Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate narrows owner‑built home exemption, shortens residency rule and limits homes per year
Summary
After extended debate the Utah Senate amended and passed House Bill 371, which allows property owners to build a noncommercial dwelling for personal occupancy without a contractor's license under stricter limits: (1) the required occupancy period was shortened to three months and (2) the allowance was changed from one to two owner‑built structures per year; the bill passed the Senate on third reading and will return to the House.
House Bill 371, the construction licensing amendment that lets a property owner act as their own general contractor for a residence, cleared the Utah Senate after sustained floor debate and two floor amendments that tightened its residency and quantity limits.
Supporters said the measure protects homeowners who legitimately build for their own use while preserving consumer protections. Sponsor Senator Hallowell said the bill aimed to prevent unlicensed commercial builders from exploiting an exemption while still allowing a homeowner to construct “for their use.” Opponents warned the exemption could be used repeatedly to avoid contractor licensure without adequate safeguards.
The key changes made on the floor were the result of two successful amendments. Senator Steele moved to change the bill’s required occupancy period from six months to three months; he argued the shorter period would still provide a residency test while accommodating legitimate scenarios such as job transfers. That amendment was approved after floor discussion and a standing count.
Members also debated and approved a motion to change the bill’s numeric limit so that it would read “up to two structures” per year (rather than the original single structure). Proponents of that change said it addressed practical cases—such as a family who relocates for work—and still kept a meaningful cap to prevent commercial misuse. Critics urged caution, citing experiences in which repeated owner‑built projects caused code and inspection concerns.
After adopting the amendments, the Senate read House Bill 371 for final passage. The clerk recorded a final tally of 29 aye votes and no nays (one absence noted earlier in the floor exchange) and the bill was returned to the House for consideration of the Senate changes.
The bill’s floor debate repeatedly referenced inspection requirements and the limits of local licensing authority; senators pressed sponsors on how the statute would interact with municipal inspectors and existing contractor‑licensing enforcement. Senate supporters said inspections and building codes remain in force and that the amendments preserve the state’s ability to deter serial, nonlicensed commercial building.
The Senate’s action amends the House language and sends the revised bill back to the House; any subsequent changes there could return the measure to the Senate for further action.
