Senate approves fee increases for plumbers, cosmetologists and electrical inspections

Pierre — Senate members voted to approve three separate bills on Feb. 12 that raise or recast fee caps used to fund licensing and inspection services for plumbing, cosmetology and electrical trades.

Senate Bill 24, described on the floor as revising provisions related to the promulgation of rules to set licensing and inspection fees for plumbers and related professions, passed after reconsideration and final passage on a roll-call vote of 25 yeas and 10 nays. Prime sponsor Senator Mischemins told colleagues the plumbing commission's inspections and travel costs have risen and that fees are borne by users rather than the general fund.

Senate Bill 27, which revises licensing fee amounts for cosmetology, aesthetics and nail technology and likewise is funded by licensees rather than the general fund, passed 31 yeas and 4 nays. Senator Vilhauer, the prime sponsor, said the fee schedule had not increased since 2007 and that revenue is used to hire inspectors and digitize operations.

Senate Bill 31, adjusting inspection fees for electrical installations, passed 27 yeas and 8 nays. Sponsor Senator Kolbeck said the Electrical Commission reviewed its budget and without increased fee authority would have to cut operating items including software and reduce inspectors by 5.5 full-time equivalents from 19.5 to 14, potentially increasing wait times and carrying costs for homeowners and contractors.

Opponents questioned whether demand justified the increases. Senator Carley noted some fee line items produce outsized percentage increases (citing a jump cited on the floor for an apartment-building fee) and asked whether a targeted rush fee might be preferable. Senator Blanc asked when fees were last increased for SB31; Senator Kolbeck responded he did not know. Senator Carley also noted that permit numbers are down compared with peak building years, which she said was raised in Appropriations Committee testimony.

Supporters said the fees are industry-funded and relieve the general fund. Senator Carr and others argued user-fee funding is preferable to broad taxpayer support for these specialized regulatory programs.

All three bills were considered after motions to take previously-lost votes from the table and to reconsider; each bill passed after floor debate and roll-call votes. The bills were reported and debated publicly and sponsors said the fee structures will be implemented by the relevant professional commissions or boards through administrative rulemaking.

Less critical details: proponents described uses of fee revenue (additional inspectors, software, digitization and travel costs) and opponents raised concerns about the scale of increases for some categories and declining permit volumes in some trades.