Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Security Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs fee changes for private security board to cover online course reviews and officer renewals
Summary
House Bill 1045 would authorize modest fees for online (non‑live) apprentice security training applications and for renewal filings by corporate officers of private security and detective agencies; the committee gave the bill a do‑pass recommendation.
House Bill 1045, which would allow the North Dakota Private Investigation and Security Board to assess modest fees for certain training-course applications and corporate‑officer renewals, received a do‑pass recommendation from the House Industry, Business and Labor Committee.
Steve Lundin, vice chair of the North Dakota Private Investigation and Security Board and a retired Bismarck police officer, testified the bill implements two specific fee authorities. First, the board requests an application fee—proposed not to exceed $60—for approval of non‑live remote or online classroom instruction courses designed for apprentice security officers. Second, the bill would authorize a renewal fee, not to exceed $60, for non‑licensed corporate officers (owners of at least 10 percent of a private security or detective agency) who must submit renewal applications as part of agency licensing; the proposal also authorizes a $20 late fee for those renewals.
Lundin said the board adopted administrative rules in 2020 to allow non‑live remote training following the COVID‑19 pandemic (citing the board’s administrative rule on course criteria and application process). He told the committee there have been no applications under that rule to date but the board expects some soon and anticipates staff time and expense to process them. Separately, the board shifted to requiring corporate officers to file renewals in recent years; the proposed fee would recoup staff costs the board currently absorbs.
Lundin emphasized the board receives no general fund appropriations and relies solely on licensing and certification fees. He also said the board had drawn down reserve funds following unanticipated litigation costs related to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and that fees are intended to stabilize board finances.
Representative Johnson moved a do‑pass recommendation; the committee approved the motion by roll call. Representatives discussed placing the bill on the consent calendar later in the hearing, but the committee ultimately did not send the item to consent during that session.
The bill text would add two subsections to the North Dakota Century Code section governing board fees (identified in testimony as section 43‑30‑16) and is intended to mirror practices used by other states. The board asked the committee for a due‑pass recommendation to allow the modest fees to be charged for course application processing and corporate‑officer renewals.
