H.B. 41 Construction and Fire Codes Amendments

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see how your own representative and senator voted and where they spoke.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and one-line summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.

What the bill does

This bill modifies the State Construction Code.

Hearings and debates

• Jan 21, 2026 House floor debate (day 2)▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)9:55

     House Bill 41, construction and Fire Codes amendments by representative Tom Peterson. Representative Peterson. Motion to circle.

  2. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson10:06

     Motion is an order we'd like to speak to that. Uh, we got some work we still need to do on it. It's just not ready.

  3. Speaker (presiding)10:11

     Thank you. Uh, we'll go ahead and place the motion motion before us to the house circle HB 41. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes. The bill's been circled. Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 9, 2026 House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (44 turns)

  1. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:21:50

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm gonna be speaking to the second sub on HB 41 today. Um, with that HB 41 construction and Fire Code Amendments is a recommendation from the Uniform Building Codes Commission that adopts the 2024, uh, version of the International Wildland and Urban Interface Code. Um, with that, there was one amendment from the commission, which eliminated, uh, sprinkler provisions in certain homes, uh, in certain structures. And then there was, uh, as part of the second substitute, we had some discussion about what was appropriate maps based on the cost of implementing this code. And we had, uh, four street fire state lands, uh, the League of Season towns uac, the Home Builders Association, uh, I think, uh, all came together. And, and, and I will say that not everybody agreed with the language. Um, but I, I do want to say that there was a very collaborative discussion that took place, and I'm hoping that with the amendment I've addressed the concerns, um, of those involved. And, and just real quickly, on lines one 10 through one 14 of this, you'll see the amendment we added, um, that deals with the maps and where wildland fire, wildland urban interface areas can be designated. Uh, and that's going to be risk category five threshold or above on the smooth structure surface exposure score map found on the Utah Wildfire Risk Explorers website. Um, and if a city wants to go below that five threshold, or a county wants to go below that five threshold, uh, forestry, fire and state lands has said they will work with the cities and counties to amend their maps to, if, if it's indeed justified that those will be, um, part of that wildland urban interface, uh, they can petition the FFSL for that designation. And we did move back the bill adoption date to January 1st to give cities and counties time to make those pleas with FFSL. With that, I'll conclude my presentation.

  2. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:23:59

     Thank you representative. We have, uh, we'll bring it to the committee for clarifying questions. Representative Kyle?

  3. Rep. Jason B. Kyle3:24:05

     Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you explain what a category five and what, what that means and what the, the scale is on the different categories?

  4. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:24:17

     Uh, I can, or if my computer will link up, I could probably show you really quickly. So this is a map. This is the map we're talking about. Um, if you look at some of these areas, this is the Salt Lake Valley right here. Um, and as you use this map, this map, you can see that as you move your cursor through on the bottom, it tells you what category you're in. And so when you get up to the foothills, typically you'll see that most of these areas where it changes from a yellow to a reddish color, those are areas where we get into the wildland urban interface primarily. There are some areas where cities sort of feel like, um, they need to be lower. But as you jump down across, um, these lines, you can see on the bottom of the map it jumps from a four to a five. And that's the areas that we're saying, uh, from a state perspective and from forestry, fire and state lands perspective, that's where we get into the risk category that we should be looking at the WWE code to apply.

  5. Rep. Jason B. Kyle3:25:16

     So, so what, what does, uh, category five mean? What, why? It's Just the risk category.

  6. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:25:23speaker not certain

     It's a really bad Hurricane.

  7. Rep. Jason B. Kyle3:25:26

     Can you scroll up to, uh, maybe Ogden At the sake of everybody else's time representative? Yes. Just, just, Just checking here. All right. We, we can move on. It's okay. On your house. That'd be great.

  8. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:25:42

     Okay. Thank you Representative Kyle. Uh, Representative Burton,

  9. Rep. Burton3:25:47

     Just real quick, if you could, would you explain the differences between the international well and the urban interface codes and what we have here? 'cause I've worked with local codes, but I'm not, just really quick, what is the difference primarily?

  10. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:26:00

      So, so what we adopted in 2006 was the, the International Wildland Urban Interface Code. But because of some copywriting, uh, issues, we, we gave, I shouldn't say we, ICC gave the state of Utah the right to utilize the, the term Utah. And I'm going to ask them to do that again after all the conversations we've had about the, the word international. So we will no longer have an international code adopted in our state. It will, it will from now on, be the Utah Code. Um, but I'll work, I'll work on that between now and next year. Um, but from a different perspective, obviously technology's improved a little bit. The information we've learned off wildfires has improved a little bit. Um, so, so I think the requirements haven't changed that much in the fact that if you properly defend your land, um, create the defensible space, the requirements are, are minimal.

  11. Rep. Burton3:27:08speaker not certain

      Okay. Alright. Yeah. My, my assumption is then this is much different than what we've been doing is, is what you're saying. We've, we just called it the Utah Code, but we've been using the same standards. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Thank you.

  12. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:27:22

      Thank you, Representative Thurston. Thank you.

  13. Rep. Norman K Thurston3:27:24

      I'm in the second sub line one 15. Uh, this tells us to delete section 6 0 2. Yeah. Can you tell us what section 6 0 2 is and why we would want to delete it?

  14. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:27:36

      That was in my original presentation. Um, it was the sprinkler requirements for structures.

  15. Rep. Norman K Thurston3:27:42

      Okay. So we don't think the international guys have got that quite right. That's right. We brought it home to a Utah code.

  16. Unknown speaker3:27:48speaker not certain

      There we go. Thank you representative. Right. And, and I would just be wholeheartedly in support of making them call their code the Utah code for everywhere. I'll see. I'll see what I can do. All right. Maybe you know a guy. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

  17. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:27:59

      Chair. Thank you Representative Cher.

  18. Rep. Scott H. Chew3:28:02

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, two quick questions. First one, and maybe you covered this and I just missed it, but who makes the determination of the different categories? Like where, where you draw the line?

  19. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:28:14

      So cur currently what we have in the bill is forestry, fire, and state lands have identified those maps for our state, and they just finished the, an updated version of those maps in November. So we believe that's the best data we have to go off. Um, I know there's some discussion from the cities that, that disagree with that. And so, and I'm sure you'll hear from that in public comment. And that's why we allowed the provision, um, for them to amend their maps, uh, petition, FFSL to amend their maps if they feel like there's some higher risk areas that, that are actual wooey code. Uh, and I guess what you'll hear is, is I have a difference of opinion then some about if, if somebody doesn't maintain their property and there happens to be contiguous private properties that don't maintain their property. I, I have a hard time calling that wildland urban interface. Um, but that's kind of what we're stuck on with some of the disagreements with these maps moving forward.

  20. Rep. Scott H. Chew3:29:09

      Okay. My, my second question is, and you may have covered this in your first presentation, or maybe I just had this, maybe I even asked you this question before I, I can't remember. But when I read this bill the first time, the real question that I had was in the, in the current code, we allow for any changes to the, the International Code or the Utah Wild and Urban Interface Code, um, that are approved by the Utah Division of Forestry, fire and State Lands. We don't have that similar carve out in this new version of the bill. So I'm just wondering, it seemed like before maybe we had a little bit of a check on if we came across something that was in the International Code that we didn't like that, that then we could go and say, well, we're not gonna that, that at least the Utah Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands could say, well, we're not gonna follow that, that piece, but now we don't have that anymore. Could you speak to why we decided to change that? Sure.

  21. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:30:05

      It was the, it was the Forestry Fire and state lands that brought this to the Uniform Building Codes Commission to adopt. Um, and with this language, it gives them not only the authority to adopt the maps, but anybody that wants to, has the authority to come to the Uniform Building Codes Commission in Utah and make amendments to the codes. So it could be forestry, fire, and state lands. It could be you. Any, anybody has that Right. And appeal to make that And, and forestry, fire and state lands, that's the reason I'm sitting here is because they wanted this adopted, they brought it to the commission, commission made the recommendation.

  22. Rep. Scott H. Chew3:30:40speaker not certain

      So as is if, If I could follow up where, where is that in the bill? 'cause I, I don't, I don't see That it's in a, it's in a section that's not in this bill.

  23. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:30:49speaker not certain

      It's the, the, it's the Uniform Building Codes Commission. Makeup and Rules.

  24. Rep. Scott H. Chew3:31:00speaker not certain

      Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay.

  25. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:31:04

      I don't see any more questions. Uh, we'll go to the public. Who from the public would like to speak to this 1, 2, 3. Three. Okay. Come on up. We have three chairs and three people who wanna speak. I don't know about the chief from Draper, but maybe the chief from Lehi would be better, but I'm just kidding. I'm gonna tack out. Okay. Who was first? You were first, weren't you?

  26. Jared Tingey, Legal Director, League of Cities and Towns3:31:39

      Sure, go ahead. Um, thank you Chair members of the committee, Tingey with the League of Cities and Towns, and, um, first of all, we'd like to thank the sponsor for, for, for working with us and getting, uh, the parties together. Uh, this, since the sub was dropped today, uh, we've, we haven't been able to run it past our legislative policy committee. We have had quite a few concerns, uh, brought to our attention with the, uh, the language in, uh, substitute number two lines one 10 through one 14. And specifically, um, for, for the creation of the city. Woo. We maps, uh, that, that a state mandating that it needs to be at the five line, uh, the high risk area when there are areas in a city that come down where the development meets the wildland urban interface. And it may not be right up along the mountain, but that, that it does come down into the city to where the development meets the vegetative. Uh, the, the, uh, I think the, the definition in the WWE code is that the geographical area where structures and other human development meets or intermingles with wildland or vegetative fuels. And so, uh, since each city is very different and, um, we believe that they should have the authority to define where their woo we map is. So, thank you.

  27. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:33:29

      Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

  28. Ross Ford, Executive Director, Utah Homebuilders Association3:33:32

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Rossford with the Utah Home Builders Association, and we wanna thank the sponsor for his time on this bill. It's normally a code adoption process takes years. This one was brought fairly, fairly quick, so a lot of work had to be done really quick. Um, we think he's done a good job. The, the compromise of that five we think is pretty good. If you look at the map, um, there are certain places where, where we would believe it comes down too far. That, that it comes well into subdivisions if you look on that map around the Ochre Mountains and stuff. That being said, we believe having the line of five where it's predictable, it's understandable, everybody knows where it is. It can or not can, it will change how you have to build if you're in that area. So you need to know what that is. We think this is a great compromise. We support it. We would ask you to support it. Great.

  29. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:34:29

      Thank you, chief. Go ahead.

  30. Clint Smith, Utah State Fire Chiefs Association3:34:32

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Clint Smith. I'm the Fire Chief for Draper City and also representing the Utah State Fire Chiefs Association. Again, would like to, uh, publicly thank, uh, Representative Peterson and the work that he's done on this bill, and bringing the stakeholders together and allowing that conversation and collaboration to happen. We are in support of passing, uh, HB 41. Uh, we don't have to look far to know that there's a wildfire problem in the Western United States. Uh, unfortunately we have far too many examples, uh, that show that that problem is getting worse instead of better. Um, we are, you know, along with the state, uh, of Utah trying to work on addressing that problem. We're also working on that as a, uh, national legislative effort through the Wildfire Commission report. And we are engaged with our federal delegation as well in helping to support those efforts. We're trying to be proactive, um, in, in the state of Utah. And that began with the passage of HB 48 in last year's legislative session. And we see the passage of the updated WWE code as essential, uh, as a companion to, uh, what we're trying to do in HB 48. Uh, we are working on the 2006 WWE code, and there's been a lot of knowledge gained and a lot of changes made in how we address, uh, the wildland urban interface problem since the passage and adoption of that code in 2006. And we would like to, uh, see the updated code come into fruition to help us continue to address this problem. Um, again, that's a, that's an outdated code from where we're currently working. Again, as been mentioned, you know, there's still some, some points where I think we don't a hundred percent agree on where, uh, that that designation line should be. Um, quite honestly, from the Utah State Fire Chief's Association, we would, we would've preferred that the provision of sprinkler stayed in. But we are here to work collaboratively through the process to ensure that we get an updated code that allows us to continue to work forward to address the problem that we have in the state of Utah. And, uh, we Appreciate your support on this bill. Thank You. Great. Thank

  31. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:36:37

      you Chief. Thanks for being here. Okay. We're gonna go online to Riley Pilgrim. Go ahead Riley.

  32. Riley Pilgrim, Utah State Fire Chiefs Association3:36:58

      Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair and, and committee members, uh, I truly just want to thank, uh, Representative Peterson. I, I was in the meeting when we all met as stakeholders and, uh, it was a very collaborative approach. Uh, we understand as Ophir. Oh, well, first I'll introduce myself, Riley Pilgrim. I'm the President of the Utah State Fire Chiefs Association, and I work closely with, uh, chief Smith, chief Craft and, and a lot of the chiefs that you'll see throughout the session. Um, we did work closely with Representative Peterson. We acknowledge and respect his concerns, especially with the mapping. Um, one thing I can help clarify, just since we don't have four sheet fire in St. LANs, there's a SES score of five that typically accounts for topography. So shape of the land, the fuel type, uh, past fire behavior, weather patterns, and different things that impact and influence fire spread, especially in the wildland environment. And so one thing we want to remind everybody is ember spread. And ember cast is a part of that score as well. And so these areas that are five to eight, we deem as at risk, at highest risk from wildfire. And so that, that's why we, we feel comfortable with the five and above. Um, and then the ICC, I know we don't, we don't like using that term. I, I will clarify that this code is, as Chief Smith's shared, best practices that have been learned from wildfire prone areas that have sig suffered from significant and catastrophic loss, both with property and even human life. And so a lot of these code practices have come about from really difficult, painful lessons learned in other countries, other states, other places. And so this, this code is the best practices. And, and they're finding even as a late that this code adopted in its fullness has reduced property loss, reduced, uh, threat to life, wild situation. So we, we support this. We think it's been a great effort. Our goal is to continue to collaborate with, uh, representative Pearson, the home builders, the league. Everybody who's involved here has a stake in this. And we just appreciate your, your attention to this and support it and suggest, uh, I guess, uh, full support outta the community. So thank you. Great.

  33. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:39:05

      Thank you, chief. Okay, we're going to close public comment and bring it back to the committee for further discussion. And action Representative Burton.

  34. Rep. Burton3:39:21

      Thanks, Mr. Chair. We, we need to adopt, uh, second sub, correct?

  35. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:39:25

      Yep. Alright. Motion to adopt second substitute house bill 41. Okay. The motion is to adopt a second sub of HB 41. Uh, would you like to speak to that? No. Okay. We'll go to the, any discussion to that motion. Seeing now, we'll go to the sponsor.

  36. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:39:45

      Uh, I, I appreciate the motion. Great. In fact, to the Make a motion. Waive. Waive. Okay.

  37. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:39:53

      All right. So the, uh, motion is to adopt second substitute of HB 41. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. No. We have one opposed, uh, Representative Kyle. Okay. The motion passes. Representative Burton,

  38. Rep. Burton3:40:14

      Thank you Mr. Chair, make a motion to favorably pass out house bill 41 sub two. Would you like to speak to that motion?

  39. Rep. Burton3:40:22

      Yeah, I think it's good work. I've spent a lot of time working while on fire and previous career and, uh, this is critical that we, uh, have these discussions and we're working with, uh, providers and responders before the event occurs. So I, I commend the sponsor and think it's a good bill. Thank you.

  40. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:40:37

      Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion?

  41. Unknown speaker3:40:41speaker not certain

      I think Representative Kyle's upset. What? You didn't show Ogden on your map. So Actually I can go back. I meant to vote. Rob? No, on the bill. On the yes. On the amendment. Okay. Well that's too late. Okay. Alright.

  42. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:40:58

      So the most, the motion is the pass or the favorable recommendation. Second substitute HB 41, uh, to the maker, to the sponsor.

  43. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson3:41:08

      Thank you Mr. Chairman. I, I just want to, to, to address the concerns that the league has. We have put in here that if they feel like that five is not appropriate, they do have the opportunity to go to fire, uh, forestry, fire, and state lands and make those amendments. If, if it steamed, that is a credible, uh, issue.

  44. Rep. A. Cory Maloy (presiding)3:41:28

      Great. Thank you. Uh, to the maker of the motion. Waive. Alright, so the, uh, motion is to, uh, pass with a favorable recommendation, HP 41. Second substitute construction, fire codes, amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. The bill passes with one no vote. Uh, and that's Representative Kyle. Thank you representative. We'll take one final motion. Motion to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn. Uh, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No opposed. Okay, we're adjourned. Thank you everybody. That was a marathon. I.

• Feb 18, 2026 House floor debate (day 29)▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker1:04:40speaker not certain

     Second substitute House Bill 41 Construction and Fire Codes amendments by representative Tom Peterson. This bill was heard in Business and Labor with a vote of 9 1 6. First name Tom Peterson.

  2. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:04:52

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, HB 41, the good representative from West Valley City wanted a chance to vote against the Building Code Bill. So this is the best opportunity that I can give him this session. Um, so what this bill does is it adopts, and I hate to say this out loud on this microphone, the 2024 International Wildland Fire Urban Interface Code. Um, let me reiterate that. The International Code Council is the name of a company. It is not a international organization trying to take over the United States. That being said, what this bill does is it adopts new provisions for our wildland urban interface. Uh, it does have two amendments that I would like to talk about briefly. Um, the first one is it eliminates the requirement for residential sprinklers in certain areas of the Wooey code and it provides a minimum standard for which cities, counties, uh, can place, uh, properties in the wildland urban interface based on the Utah Fire Wildfire risk map. Uh, with that, that concludes my presentation.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:06:10

     Thank you Representative Peterson. Discussion to the bill. I'm back to Representative Peterson per summation.

  4. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:06:21

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your support on this important bill.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:06:25

     Thank you. Representative voting will now be open on second substitute HP 41. Representative Teuscher, would you like to vote? C and Loni is now closed. Second substitute. HB 41 passes this body with 66 yes votes one no vote will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Madam Marine Clerk

• Feb 24, 2026 Senate Business and Labor Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (24 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:10:02

     T Peterson House Bill 41 second. Substitute construction and fire code amendments.

  2. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:10:14

     Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It's pleasure to be before you this morning. Uh, HB 41 is the adoption of the 2024 International Wildland Urban Interface code. Uh, it is an update from where we are currently at with the 2006 Utah Wildland Urban Interface Code. Uh, what this bill does is it, uh, provides alternative opportunities for construction in the wildland urban interface. It modifies, uh, we have two amendments that came through, um, on this bill. So we're talking about the second sub that it has already been adopted. Um, the first thing it does is it deletes the sprinkler requirements for residential structures in the wildland Urban Interface code. And it, um, gives cities and counties some direction on where they should draw their wildland urban interface maps. And it should be in coordination with the smooth structure exposure score map found on the Utah Wildfire Risk Explorer website. Um, and every, and what we've said in the bill is that the cities can include everything about, uh, above a four threshold or five and up, they can include as part of their wildland urban interface. And there is provisions in dealing in working with the cities, um, if they feel like that there are some areas below a five that they want or need to include in their wildland urban interface, they can, uh, talk to forestry, fire, and state lands and they can, uh, amend the map to include those areas. And that includes my presentation. So I appreciate you bringing us forward. So there's been a lot of discussion about the maps and its effect. I know that there was some confusion about how people were reading the map. I found that out, you know, while I've been up here.

  3. Unknown speaker1:11:57speaker not certain

     But, um, you mentioned that you, the potential change is that, so that's on a local level then. So for example, how does that work exactly? So

  4. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:12:08

     Let's, let's just say Bountiful for instance, if, if, if they have areas that are below a level five risk category on the smooth structure risk map, they can go to forestry, fire, and state lands and say, these are areas that we feel should be in our wildland urban interface designation area. And the Jamie's team will go out and look at those areas and if there's reason to place them in the wildland Urban interface, they'll make modifications to the map.

  5. Unknown speaker1:12:37speaker not certain

     So can you add in and take out

  6. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:12:40

     Yes. Well, yeah, absolutely. So it, we just said that the city can't go below a five without fire, forestry, forestry, fire, and state lands, they can absolutely go higher.

  7. Unknown speaker1:12:50speaker not certain

     Okay. And they don't need any approval

  8. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:12:51

     to go higher than that.

  9. Unknown speaker1:12:52speaker not certain

     Okay. It's just when they go below a five, they need approval.

  10. Committee chair1:12:56

      Okay. Thank you. Um, Senator Musselman, um,

  11. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:12:59

      Yeah, can you just clarify again what you, you had mentioned about removal of the sprinkler requirement. Just clarify that for me real quick.

  12. Unknown staff member1:13:07speaker not certain

      So right now, the International Residential Code requires sprinklers in every building. State of Utah has amended that out for residential structures. It, this would follow that same pattern For it's already amended out. So why? Oh, The IRC, it's amended out. We just amended out in the wooey as well.

  13. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:13:27

      Okay. So you're just making sure that it doesn't push, push up against each other. Mm-hmm. I suppose. Mm-hmm. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

  14. Committee chair1:13:34

      Thank you. Other clarifying questions? Seeing none. Is there anyone from the public like testify on this? Seeing none. Is there anyone online? Taz is first. I have two. Uh, first is Taz Bessinger. Taz, if you'd, uh, turn your camera on, identify who you represent and where you live.

  15. Taz Biesinger, Utah Home Builders Association1:14:00

      Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Taaz Bessinger with the Utah Home Builders Association. We'd like to, uh, thank the sponsor for his hard work on this bill. He invited all the stakeholders into a room. Uh, we shared our views and our positions. We went over the maps, uh, had a lively discussion and, and, uh, this is the result. Uh, uh, the good sponsor came up with this compromise. It's a compromise. It's not what any of us want in, in totality. That's the nature of a compromise. And we appreciate his work and we support the bill and hope that you'll support it as well. Thank you.

  16. Committee chair1:14:38

      Thank you. We have one more line. Clint Smith. Clint, if you could turn your camera on, identify yourself, who you represent, and where you live.

  17. Clint Smith, Fire Chief, Draper City, Utah State Fire Chiefs Association1:14:52

      Uh, good morning, Mr. Chair. Uh, members of the committee. My name is Clint Smith. I'm the fire chief for Draper City, uh, fire Department, as well as representing the Utah State Fire Chiefs Association. Uh, like to thank, uh, Representative Peterson for his work on this bill and speak in support of it. Um, as mentioned we're the state is currently operating under the 2006 Wild Land Urban Interface Code. And, uh, we all know that there has been, uh, much activity in the west, especially, uh, since 2006. And we have learned a lot about, uh, how to, how to mitigate and how to reduce the risk. Ophir within our wild urban interface. As growth across the west continues to expand into that area, uh, this updated code obviously puts in place a lot of those best practices and lessons learned, uh, to give us an updated code to work by here in the state of Utah. We know that we have a significant risk here in the state of Utah, uh, and threat of Wild Van Urban interface fires. And we want to have the most updated tools to help us mitigate and combat those. And by updating, or excuse me, by adopting this most recent code, we have those most recent tools to be able to put at our disposal. Um, as mentioned, there's been some, some, a lot of coop talk and collaboration, uh, through this process. Uh, we've been able to, you know, come to some agreements on things. Uh, we understand that there are some concerns by some of the communities about, again, the map that was already discussed, but believe that the, uh, process that's been put in place to be able to work with forestry, fire, and state lands to address those at a local level, uh, meets the needs that we have within this bill. And again, urge the committee's support to keep this moving. Thank you very much.

  18. Committee chair1:16:34

      Thank you. We'll conclude, uh, public testimony. Come back to the committee for further deliberation or actions. Senator Ipson.

  19. Sen. Jerry W. Stevenson1:16:40

      Thank you Mr. Chair. I make a motion that House Bill 41 second substitute be approved by this committee passed out to the floor of the Senate. Okay.

  20. Committee chair1:16:51

      The motion for us is favor. We recommend House Bill 41 second substitute discussion of that motion saying none. Representative Peterson, I'll waive. Thank you. Senator Ipson.

  21. Sen. Jerry W. Stevenson1:17:00speaker not certain

      I'll waive. Waive. We will place the motion then.

  22. Committee chair1:17:02

      All in favor say aye.

  23. Unknown speaker1:17:05speaker not certain

      Aye. Aye.

  24. Committee chair1:17:07

      Opposed? No. Rule that pass unanimous. Six to zero. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Dunnigan.

• Feb 26, 2026 Senate floor debate (day 37)▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:24:39

     of the challenges we've had with insurance companies and dealing with properties that exist in the wwe. The, the bill in the current form simply updates the, uh, our wildland urban interface, you know, the code to CR to coincide with the, in the national code. Um, it does, it also, it brings some things into play. So, for example, in the IRC, the industrial, uh, residential code, it, we just, we are do not require sprinklers in, in residential properties. This, uh, would also make it so that those are not required if your residential property is in the wooey. And with that, I'm, like I say, I'm open to any questions. Uh, when we get it over on third, we will have probably a substitute that will bring in a couple of pieces that allow the forestry fire and state lands to have some rulemaking authority and also some cooperation with, with the, uh, the counties on some things. And also probably delay the fee implementation portion of it. Uh, and that we, we hope will help in some of the situations as we move forward with those, those challenges that we've had facing interaction with between insurance companies and the map. So with that, I'm open for any questions on second substitute house Bill 41.

  2. Senate President (presiding)1:26:05

     Thank you for that presentation. Is there discussion to this bill? Seeing none, Senator Vickers back to you for summation or motion.

  3. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:26:15

     Thank you Mr. President ProAm, I would waive summation. Move the second substitute house. Bill 41. Be read a third time

  4. Senate President (presiding)1:26:20

     And the question shall second substitute house bill 41 be read for a third time. Roll call vote.

  5. Unknown speaker1:26:25speaker not certain

     Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Brammer Bus Cullimore Escamia Fillmore A Roper Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum rere Pitcher I Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton. Yes. It's just Wilcox President Adams

  6. Senate President (presiding)1:27:23

     Second substitute house bill 41. Having received 22 yay votes. Zero na votes seven being absent will be read for a third time. I'm gonna move back to concurrence and call Senate Bill 83.

• Mar 2, 2026 Senate floor debate (day 41)▶ Watch
  Transcript (21 turns)

  1. Senate President Adams (presiding)44:32

     and body second substitute house bill 41, replace it with third substitute house bill 41 Motions in order. Do you want to talk about the changes?

  2. Sen. Evan J. Vickers44:40

     I do and, and I want to appreciate this. This specific bill is dealing with the woo. We is primarily just bringing our current codes up to date, but it is an opportunity and I I want to give cred credit where credit is due. Um, our good Senate president looked at some things that possibly we could do to help with some of the things that are going on with the IM implementation of, uh, the new maps related to HB 48 from a year ago and the impact on property owners that, that have residences in the, and so we looked at a few things that we felt like that we could do in this particular bill and appropriate for, because we have that open. So this, the substitute does a couple of things to help with that one in particular, there is a fee that is assessed by the counties to the, the property owner that will be delayed, uh, in this, with this substitute. And then also it gives some additional information, some input back from the counties, uh, you know, on those recommendations. And the division of Forestry fire and State land would review those and, and they would have to justify whether it be allowed to go forward or not. And they would justify that. And then it also gives, uh, the division some additional rulemaking authority to wrap around that. At the end of the day, it's not, it's not a magic pill. It's not gonna solve all the problems, but it is a step forward and helping to solve work with some of those property owners. It may be affected by what's going on with the, the WWE that have properties in the WWE

  3. Senate President Adams (presiding)46:10

     Discussion. Senator Owens to the motion to substitute.

  4. Sen. Derrin R. Owens46:15

     Thank you Mr. President. Uh, I'm, I'm gonna speak in favor of the substitute. I I just wanna thank Senator Vickers for doing a little work on this. I think we just got over our skews a little bit and, uh, where I represent 10 counties a a big rural swath where many of these properties are located. This was really helpful. I just, uh, appreciate the work on it, um, and delaying implementation of the fine or fees until we get it right. So, thank you President.

  5. Senate President Adams (presiding)46:45

     Thank you Senator Owens Looking for further discussion, not seeing further discussion. Senator Vickers, do you summation And a motion,

  6. Sen. Evan J. Vickers46:56

     Um, motion to, I already made a motion to substitute. Oh, That's right. Nevermind. I'm, I, we're on the motion to substitute. So, uh, the question is, uh, the motion is to delete entitle embody second substitute house bill 41 and replace it with third substitute house bill 41.

  7. Senate President Adams (presiding)47:13

     All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes. The bill is substituted.

  8. Sen. Evan J. Vickers47:18

     I kinda got ahead of ourselves, but I wanted to pass the bill. Thank you. Uh, Mr. President. Uh, like I say, um, as we move forward, and I know that there's been a lot of confusion about HB 48 and implementation. I think a lot of that has been cleared up this session. We've been able to sit down with our division and talk through some things and there's been a lot of, a lot of more understanding about that as these maps start to be implemented and these effects start to take place. I might note that, uh, from where we were with the Wei, uh, considering the original map that came out, I believe was, uh, from Oregon and putting all of a lot of our, of our lands, uh, residential properties in jeopardy, there was an estimated 660,000 structures were considered to be in the high risk. Woo. We, after the maps get implemented, that will drop to about 60,000. So that's a significant difference. And so there has been some confusion there, but I think as we go forward, the, the proposals that we're putting into this substitute, I think it will have meaningful input, especially when we start putting in into place the property assessment portion where an individual property owner can, can petition to have their, their property taken out of the high risk Willie because of some action they've taken. The county would have input to that, that would go back to the division and they would have the ability and the rulemaking authority to pull some of those properties out. So I think that, I really do think it's a good step in the right direction. I think it was a good time to pause the bill, take some, some additional look at it. Appreciate you president and, and, and the part that you played in that I rep appreciate, you know, uh, house leadership and certainly representing Peterson, who is the house sponsor on this. And moving forward, I think, like I say, it's not the magic bullet's not gonna solve all the problems, but I think it's a really good step forward. So I'd encourage you to vote for it.

  9. Senate President Adams (presiding)49:05

     Thank you. Thank you For the participation in that. I'd make a motion that, yeah, let, Let me see if there's any discussion with the bill. Senator Brammer.

  10. Sen. Brammer49:14

      Yeah, I I really appreciate a lot of the changes that have been made. I, you know, the EY has been, uh, pretty rough policy on a lot of landowners in the state. I think we've still got a lot of work to do and I really appreciate the good work that's been done. I mean, we've got properties that are surrounded by desert that are, that have no nothing to burn around them that are still designated in the wooey. You know, there's no fuel nearby. And we've got other properties where what we've essentially done on this is we've said, Hey, cities, you'll get additional money to fight fires if you designate this. And what it's done is it's pushed the liability, uh, or the state will, but it's pushed the liability onto local landowners and oftentimes it's running through the middle of towns in different areas. And, and some of those maps have been updated and corrected. But this has been a big policy that, you know, I think we're now going back and we're taking the appropriate, uh, I, you know, the appropriate measurements trying to measure two and three times now because in the initial policy we really didn't measure twice and cut once. So now we're measuring, measuring, measuring, cutting, cutting, cutting just to fix a policy that was probably too broad and a little bit, uh, too public friendly and private, uh, damaging, you know, at the, at the first go. And so, you know, there's a lot of lessons to be learned in this and I think this is a good step in the right direction. I appreciate the sponsor for all this work on, on dealing with a lot of the headaches from this. Thank you.

  11. Senate President Adams (presiding)50:38

      Thank you. Senator Brammer. I, Senator Riebe.

  12. Sen. Riebe50:42

      Mr. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, oddly enough, I live in Salt Lake County, but this question, this bill has been brought up to me numerous times. Um, you mentioned that a private owner could have an appeal process that would change the, um, liability of their structure. Um, can you explain that a little bit more? I, I, I'm trying to read that in the bill and I can't really see that. So could you show me what line item that is?

  13. Senate President Adams (presiding)51:08

      Senator Vickers

  14. Sen. Evan J. Vickers51:09

      Congress president. Yeah, that is, that is not in the bill. This specific bill. What that discussion was about is, is that the, these WWE maps start to be implemented by the state. There will be that opportunity there is that provision already in place going forward. This will help because you'll have some additional input. So a property owner, if they find themselves going forward, whether this bill passes or not, as they go forward, there will be an opportunity to have a property assessment so that individual can petition to first the county with, if this passes, then they can petition first to the county and then the county would, uh, if they agree, then they would push that forward to the division and then the division can do the assessment and, and potentially remove that property from the high risk woo e if they, uh, have done some mitigation efforts. And so the, those lines aren't specifically in this bill that's already in the policy going forward, getting ready to be in place. This would just give some additional input from the county and give the division some additional rulemaking authority to deal with that when it starts to be implemented.

  15. Sen. Riebe52:11

      Thank you. I couldn't find that in the bill, so I was curious as how that works. So thank you for clarifying that.

  16. Senate President Adams (presiding)52:18

      Thank you Senator Riebe. Senator Vickers summation and motion.

  17. Sen. Evan J. Vickers52:22

      I wafer summation move the third substitute house bill 41 pass. Thank

  18. Senate President Adams (presiding)52:26

      You. And the question is, shall third substitute house bill 41 pass roll call

  19. Unknown speaker (roll call)52:29speaker not certain

      Vote. Senator Balderree Lewin Brammer US CU amore. Ms. Escamia aye. Fillmore Aye. Groper Harper Kins Ipson Aye. Johnson. Aye. K Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musman Owens pitcher Plum Bie Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Weiler Wilson Aye. Plum winterton Derry Aye.

  20. Senate President Adams (presiding)53:19

      President Adams Aye. Third substitute house bill 41, having received 27 yay votes, zero nay votes, two being absent passes this body and will be returned to the house for further consideration. Senator Vickers, again, thank you for your leadership on that bill. Very, very helpful. Uh,

  21. Senate President Adams (presiding)53:40

      anybody else wanna uncer on third, let's go to the second reading calendar, Senate Day. We're gonna try to do a few Senate bills.

• Mar 3, 2026 House floor debate (day 42)▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)12:34

     Third substitute House Bill 41. Construction and Fire Codes Amendments by representative Tom Peterson, Representative Tom Peterson.

  2. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson12:43

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to Concur.

  3. Speaker (presiding)12:45

     Thank you, uh, representative. The motion be for us the House concur with the Senate amendments on third substitute HB 41. Would you like to speak to that?

  4. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson12:53

     Yeah. What the, what we did is we extended the, the implementation date of the county fee for wildland urban interface insurance payments as well as we gave the county some ability to provide input on those wooy maps, um, for, for them to have input into, to what, uh, forestry, fire and state land, uh, the assessment maps on the very high risk properties.

  5. Speaker (presiding)13:21

     Thank you Representative Peterson. Discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on third substitute HB 41. Seeing none, we will go ahead and place the motion. The motion before the House concur with the send amendments on third substitute HB 41. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? Uh, voting will now be open for final passage on third substitute 41. Seeing all present, having voted voting is now closed. Third substitute HP 41 passes this body with 70 s votes. One no vote will be sent to the Senate, Senate, uh, sent to the Senate for the signature of the president. Representative Ballard

All votes

• 9-1-6House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · House Comm - Substitute Recommendation · Feb 9, 2026Roll call
• 9-1-6House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · House Comm - Favorable Recommendation · Feb 9, 2026Roll call
• 67-1-7House floor · House/ passed 3rd reading · Feb 18, 2026Roll call
• 6-0-2Senate Business and Labor Committee · Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation · Feb 24, 2026Roll call
• 22-0-7Senate floor · Senate/ passed 2nd reading · Feb 26, 2026Roll call
• 27-0-2Senate floor · Senate/ passed 3rd reading · Mar 2, 2026
• 70-1-4House floor · House/ concurs with Senate amendment · Mar 3, 2026

Tallies are yeas–nays–absent.