Kavanaugh’s bill would require agencies to annually review fee‑supported cash funds; DHHS warns of regulatory burden
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Sen. Mikaela Kavanaugh's LB 776 would require state agencies to annually assess fees to ensure they cover—but do not exceed—service costs; DHHS opposed, saying many fees are statutory/regulatory and annual adjustments could create a perpetual promulgation burden.
Senator Mikaela Kavanaugh introduced LB 776 to require each state agency to review the fees it charges annually and determine whether those fees "are enough, but not more than necessary to cover the costs of the services." Kavanaugh said the change aims to bring transparency to cash‑fund sweeps and ensure fees funded by the public are being used for their intended purposes.
Kavanaugh said the bill does not itself change fees but creates a process for consistent review and noted the Department of Motor Vehicles already closely tracks its fees. She said the requirement could help the Appropriations Committee and the public understand the revenue available in fee‑supported funds before deciding on sweeps.
Beau Botelho, legal counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services, testified in opposition. He said agencies typically set fees by statute or regulation and that altering fees requires a time‑consuming promulgation process: "Fees are set by statute or regulation. If an agency determines a fee to be either too low or too high, the agency would either have to change the statute or the regulation… promulgating a regulation takes about 6 months." DHHS estimated it administers roughly 570 fees across about 30 chapters of regulations and warned that annual assessments could create a perpetual promulgation cycle.
Committee members asked whether the bill simply requires assessment (not automatic fee changes) and whether a reporting requirement or amendments carving out complex agencies would address DHHS concerns. Botelho said agencies could produce a report but cautioned that adding many reports may not be better; the sponsor indicated willingness to add a reporting amendment and discussed options such as tying adjustments to CPI or making the cadence biannual.
The committee recorded 11 proponents and 2 opponents on the hearing record for LB 776; no committee vote occurred at the hearing. The sponsor said she would accept amendments to add a reporting requirement or carve‑outs for complex agencies.