Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears bill to raise statutory fee caps for motor‑vehicle industry licensing board
Summary
Sen. Tom Brandt introduced LB922 to increase statutory maximums that govern dealer and industry license fees so the cash‑funded Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board can maintain operations without general‑fund support; the board’s director said fees are currently at statutory maximums and the fund fell after prior transfers.
Senator Tom Brandt introduced LB922 on behalf of the Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board, saying the board is a cash‑funded agency that relies on license and administrative fees and needs higher statutory maximums so it can continue to regulate the industry without general‑fund support.
Josh Eickmeier, director of the Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board, told the committee the board currently sets many fees at the statutory maximum and that a recent drawdown left the fund at lower levels. He said the board is charged by statute to collect only the fees necessary to run the agency and that fee maximums were last addressed roughly 15 years ago. Eickmeier said the board is seasonal (most license renewals occur Oct–Jan) and that the fund fell to about $1,000,000 in 2017 after a transfer; the board later reduced fees but now seeks statutory headroom to respond to fiscal fluctuations.
Senators pressed about the fiscal note. The fiscal estimate tied to the bill reflects $2,200 in revenue because two statutory fees (change‑of‑location and change‑of‑name) are set amounts that would change immediately; the larger caps in the bill are ceilings and would only generate revenue if the board later raised fees. Eickmeier said current total dealer license receipts are on the order of several hundred thousand dollars annually but cautioned the board does not automatically raise fees to new maxima.
Lloyd Todd, president of the Nebraska New Car Dealers Association, and other industry witnesses testified in support, emphasizing that the board performs consumer‑protection and industry‑discipline roles and that statutory flexibility avoids repeated legislation for modest adjustments.
The committee asked for additional fiscal clarifications but did not take a final vote during the hearing.
