Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Occupational Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debate opens on master plumber license; amendment offered to lower experience requirement
Summary
Senate Bill 102 would create a master plumber qualification with added education and experience requirements; Senator Bell offered an unfriendly amendment to reduce practical experience from 4 to 2 years in two places, lowering total time to practice commercially to about six years.
Senate Bill 102, introduced by Senator Jenkins, would create a new master plumber qualification in Utah’s plumbing licensing code, add educational requirements (a floor reference to 9 semester hours of post-secondary coursework or equivalent), and require a qualifying examination. Jenkins described the measure as aligning plumbing training with other trades and said stakeholders have circulated letters of support.
Senator Bell raised concerns that the bill, as drafted, would set too high a barrier for people who want to start their own businesses, describing the proposed timeline as a potential deterrent to entrepreneurship. Bell announced he would offer an unfriendly amendment to reduce the practical-experience component of the master-plumber qualification.
Bell’s amendment would change two instances of a "4 years" practical-experience requirement to "2 years" (lines 381 and 414 in the printed bill text on the floor), which Bell summarized would reduce the overall timeframe: a residential master plumber would require a total of about five years (including apprenticeship) and a commercial master plumber about six years. Bell said the change is intended as a compromise to keep apprenticeship and testing requirements while lowering the barrier to business ownership.
Sponsor Senator Jenkins acknowledged Bell’s motion and yielded on points of clarification so the chamber could identify where the statutory language must change. Senators discussed whether additional lines or statutory references would need editing, and the president read the motion to amend aloud. Senator Bell asked for a vote on the amendment to gauge the body's sense and for staff to adjust cross-references if the amendment passed. The vote on the amendment was being prepared when the transcript ends.
If adopted, the amendment would lower the post-apprenticeship experience requirement in two places in the bill text; staff review may identify other textual locations requiring parallel edits. The Senate had not recorded a final vote on SB 102 or on Bell’s amendment in the available transcript.
Next steps: The chamber prepared to take a vote on the amendment; if the amendment succeeds the bill text will be revised and further floor action will follow.
