Increase weights and measures inspection fees charged by the Department of Public Safety.
Summary
HB 1013 increases a series of fees charged by the Department of Public Safety for weights and measures inspections, testing, registrations, and certifications. The bill raises charges for liquefied petroleum gas device tests and plant inspections, inspections of weights and measures devices, service agency and service agent registrations, certification of standards and testing equipment, and scale inspections, including livestock scales. It also updates fee language for special or emergency inspections so the department may recover actual costs when inspections are requested outside the normal schedule.
The bill is primarily a revenue and cost-recovery measure for the state’s weights and measures program. It keeps the existing structure that inspection program funding may come roughly half from general fund appropriations and half from collected fees, while increasing the fee amounts that support that program. The bill amends several sections of South Dakota law governing commercial weighing and measuring devices, fuel pumps, agricultural chemical and liquid fertilizer meters, liquefied petroleum gas facilities, and scale inspections.
Impact
HB 1013 would amend multiple statutes in Title 34 and Title 37 governing the Department of Public Safety’s weights and measures enforcement program. The practical effect is to increase the cost borne by device owners, service agencies, and regulated businesses that require inspections, testing, registration, or certification. It also directs the resulting revenue to the general fund and preserves the Legislature’s intent that the inspection program be financed through a mix of general fund support and fee revenue.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have mixed but generally workable support for the underlying regulatory program, with committee action showing some support for advancing it but also clear resistance to the amended version. The bill received favorable committee votes at earlier stages, including a 5-4 do pass recommendation, but the House later rejected the do pass amended motion by a wider margin, suggesting concern about the size or structure of the fee increases. No transcript was provided, so the available record shows sentiment mainly through the voting pattern rather than stated debate.
Contention
The main point of contention is the magnitude of the fee increases and who should bear the cost of the inspection program. Regulated parties such as fuel pump operators, scale owners, livestock scale users, agricultural chemical and fertilizer meter operators, liquefied petroleum gas facilities, and registered service agencies would pay more under the bill, while supporters likely view the increases as necessary to cover administrative and inspection costs. The split votes, especially the failed do pass amended vote on the House floor, indicate disagreement over whether the higher fees are justified and how much of the program should be funded by user fees versus the general fund.