Elevators/Interim Code Council Appt.-AB
House Bill 559 revises North Carolina’s elevator, amusement device, and related inspection fee statutes by creating new fee schedules and authorizing the Department of Labor to charge higher capped fees for inspections, permits, reinspection, and certain expedited or special services. The bill also requires annual inflation-based adjustments to many of those fees beginning in fiscal year 2026, with notice published in the North Carolina Register and on the Department’s website. In addition, it directs the Department to consult with the North Carolina Community College System to develop an in-house training and apprenticeship program for elevator inspectors.
The bill also makes a narrower governance change to the Building Code Council and Residential Code Council appointment statutes by extending the period during which the General Assembly is considered “not in session” for interim gubernatorial appointments from adjournments of more than 10 days to adjournments of more than 90 days. That change affects when interim appointees may serve pending legislative confirmation.
Overall, the bill’s impact is to increase and modernize the Department of Labor’s fee authority for inspection-related programs that are intended to be receipt-supported rather than funded by state appropriations. The new fee revenue is restricted to inspection, permitting, and certification purposes, and unspent funds do not revert at year-end. The legislation also removes certain existing fee provisions and replaces them with updated schedules for elevators, amusement rides, and conveyances such as gondolas, chairlifts, and rope tows.
The general sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the House and Senate with large margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous votes on key readings and a broad concurrence vote at the end. The bill’s findings emphasize backlog reduction, staffing shortages, and the need to pay inspectors competitively, suggesting the measure was framed as a practical operational fix rather than a major policy dispute.
The main point of contention appears to have been the fee increases themselves and the related amendment process, as reflected by the recorded vote on Amendment 1 and the narrower vote margins on that item compared with final passage. Any disagreement likely centered on how much authority the Department should have to raise fees, how quickly those increases should take effect, and whether the inflation indexing and expanded fee structure were appropriate for regulated businesses and operators.
The act amends multiple provisions in Chapter 95 governing elevator, amusement device, and conveyance inspections, repeals selected existing fee provisions, and adds new statutory fee schedules and CPI-based adjustment authority. It also changes Chapter 143 appointment rules for the Building Code Council and Residential Code Council by lengthening the interim appointment window during legislative adjournments. Affected parties include the Department of Labor, elevator and amusement device owners/operators, amusement ride operators, ski lift and conveyance operators, and applicants for building-code-related council appointments.
The bill’s sentiment was generally positive and pragmatic, with strong bipartisan support in recorded votes and no apparent committee opposition in the available materials. The bill was presented as a response to inspection backlogs, staffing shortages, and outdated fee caps, and the final votes suggest broad agreement that the Department needed more flexible funding and workforce tools. The relatively stronger support for final passage than for the amendment indicates some debate, but not enough to prevent enactment.
The most notable contention involved the size and structure of the new fees and the amendment adopted during floor consideration. Opponents or skeptics likely focused on the burden on regulated businesses, amusement operators, and equipment owners, while supporters emphasized that the Department’s elevator and amusement device program is receipt-supported and needs updated fees to address backlogs and staffing. The appointment-rule change for the code councils appears less controversial, but it does alter the timing and duration of interim service for gubernatorial appointees.