Michigan House Bill HB4993

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/14/23
• Refer: 9/14/23
• Report Pass: 9/20/23
• Engrossed: 9/20/23
• Refer: 9/26/23
• Report Pass: 9/26/23
• Enrolled: 9/27/23
• Chaptered: 10/3/23
• Passed: 10/3/23

Caption

Occupations: licensing fees; licensing fees related to certain occupations; eliminate sunset. Amends secs. 13, 17, 21, 25, 27, 31, 37 & 38 of 1979 PA 152 (MCL 338.2213 et seq.).

Impact

If passed, this bill is expected to have significant implications for state laws governing professional licensure. By ensuring that licensing fees remain in effect without automatic termination, the bill aims to enhance predictability for both applicants and regulatory agencies. Additionally, the funds collected from these fees are earmarked for various educational and enforcement funds, suggesting a direct investment in the improvement of professional standards and compliance across the state. This could potentially lead to better-trained professionals and a more robust enforcement against unlicensed practices.

Summary

House Bill 4993 addresses the modification and extension of licensing fees associated with various professional occupations and trades in Michigan. Specifically, the bill amends sections of the act regulating the establishment and collection of fees for individuals seeking licenses, including architects, engineers, barbers, cosmetologists, and real estate professionals. A key feature of the bill is the elimination of sunset provisions that previously dictated the expiration of certain fee structures, thus providing a more stable financial framework for applicants and the associated regulatory bodies.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 4993 appears to be cautiously optimistic. Supporters argue that maintaining the current fee structures without interruption benefits professionals seeking licensure and ensures the state can adequately fund regulatory initiatives. However, some concerns were raised regarding the adequacy and appropriateness of the fees, particularly in relation to how they impact the accessibility of licensure for lower-income individuals. The dialogue indicates a recognition of the balance needed between necessary regulatory costs and equitable access to professional opportunities.

Contention

Notably, the deliberation around HB 4993 highlighted some contention regarding the sufficiency of the fees set forth in the bill. While proponents emphasized the necessity of these fees for sustaining oversight and support for licensed professions, critics questioned whether the fees might pose a barrier to entry for many potential applicants. This tension in perspectives illustrates the larger debate about regulatory costs versus the need for accessible routes into professional fields, reflecting broader themes in occupational licensing discussions.