Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Contractors Licensing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate sponsor seeks licensing changes to register subcontractors, add relief for defrauded consumers; restitution provision pulled for rework

Senate State Agencies & Governmental Affairs Committee · February 19, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 342 would register certain subcontractors (not license them) on projects over $50,000, permit optional surety bonds in lieu of financial statements, expand tools to address elder‑targeted scams and reclassify some unlicensed commercial work; the committee discussed and asked sponsors to remove or revise a proposed restitution authority before returning the bill.

Senate Bill 342, presented by Senator John Cooper with details from Greg Crowe of the contractors licensing board, would change several aspects of contractor licensing and enforcement.

The bill would register (rather than license) subcontractors who perform work exceeding $50,000 on a project while maintaining a $10,000 tax bond and requiring workers' compensation where applicable. The change is intended to ease compliance for certain subcontractors performing limited work under a licensed prime contractor.

The proposal also would allow an optional surety bond in lieu of a financial statement to expedite licensing for firms that need to begin work quickly; Crowe said the bond amount would generally be ten times the net worth minimum (for many classifications that could be $50,000 or higher).

Sponsors added targeted enforcement tools to address cases in which vulnerable consumers (including seniors) are financially exploited by unscrupulous workers. The bill would permit the residential committee to order restitution in narrow cases where a consumer paid for work that was not performed; several senators raised concerns that such a power could require additional enforcement and appeals procedures. Committee members asked how restitution orders would be enforced and noted existing appeal pathways to circuit court. In response to those concerns, sponsors agreed to pull the restitution provision for rework and to return an amendment clarifying enforcement and appeal processes.

Senators also discussed raising the penalty for unlicensed commercial work to a Class A misdemeanor to encourage enforcement in severe cases.

Senate Bill 342 was presented for committee consideration and substantive concerns about restitution and enforcement language were acknowledged and set aside for revision rather than finalized in this hearing.