Overview

Title

An Act To extend the authority to collect Shasta-Trinity Marina fees through fiscal year 2029.

ELI5 AI

The bill lets the government keep collecting fees at Shasta-Trinity Marina until 2029, instead of stopping in 2019 as previously planned.

Summary AI

H. R. 3324 extends the permission for the government to collect fees at the Shasta-Trinity Marina through the year 2029. This bill amends Section 422 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 by updating the expiration date for fee collection from 2019 to 2029.

Published

2024-12-20
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: JOINT
Status: Enrolled Bill
Date: 2024-12-20
Package ID: BILLS-118hr3324enr

Keywords AI

shasta-trinity marina fee collection extension funding authorization department of the interior environment appropriations act fiscal year 2029 legislation 2024 fees management government fees congressional bill

Sources

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
1
Words:
152
Pages:
1
Sentences:
4

Language

Nouns: 48
Verbs: 7
Adjectives: 8
Adverbs: 1
Numbers: 12
Entities: 20

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.24
Average Sentence Length:
38.00
Token Entropy:
4.22
Readability (ARI):
20.93

AnalysisAI

Overview of the Bill

The proposed legislation, known as H.R. 3324, seeks to extend the authority for collecting fees from the Shasta-Trinity Marina until the fiscal year 2029. Originally, this authority was set to expire in 2019, but with this bill, the deadline is extended by an additional ten years. The bill presents merely a procedural amendment to a section of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, altering the timeline but providing no further context or changes.

Summary of Significant Issues

One of the primary issues with this bill arises from the lack of detailed information surrounding the nature and purpose of the fees collected. The bill does not specify what these fees are intended for or how they will be used. This lack of clarity could result in public misunderstandings or misinterpretations, potentially impacting oversight and financial management.

Furthermore, the bill does not provide any justification for why an extension through 2029 is necessary. Without this reasoning, stakeholders may be concerned about inefficient use of funds or unwarranted continuation of the fee collection. This absence of explanatory context could be seen as a sign of bureaucratic inefficiency.

The bill also fails to specify the parties responsible for collecting and managing the funds. This potential lack of transparency and accountability may lead to concerns about how the fees are being handled. The absence of details about how these funds are allocated could likewise create apprehensions over financial mismanagement.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly, the potential impact on the public is uncertain due to the ambiguities in the bill. Members of the public who use the Shasta-Trinity Marina might see this as an administrative necessity to ensure continuous funding for maintenance or improvements. On the other hand, they might also view it skeptically if there is insufficient transparency on how the funds are used to benefit public resources.

For specific stakeholders in the area, such as business owners who operate in or around the marina, continued fees could mean sustained support for maintaining essential facilities. These individuals or entities may perceive this legislation positively if it contributes to better infrastructure or service enhancements.

Conversely, if the fees are not transparently managed or effectively utilized, these same stakeholders might view this extension as burdensome. Without clear information on the benefits provided by these fees, they might consider this extension an unnecessary financial imposition.

In conclusion, while the bill serves a procedural function, its lack of specificity regarding the allocation and governance of collected fees presents significant concerns. These concerns could translate into public skepticism without further information or transparency from the legislative and administering bodies involved.

Issues

  • The extension of the authority to collect Shasta-Trinity Marina fees through fiscal year 2029 does not specify the purpose and application of these fees, which could lead to ambiguity and misinterpretation. (Section 1)

  • The amendment extending the fiscal years does not provide any justification for the extension or necessity for continued funding through 2029, raising concerns about potential wasteful spending. (Section 1)

  • There is no information on how the funds collected from these fees are to be allocated or spent, which might lead to mismanagement or lack of oversight. This could present financial risks. (Section 1)

  • The section lacks details on the specific beneficiary or entity responsible for collecting or managing these funds, indicating a potential lack of transparency or accountability. (Section 1)

  • The amendment solely involves a change of dates without context or explanation, suggesting a procedural change lacking substantive clarity or purpose, which may be seen as bureaucratic inefficiency. (Section 1)

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Shasta-Trinity Marina fees Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section of the bill extends the funding authorization for Shasta-Trinity Marina fees from ending in fiscal year 2019 to continuing through fiscal year 2029. This changes a previous law to ensure the fees remain in effect for an additional ten years.