Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Trade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House amends, approves bill tightening 'handyman' limits and scope in construction trade exemptions
Summary
The House amended and passed Senate Bill 163 to clarify the allowed scope of handyman work, cap billing at $3,000 per residence and limit work duration to six months; sponsors said the changes protect building integrity while reflecting higher costs.
Get email alerts on the Construction Trade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utah House on March 10 approved Senate Bill 163, a construction trade exemptions measure that narrows what unlicensed "handymen" may do and sets limits on billing and duration. Representative Grover, the bill sponsor on the floor, said the proposal clarifies prior changes and prevents misuse of the handyman classification.
"He had the idea that he would raise the handyman limit from $1,000 where it was a statute to $5,000..." Representative Grover said, recounting the bill's evolution, and added that the House previously set the limit at $3,000. Grover told colleagues the bill "allows the handyman to act as a handyman and not as a general contractor," and spelled out restrictions: no work over $3,000 per home, no work that intrudes into subfloors or wall cavities, and a six-month limit on working at a single residence.
Sponsoring members emphasized enforcement clarity and support from trade groups. Representative Grover noted backing from the Plumbing and Contractor Association, the Electrical Contractors Association and Plumber and Steamfitters Local 140. Representative Wiley successfully moved an amendment (Amendment No. 5, dated 03/06/2009) to better define who can perform the work; the House also adopted Amendment No. 6 (03/10/2009) which relocated language in the bill for clarity.
Voting was opened and then closed with the result announced on the floor: "Senate Bill 163 passes this body with 69 yes and 4 no," and the measure, as amended, will be returned to the Senate for further consideration.
The bill's sponsors framed the changes as consumer-protection and quality-control measures responding to rising costs and earlier problems when the handyman dollar threshold was increased in prior sessions. The House debate focused on scope and enforceability; no minutes indicate further follow-up direction beyond returning the amended bill to the Senate.
