Sponsors say new fee categories will make amusement-ride inspections fairer; bill called revenue-neutral to Dept. of Agriculture

Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee · February 17, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representatives offered sponsor testimony on HB 433 to reclassify amusement-ride categories and adjust inspection fees so fees better reflect ride complexity and inspection time; sponsors said the plan was developed with the Department of Agriculture and industry stakeholders and described it as revenue neutral to the department.

Representatives Roy Klopfenstein and Sarah Arthur Fowler presented sponsor testimony on House Bill 433, explaining that the bill would update Ohio's amusement-ride inspection fee structure to align permit and inspection charges with ride size, complexity and the time required for inspection.

Representative Klopfenstein said smaller inflatable operators in his district are effectively subsidizing inspections for larger, more complex attractions under the current flat-fee system. "Fees should reflect the actual cost of ensuring that rides are safe, not put local owners out of business," he said, adding that the proposal was developed in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Agriculture and industry stakeholders.

Representative Fowler said the Department's advisory council on amusement-ride safety and an industry subcommittee developed expanded ride categories to better reflect inspection needs and that both the subcommittee and full advisory council approved the plan unanimously. Sponsors described the bill as revenue neutral to the Department of Agriculture but acknowledged that some operators could see fee changes under reclassification.

Committee members asked whether particular categories (for example, bungee or aerial facilities) had been eliminated or reclassified and whether mechanical rides might face higher fees; sponsors said they would check specific numbers and provide more detailed cost breakdowns and that reclassification rather than elimination had been the intent.

No committee vote was taken; this was a first hearing for sponsor testimony.