Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on Senate Bill 2071 discusses $100 technology fee, duplicate-license charge; no action taken
Summary
Lawmakers heard testimony on Senate Bill 2071, which would let a licensing board add a technology fee and charge for duplicate licenses; fiscal note lists $41,000 in revenue. Committee closed the hearing without advancing the bill and said it would seek more information from stakeholder representatives.
The Senate Industry and Business Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2071, a draft that would allow a licensing board to add a technology fee to licenses and to charge for duplicate licenses, but the committee took no action and closed the hearing for now.
The committee chair opened the hearing saying the draft appeared to make “some simple language changes and the provision of adding some information on the provision of a duplicate license under this chapter and technology services,” and later cited a fiscal note listing $41,000 in projected revenue tied to fees established by the board.
Terry Efertz, who identified themself as the board administrator for the Addiction Counselor Examiners, told the committee they were not present as a representative of the bill but offered technical background: “I run a very similar organization. So if there's specific questions about how generally these special funded examining boards work, I might be able to shed some light on it.” Efertz said many small licensing boards lack dedicated licensing software and are managing licensing on spreadsheets, and that the proposed technology fee appears to pay for software the board lacks.
Committee members pressed for additional information. One senator said they were reluctant to move the bill forward without input from the counselors’ board and asked staff to reach out for more detail. The chair agreed to seek more information and closed the hearing on SB 2071 "for now." No motion to advance the bill was made during the hearing.
The record shows limited in-room testimony for SB 2071 and no organized support or opposition present; the committee said it would follow up with named contacts before deciding whether to advance the draft.
The committee will request contact information and any additional fiscal detail from the bill sponsors or affected boards before taking further action.
