes would affect the cost and enforcement of professional licensure across multiple trades and professions in the state and shift how OPR and the secretary of state manage certain revenue streams.

Devlin walked the committee through specific provisions he expected to be discussed further by the Joint Fiscal Office and OPR at a future meeting. He described a set of fee changes that the bill lists, including a new $50 apprenticeship-application fee and a separate $100 specialty-endorsement application fee; an increase in peer recovery/peer support specialist renewal fees from $50 to $75; and a $250 disciplinary-action surcharge tied to findings of professional misconduct. He also said the bill increases the civil penalty for practicing without authority from $2,500 to $5,000.

Devlin said the bill also adds language allowing the secretary of state to collect and deposit revenues from optional services, such as one-time or subscription sales of data. The bill would remove a statutory provision that prevented boards from requiring payment of renewal fees for years when a license had lapsed; Devlin said the change would “enable” collection in those circumstances but acknowledged the committee would hear more from OPR on how that would be implemented.

Committee members asked procedural and policy questions rather than taking action. Representative Higley and Representative Holcomb asked whether OPR had provided context explaining why specific fees were raised and how revenue would be used; Devlin repeatedly recommended that members reserve detailed questions for OPR and the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO), which the committee plans to invite to a later session. Rep. Holcomb framed a process question about tracking positions and whether the committee examines requests holistically across state government; Devlin and committee staff said OPR will be asked to explain the rationale for fee increases when it returns.

Other provisions Devlin mentioned included repeal of certain motor vehicle racing regulations, a change removing a mandatory escrow-agent requirement for prepaid funeral arrangements, and an appropriation section; he told members the funeral-service escrow change “doesn't prohibit it, just doesn't require any bond.”

Devlin also described a pre-application criminal-background determination provision that would no longer automatically deduct a pre-application fee from a subsequent license application fee. A committee member recounted difficulty completing an online renewal and a trip to OPR to finish it; Devlin said OPR will be asked about system problems.

No formal committee action, motion or vote was recorded during this preview. Members agreed to invite JFO and OPR back for a fuller presentation, including fee spreadsheets and implementation details, before any final vote.

The committee scheduled further review with JFO and OPR to allow staff to show fee models and to answer implementation questions that Devlin said could not be resolved in the brief preview.

The discussion concluded with committee members thanking Devlin and scheduling follow-up testimony at a future Ways & Means meeting.