H.B. 65 Construction Code 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 27, 2026 House floor debate (day 8)▶ Watch
  Transcript (23 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)30:14

     Second substitute House Bill 65 Construction Code Amendments by representative Tom Peterson. This bill was heard in Business and Labor with the vote of 11 0 5. Representative Tom Peterson 65. HB 65.

  2. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson30:33

     Um, so HB 65 is adoption of the international building codes. Uh, the, the mechanical codes. It's gone through the standard process of the Uniform Building Codes Commission. And this is the recommendation, uh, from that commission. It's our annual three year, uh, cycle that we adopt. With that, I'll entertain any questions.

  3. Speaker (presiding)30:59

     Thank you, Representative Peterson. Discussion to the bill Representative Thompson.

  4. Speaker (presiding)31:07

     Uh, Further discussion to the bill Representative Christofferson, you wanna speak to this bill? No. Okay.

  5. Rep. Jill Christofferson31:23speaker not certain

     No. Sorry, I'm getting used to this light here. Somebody pushed it next door.

  6. Speaker (presiding)31:27

     Right again. Representative Hansen discussion to the bill. Representative Hansen.

  7. Rep. Leah Hansen31:35

     Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Would, um, would the sponsor yield to a question? Yes. Representative Tom Peterson, will you yield to a question?

  8. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson31:42

     Yes. Yes. Rep Sam Hansen.

  9. Rep. Leah Hansen31:45

     Um, do we have clear legislative limits in public debate over the technical standards that have substantive impacts?

  10. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson31:53

      Yes. Uh, we've been reviewing these codes. Uh, we have a professional committee, uh, which is called the Uniform Building Codes Commission, which, and to that commission there is seven, seven different subcommittees. All of these committees are professionals in each of these organizations, each of the, the sections of the code, which they're, they're professionals in. And once that process is done, there is a public hearing that is takes place. And so that has all happened.

  11. Rep. Leah Hansen32:20

      Thank you, Mr. Speaking. May I ask another question? Representative Peterson, will you yield to another question?

  12. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson32:26

      Yes. Yes. Representative Hansen,

  13. Rep. Leah Hansen32:28

      Thank you. Are these code amendments protected property and human life from harm in a way that citizens could not easily secure themselves through contracts or private initiative? Could you repeat that question and maybe a little louder? Yes. Um, do these code amendments protect property and human life from harms like unsafe buildings in a way that citizens could not easily secure themselves through contracts or private initiative? Meaning could they do it on their own without needing government to help them?

  14. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson32:58

      Uh, so in the state of Utah, we have made it a policy decision that we will have a statewide code, um, so that we, any structure that's built in the state of Utah should comply with Utah State Building and Fire Codes.

  15. Rep. Leah Hansen33:14

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  16. Speaker (presiding)33:17

      Thank you, representative. Further discussion to the bill Representative Thompson.

  17. Rep. Jordan Thompson33:25

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I just have a question about, um, there's one section of the bill, uh, where there's potential increased construction costs and compliance costs for childcare centers. Uh, could you maybe speak to what those in increased costs might be?

  18. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson33:44

      Uh, so everything dealing with childcare in our codes is simply matching what is in our state health department code so that people that are building these buildings understand what the health department in our state will require. These aren't, these aren't recommendations from the International Code Council. These are recommendations and requirements from our health department to address the construction requirements of our health department in our construction code. So while I can't speak to that because they didn't vet those at our level, those were done through the health department.

  19. Rep. Jason Thompson34:17

      Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

  20. Speaker (presiding)34:19

      Thank you Representative Thompson. Further discussion to the bill. See none. Back to you, Representative Peterson for summation.

  21. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson34:29

      I'll waive. Thank you. Information

  22. Speaker (presiding)34:30

      Has been waived. Voting will now be open on second substitute HB 65. The now present having voted voting is now closed. Section substitute HB 65 passes this body with 67. Yes votes two no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

  23. Speaker (presiding)35:53

      Representative Shelley,

• Feb 3, 2026 Senate Business and Labor Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (37 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:32:39

     Second substitute hospital two, hospital 65. I'm St. Peterson. And, um, I think you have a, do you have an additional sub online that you, okay. Why don't you address that and then we can move the sub what changes are in your, in your sub.

  2. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:33:01

     Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's great to be before you this afternoon. Uh, I will be speaking to the fourth sub. Fourth sub. Okay. I, I just realized there's two, two other subs on there. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, HB 65 is the, every three years we have a recommendation from the Uniform Building Codes Commission. Uh, this is the recommendation. Every three years we look at our construction code and our fire codes to see what, uh, what new provisions have been made. The Uniform Building Codes Commission takes the, the model codes that are adopted for our nation. And they, they review those to make sure that they fit the state of Utah. And this bill is the recommendation from that commission, um, with some, some exceptions. And that's what I wanted to go through really quickly with you all. Uh, in the fourth sub there is the inclusion of ultralow knock water heaters. Right now, when those are required statewide, uh, this will allow ul uh, regular loan knock water heaters to be installed in areas of non-attainment areas. So right now we have a statewide requirement that they have to be ultra lown everywhere. This would allow areas that are not in the attainment areas to, um, non-attainment areas to install the old version of the water heaters that we used to have. Um, So lemme clarify that. So they're, if they're in non-attainment areas, Yeah. So areas outside of the Wasatch front, you can install the water heaters that operate. So wouldn't they be in attainment if they were off the Wasatch front? Is it kinda reverse Y? Yes. Sorry if I misspoke. Yeah. Okay. So if you're in, like, if you're in Salt Lake where a non-attainment or, or out in the basin or something, then you would have to use ox. Yeah. Ultra Ox. Okay. Ultra Ox. And if you're off, if you're off the was that's running in, in an area that's considered in attainment, then you could use another type. Yes. Okay, thanks. And it also, uh, that, that we also amend the date which this is affected. All of our building code bills will be effective July 1st, um, with 1, 2 2 amendments. So we, we found that there was significant cost savings in the adoption of the a CI three 18 standard for concrete construction, specifically tilt ups. And so we, we put in this bill that on upon signature of the governor, that would be immediately, uh, adopted into law so that we can take advantage of those cost savings in our construction requirements. Um, it also adopt, we had a, we missed a, a modification to the 2024 international swimming pool and spa code. So we corrected that in this sub. Um, the, we also, um, made some significant modifications to our energy code. Uh, so we worked with some, some, some folks. Um, we had, uh, the home builders, we had building inspectors and we had some energy modelers, uh, uh, come to us with some require, with some requests. Uh, and what we came up with for our energy provisions, and it only applies to residential, it will not apply to commercial. The, the full IECC will be adopted for commercial, but for residential, we, we, we've gone to a, a much easier, a much more enforceable, uh, minimum standard as, as opposed to a best practices standard that the International Code Council was, was going to. Uh, and I will just say this December, the, the International Code Council, um, decided a new path forward for their energy code provisions that will, will have a, a base, minimum standard energy code, and then it will have a, an accelerated or an enhanced energy code that states can adopt. So we have, we have different views on what energy policy in the state of Utah is versus what New York, California, and Texas have. And so, um, as we move forward with our energy code policy, we believe this will be much easier to enforce and it will be actually enforced. We did reach some agreements, um, with some individuals to require, um, air testing on houses to make sure that they're good quality built homes. Um, so that's in this substitute, um, trying to hit all these for you. Uh, so I don't miss anything. We, we did find it was a recommendation of the architectural advisory committee to allow good insulation that's in good working condition to stay on a roof as opposed to replacing it, assuming the deck is, uh, in good shape and it's not wet or damaged. So that's another, uh, issue modification that's in this sub. Um, and then, uh, representative Tusher had a, uh, Tusher had a, an amendment a bill that he was bringing forward. I was trying to solve his issue with this other amendment that says, if you're doing work in the IRC and you don't touch something that a jurisdiction cannot require you to bring it up to a current code if you're not modifying it. I'm not sure I met his full desire, but I think it's a good standard language to have in our code so that jurisdictions know that if you're not modifying it, if you're not touching it, um, it's, it's not able to be required to bring brought up to code. So, uh, with that, that concludes my presentation and I'm open to any questions.

  3. Committee chair1:38:09

     Okay. We'll come back to the committee for clarifying questions. Senator Weiler?

  4. Sen. Todd Weiler1:38:13

     Yeah. One of the bad things, if you stay in the legislature long enough, you, you just develop a long memory. And, um, so I have a couple questions and I'll tell you what that comment means. But so right now the requirement for, for ultra low NOx, that's just for new construction or, or remodeling either. Well, but if my, if my water heater goes out in my 30-year-old home, I can replace it with anything I want, right? No, no. Okay. Well, I thought that was different. So I remember about 2018, Brad Wilson, I don't know if you guys remember him. He used to be speaker of the house. He, he did this big compromise bill and, and, and, and basically part of the compromise was the, the OX Ultra lox, uh, water heaters. I think at that time it was for new construction. So it doesn't really offend me if we rela relax that requirement for the attainment areas, uh, because that's, you know, we do have pockets of the state where we have really tremendous problems with, with air quality and we have other pockets of the state where we don't. So I, I'm not offended by that, but I, I guess I do kind of, I don't know how I'm gonna ev vote 'cause I do kind of have this, uh, feeling that, hey, if we made this compromise, I should stick with it. But I'm probably the only one in the room that remembers the compromise. So, uh, I will say, um, uh, probably eight or nine years ago, uh, I remember Becky Edwards and I were in the Clean Air Caucus together, and her, her water heater went out during the session and she was waiting. 'cause it was hard to get the ultra lox ones back then. So she was waiting for one from California. And so she was taking, she and her husband were taking cold showers for over two weeks waiting for that new, new water heater. So when ours went out, I told my wife, Hey, let's get one of these new fancy ones that's lower air pollution. And when I saw the cost, I'm like, nah, we can get one of the old ones. So, um, you know, so I have principles, but you know, they all have price tags, I guess when, when it comes to water heaters. So anyways, I'll listen to the public comment. Thank you.

  5. Committee chair1:40:00

     Thank you. Uh, Senator Ipson.

  6. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:40:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like, I'd make a motion that we delete entitled Embody House Bill 65 second substitute. Replace it with House Bill 65 for substitute. Okay. That's appropriate. Um, the motion before us, uh, which has been discussed in the presentation, is to, uh, move the sub sub four.

  7. Committee chair1:40:25

     Any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, Senator, Representative Peterson, any further comment on that? You Got a busy schedule? I'll wait. Okay. Senator Ipson, I'll wait. I'll place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. That will move. That passes. Any, any post rule that passes unanimous seven zero. And now to the substituted bill. Um, let's see. Senator Musman, is that your light that was on, or is that Senator McKay a question?

  8. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:40:51

     That was on the early One, but yeah, I can ask it now if that's

  9. Committee chair1:40:54

     Okay. Yeah, go ahead.

  10. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:40:56

      So I'm, I'm not sure, sure. I completely understood, um, on not touching a particular, so give me the, gimme a for instance, maybe in the real world, you're doing a remodel, let's say, and there's a portion that you're not touching of the remodel. So that portion wouldn't have to be held to a standard to, to meet current code. Is that what that's trying to, that's what you're clarifying on that?

  11. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:41:20

      Yeah. So if I'm in a house, I'm remodeling the bathroom, I don't need to go update the kitchen. Yeah. That Overly simplified. Yes. Maybe A little. Yeah. But I could give an example if that would be helpful.

  12. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:41:31

      Yeah, gimme an example.

  13. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:41:32

      So, so we receive, I receive these complaints regularly, um, that somebody is remodeling a, a basement bathroom, and as the inspector goes down the stairs, they notice the handrail's not compliant. And so they require 'em to upgrade the handrail. I see. Yeah. Some, something like that. Yeah.

  14. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:41:48

      That's irritating. So, yeah, I like that.

  15. Committee chair1:41:52

      Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Uh, Senator Colmore.

  16. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:41:58

      Oops. Thank, thank you Chair and representative. So there's a lot going on in this bill. And, and as it pertains to some of the air leakage testing, um, what, what I'm hearing is that we're, we're, uh, going or moving, moving in a way that's a little bit more lenient than what it is right now. And just, just wanted to get your thoughts on that and see if, if, if that was intentional or if, if there's a way to keep the air leakage standards where they currently are.

  17. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:42:25

      So with the air testing, I want to thank Kevin Emerson. Uh, and, uh, a few others. They reached out to me. We didn't have any air when I originally drafted the energy, uh, provisions. We didn't have any, uh, air leakage testing requirements. And so we made sure we put in, um, where we are now. So right now we're five air changes per hour for residential single family and for multi-family. We're six air changes per hour, which is where we are right now. So, I mean, it's simplified, but, uh, it's, it's where we started versus where we are now. I think it's much better. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

  18. Unknown committee member1:43:04speaker not certain

      So I guess maybe follow up to Senator Gilmore's question. So, uh, Representative Peterson, so what you're saying is, is the, the, the current version in this bill is, is better than we were before, or

  19. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:43:18

      No, where I started with the energy. So originally I had no, I was just simplifying the energy code. We had a, a chart that said, you know, your walls have to be an R 21, your, your attic installation needs to be an R 38. Um, but I reached out, I was, I had individuals reach out to me suggesting that, uh, an air leakage test is a really simple way to find out how energy efficient the house is. Okay. And we worked with the HBA and others to, to come to some common language where we would still can require either a prescriptive path for that or a, a air leakage test. So we do have our standard, um, five and six air changes per hour test back in this energy code.

  20. Committee chair1:44:01

      Okay. Senator Cullimore, does that, you feel comfortable with that?

  21. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:44:04

      Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Okay.

  22. Sen. Todd Weiler1:44:07

      Uh, let's see, Senator, wider, I think I pressed it by accident, but I think I've talked myself into a yes vote because, uh, housing is so darn affordable. I don't know why we're requiring, you know, in the entertainment areas, these, uh, super expensive, um, air, you know, uh, water heaters if they're not really, uh, contributing to a problem in that area. So I think I'm gonna vote. I know it, it took some time to get there, but thank you. Okay.

  23. Committee chair1:44:33

      Thanks. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, who in the public would like to testify on this? Bill? Got a couple. Three, please come forward. Our time is getting shorter, so please be efficient with your time. And, uh, we've got two chairs there, so please come up. We've got two or three hands next hand up here.

  24. Ross Ford, Utah Home Builders Association1:44:55

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ross Ford with the Utah Home Builders Association. Um, and we wanted to thank the sponsor. This, this bill, and any of you that have dealt with the, the code and the process is an enormous job. It takes years, literally years, we work on it. Um, and he has been involved the whole way. And, and as you can see, there's a lot of moving parts. The, the Home Builders Association was a little bit hesitant and we still are on this air testing. Reason being is, as we talk too, our our builders, the concern right now isn't that we're not getting them tight enough. It's that we're getting them too tight. And so we were worrying that it's adding an additional cost. As we worked with all the parties, uh, they convinced us that, that if we go here, it seems to be a really good compromise. So we fully support the bill and would ask that you vote in favor of it.

  25. Committee chair1:45:49

      Thank you. Next,

  26. Mitch Richardson, Building Science West1:45:53

      I'm Mitch Richardson with, uh, I represent Building Science West and several or other organizations from St. George to, uh, Logan today that are also in attendance. I'm an ener Energy analyst with 30 years of experience, and we, um, support the air ceiling, uh, or testing, uh, provision of the building code. There, there is an option. You can either do a prescriptive list or you can do the, the test. You don't have to do a test. Uh, I I want to thank, uh, Representative Peterson for sponsoring this. Um, air sealing is so important that, uh, weatherization programs and utility programs help builders pay for it. Air sealing improves indoor air quality and health. Air sealing cuts down on inner cavity mold and makes structures last longer and be safer. Air sealing has been in the code since 2006. Air sealing is crucial to housing affordability. It's just as important as insulation. $1 on air ceiling saves a buck 50 on utilities. Air sealing is the low hanging fruit of energy efficiency, and please vote to keep it in the code. Thank you.

  27. Committee chair1:46:54

      Thank you. Go ahead.

  28. Kevin Emerson, Utah Clean Energy1:46:58

      Hi, my name is Kevin Emerson. Thank you Chair. Thank you. Members of the committee. I'll be really quick. Um, I work with Utah Clean Energy. We're a solutions oriented, non-profit, non-partisan organization. Um, just wanted to thank the sponsor, Representative Peterson for, um, having a, a conversation and adding this, um, provision back in that supports air tightness and energy efficiency. And energy efficiency is a really important part of housing affordability. 'cause we can keep utility cost low over the whole lifetime of the home. So we really appreciate that, um, that the changes were made and, um, we encourage you to support the bill as well. Thank you.

  29. Committee chair1:47:32

      Thank you. Good

  30. Bryce Bird, Division of Air Quality1:47:33

      Afternoon, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Bryce Bird. I'm with the Division of Air Quality. And, uh, I'm actually here to answer one of your, uh, committee members questions that in case it raise questions with anyone else, even though there's is resolved. And that is with the Ultra Inox water heater heater provisions. Uh, just to give some, some quick, uh, history. Uh, we started this, uh, work back in 2014, and at that time, about 90% of the state was included in the non-attainment areas that were covered by this. And so the original, uh, rulemaking by the Air Quality Board was only for non-attainment areas. And it was actually the distributors of these water heaters that asked us to make it statewide. And at that time, again, that covered 90% of the service area for natural gas as well. And so, uh, as we're we're looking at, uh, the, the benefit that we get from these Al NOx water heaters, that is only necessary in the non-attainment areas. And as was mentioned, uh, some of the, uh, cost considerations that we were trying to address by making a statewide rule, uh, perhaps haven't also, uh, come out in fruition because they are a little bit more expensive. Uh, at least for the tanked water heaters. Tankless water heaters are, are pretty much all ultra low knocks and, and, uh, meet that requirement and also have, uh, that endless hot water. But, uh, yeah, this provision was intended to cover the non tainment areas and, uh, at that time, uh, and then since that time, as, as more surface areas been covered and as areas have come back into compliance, uh, we, we concur that it's not necessary statewide and, and would remove this, uh, provision from those areas where it's not necessary.

  31. Committee chair1:49:02

      Thank you. Okay. We'll take one more, uh, from public comment.

  32. Gavin Gilbert, Associated General Contractors of Utah1:49:06

      Thank you, Mr. Chair Gavin Gilbert on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of Utah. Um, again, just wanted to echo what's been said and appreciate the sponsor for bringing this bill forward and for taking the, the, the time and effort to dig through our, our building code. We think this is a good bill that, and, and again, urge your support. We're supportive as it of it as well.

  33. Committee chair1:49:25

      Thank you. Okay. We'll come back to, um, all right, we do have one on line, uh, and we'll that, that take that one. And then that'll conclude public comment. Christopher Bree, Chris, Christopher, Bree, Bree, if you could turn your camera on and give us your name, who you, who you represent, and where you live.

  34. Christopher Bresee, National Electrical Manufacturers Association1:49:50

      Absolutely. Uh, good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Chris Ze. I'm calling in from Denver, Colorado. Um, I'm with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Um, we are just here to offer our support for updating the IECC codes and the overall building codes, uh, in Utah. Um, just want to speak in support, uh, overall, the bill, and we'll keep it brief and just leave it at that. Thank you.

  35. Committee chair1:50:14

      Thank you so much. Okay. We'll come back to the committee for further discussion or action. Senator Ipson.

  36. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:50:21

      Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that house Bill 65 fourth substitute, passed this committee with a favorable recommendation Case. The motion before is favorably recommend House Bill 65 fourth substitute discussion of that motion.

  37. Committee chair1:50:36

      Seeing none. Representative Peterson, I'll waive. Thank you. Senator Ipson, I'll waive. Okay, we'll place the motion. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay rule? Let pass unanimously. Let's see. 2, 4, 7 to zero. Okay. Thank you. Uh, let's see.

• Feb 5, 2026 Senate floor debate (day 17)▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Sen. Evan J. Vickers20:42

     Uh, this, this bill updates, uh, Utah's construction codes making changes to how building instruction standards are defined and codified in law and state law. It revises terminology and amends construction code language. The goal is to modernize and clarify existing code privileges and improves code clarity and lines construction law in Utah with more current standards and definitions of making compliance easier for builders and and inspectors, it supports safety and consistency. Strong construction codes help promote safe building practices and uniform enforcement statute. As far as the legislative housekeeping, it's largely technical and structural focused on code refinement. Rather than creating any new programs or mandates, it promotes clarity and uniformity and Utah's building standards. So developers, inspectors are on the same page. No added regulatory burden for residents or businesses based on fiscal analysis helps keep construction safety up to date with the evolving best practices by refining statutory language. We did make some changes in the fourth substitute. Let me outline some of those. Um, the First amendment modifies requirement for ultra-low knock water heaters. Uh, currently they're required across state, across the state. This changes so that in areas of attainment, so for example, areas off the Wasatch front, they would have the choice of using another type of water heater other than the ultralow NOx, uh, the restriction would still be in place in areas of non-attainment. Um, the second, um, correction. Um, correct a mis mis missed update to the 2024 international swimming pool and spa code. There was a recommendation that did not get included in the original bill. Third amendment amends the residential provisions of the energy code and creates a base model energy code that is easy to use, understandable, and can be enforced throughout our state. And then, uh, we also specify that any project being built out of the international residential code is being remodeled, repaired, altered that anything that is not being touched does not have to be wr up to code. So for example, if you're just remodeling one part of your home, you don't necessarily have to bring the rest of the home up to code. So with that, I'm open for any questions.

  2. Senate President Adams (presiding)23:01

     Senator Vickers, thank you for the explanation. There are no questions return to you. For a motion

  3. Sen. Evan J. Vickers23:06

     I would waive summation and move that four substitute house Bill 65, be read a third time. Thank you.

  4. Senate President Adams (presiding)23:12

     The question is, shall force substitute house bill 65? Be read a third time roll call vote. Senator Vickers. Baldy Baldy, no Lein Brammer bus Colmore. Ms. Camilla Gilmore. Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Weiler Wilson Winterton Aye. Juab Winterton President Adams Aye. Four. Substitute house Bill 65, having received 28 votes, five na votes, four being absent shall be read a third time.

  5. Senate President Adams (presiding)24:47

     First let me, I'll call one more Bill, then come to you Dave. Uh, Senator Hinkins. First substitute house Bill 98. First substitute house bill 98.

• Feb 6, 2026 Senate floor debate (day 18)▶ Watch
  Transcript (26 turns)

  1. Sen. Evan J. Vickers32:14

     Thank. Thank you Mr. President. Um, yesterday we were talking about the bill. So the bill in words, there were some questions. I mean, it's, uh, it's a big bill and when, when we're changing, you know, updating, uh, commercial code commercial, both commercial and residential building codes and does a lot of things, this bill, and I think where the, some of the questions lied were with some of the definitions. So in the, in the bill, you're gonna see some definitions about, uh, certain types of glass and protections. And then you're also gonna see a few cha some changes that had, that looked, that appeared to be a change, although they were not. But it appeared to be a change like on, uh, daycare centers moving from four to five. And what I found out this morning is those are actually pieces that are out in other areas of the color. So for example, this, uh, the glass and the protections on glass actually came from the representing Wilcox's school safety bill. And the pieces with the regards to the, the daycare centers and those types of things, actually we're in health code. So if you think about it, if you think about our commercial, our commercial and residential building code, we have a section and then we have these other pieces that relate to different types of specific construction. All we're doing with those. And even though it appears that you're making a major change, you're not, we're taking those from these other places, putting it in, aligning with them with our building code so they'll be in one place. So that, that, when that's an answer to those questions we had, uh, yesterday. That is, and throughout the last day, as I've talked to individual legislators, I just wanna make sure that's clear up front. The the best thing about this bill is it simply brings builders and inspectors together when it comes to determining what should or shouldn't be able to be allowed in construction. And we've had situations where, uh, a contractor and an inspector have different opinions and some, and it's left up to the interpretation of the inspector. And then you get different interpretations between different inspectors. The, the attempt here is to try to bring those codes concisely together so that when those individuals are working together, that both of 'em have a clear understanding of what the code is. Uh, you know, there was a number of specific things that we're looking at anytime. Bottom line is we're bringing in, into, you know, alignment with, with, uh, the important parts of international codes and residential codes and, and, uh, clarifying that if, if you're remodeling a room in your home, the rest of your house doesn't have to be updated or clarifying that these on a, if you're in an, if you're in an area that has air quality attainment, you don't have to use an ultra Loa knock water heater, although you could, uh, and with, and there's a number of other things specifics. But I think with that, I'll just leave it up to the body to ask questions if they have certain questions about the bill. So I'd be open for any questions.

  2. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)35:21

     Thanks for the presentation. We have discussion. Senator Winterton to the bill?

  3. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton35:25

     Yes. Was the sponsor yield. Senator Vickers, will you yield?

  4. Sen. Evan J. Vickers35:29

     Yes. Senator Winterton. Go ahead.

  5. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton35:32

     Okay. As I read the bill, you know, I, I thought okay, we're just updating code. We're, we're trying to make it easier in that, and then the, the question came to mind is we're addressing some issues that have not been there, but then we're adding that. And the question remains, when we adopt new building codes, are we making it more expensive for home builders and for our industrial buildings by adopting codes that make it almost impossible for somebody to afford to, to get into a home?

  6. Sen. Evan J. Vickers36:15speaker not certain

     Mr. President, uh, I, I would like to answer the question, but I'd like Senator Vickers like to ask the sponsor of the question a question if that's possible.

  7. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton36:22

     Okay, go ahead. Possible. Uh, Senator,

  8. Sen. Evan J. Vickers36:24

     do you have a specific area that you're interested in? But let me just clarify the answer to your, your question is, if we are adding something in here that is doing that, then yes. But for, let me use the example of the ultra lox water heater. We're clarifying now that if you're off the Wasatch front in areas that are, are in an area where you have air quality attainment, you don't have to use those expensive water heaters. So that's actually reducing costs by clarifying that a, a builder and an inspector line up together on a particular issue that actually reduces issues, reduces time, and it makes it easier for the, the con contractor to get the job done. So do you have a specific area that you're concerned about?

  9. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton37:09

     Senator Winterton, you talked about, you know, it's up to the interpretation of the inpe or the inspector, and then sometimes they don't agree with, with each other. And, and I guess the point being is that Utah's known that we have best practices. We have a lot of contractors that are recruited to go to other states to build because we have these high standards. But then again, when the overreach of government gets to too burdensome, we hinder any growth. Unless you know, you, you're well enough off that you can afford it because you can't find a, uh, institution that will give you a construction loan. And so I, I just want the body to be aware that though we think that we're, we're just updating the code, sometimes we might be placing an undue burden on individuals. And you're right, the water heaters, that's a, that's a good practice that it's gonna be more efficient and hopefully cheaper. But if we start regulating, well, we don't have choice in this, we have to do it the way that the building code does. I see that as a big hindrance to our housing problem or any growth that we want to entertain. So thank you for your response.

  10. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)38:33

      Further discussion to the bill. Senator Rebe you up? Yes. Yes, Mr. President, Go ahead. Senator Rebe.

  11. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe38:39

      Thank you. Um, I'm looking at lines, uh, 10 27, 10 40 and 10 51. And I'm curious about this, uh, glazing. Um, I know that this has been a conversation with a lot of our school districts and trying to move up to having, uh, more secure structures and entrance ways. Um, as we start adding this information to our statutes, we have actually increased the expense of our schools and our school districts are very concerned that these kind of statements are unfunded mandates. And although we all want our schools to be safe, we need to recognize that retrofitting some of this glazing has become very expensive. So, um, with the glazing, would that be, um, would that be required for everyone? Is it more expensive than the original plan for the last SB 64? And, um, how can we, uh, maintain a, uh, situation where our schools aren't upside down in these bills forth the retaining glazing on glass for schools?

  12. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)40:00

      Senator Vickers.

  13. Sen. Evan J. Vickers40:01

      Thank you Mr. President. Thank you for that question. As I indicated in my original presentation, just, just as I started the presentation, I wanted to clear up some questions. The question, the area that you're referring to is a definition of certain things, glazing and other things that, that did not currently exist in the building code. It existed in the school safety section of the building code. And by what we're doing here is just taking that definition from there, moving it into our building code. So it's there, but it is not requiring anybody to do anything different than was already required in the school safety section. So this bill is not requiring any additional, in any additional requirements on any construction regarding that or some of the other things that I mentioned in the presentation. Uh, so like I say this, if you're looking at a bill that's adding burden and costs, this isn't the one and by and, but all that is, is moving a definition over. And I understand people get confused whenever we do that. We do a reification, we move some definitions around. It looks like we're doing a lot. And in fact, the matter is all we're doing is moving that stuff into the building code so people are aware that that exists.

  14. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)41:19

      Thank you. Senator Rebe. Any follow up?

  15. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe41:20

      Yes, yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that clarification. I did look at the fiscal note and it was zero and, uh, it just concerns me greatly because this is something that my school districts have said to me a lot, that we are, um, putting undue burden on them to, uh, create a safer school environment with things that are really expensive and also hard to find. So I'm glad this isn't a new, uh, part of code. Uh, I can't find the line again. But there are also, uh, different definitions about what a child hold on residents program is and then what a, uh, school area would be. Um, I, I know you just said that we didn't change anything in code, but are those definitions differ and would that increase burden for small, uh, mom and pop? Um, daycares,

  16. Sen. Evan J. Vickers42:09

      Mr. President? Thank you Senator Vickers for the question. Um, no, same thing. Uh, as I mentioned previously, the, those are definitions that exist in the health code and those are requirements in the health code when people start are putting those types of facilities in. All we're doing is mirroring that, that definition in the health code, health construction code, moving it into the, our, our building code so that people, so contractors are aware they're there, but it does not change anything. So like I say, for example, you mentioned about the school safe, the school safety piece, there's nothing in this bill that requires schools to do anything with that, that exists in the school safety piece. It does not exist in this building code. All we're doing is taking the definition and mirroring it and putting it into here. Same thing with day care centers and others. All we're doing is mirroring the definition in the health code that exists moving into here so that it's concise, trying to find it all in one place.

  17. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)43:07speaker not certain

      Thank you. I Okay. Thank you.

  18. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe43:09

      Go ahead, Senator. Yes. One last question. Thank you for your patience. Um, my last question is, I'm noticing effective dates if there's an institution that's already a avail, uh, being used and, um, open, does this change the requirements for what they're building is already at and how it needs to change to accommodate this new bill? Is there a grandfather clause for old construction, or do all people have to adhere to this? And I know that this is, as you've said already, that this is already in code, but does that change any dates for somebody that's already operating a business?

  19. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)43:45

      Senator Vickers,

  20. Sen. Evan J. Vickers43:46

      Thank you Mr. President, thank you again for the question. A very thoughtful question. Uh, it's my understanding that is if you have a something, a a a project and process, then you're able to exist on the current code.

  21. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe44:01

      Thank you. I appreciate that.

  22. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)44:04

      See no further discussion. Senator Vickers, I go to you for summation and a motion on the bill.

  23. Sen. Evan J. Vickers44:10

      Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate the questions, you know, and, and I admit I'm not, I'm stand not standing here as an expert in this area, but I'll tell you what, I've learned a lot and as we've studied through this and the good sponsor in the house is an expert on it and we worked through this, we honestly are trying to make things more concise and easier to follow and not add in any, any type of burden. If, if you're looking for a bill that's adding burden and cost, this isn't it. But, uh, with, I appreciate the, the, the, the questions, the thoughtful consideration and that's what makes this process so good when we get so many different eyes looking at something and asking good, thoughtful questions. So appreciate that and I appreciate your support. And with that I would move that four substitute hospital 65 pass.

  24. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)44:55

      Thank you. The question is, shall fourth substitute house bill 65 pass roll call

  25. Unknown speaker44:59

      Vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Lein Aye. Bramer bus Comore. Ms. Camilla? Aye. Fillmore A Roper? Aye. Harper Kins Aye. Ipson Johnson Qua McKay Macl Milner Musselman Owens Owens pitcher Plum rebi Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson a Stratton bickers Aye. Bier Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye. Fourth

  26. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)45:55

      substitute house bill 65, having received 2078 votes, zero na votes two being absent passes this body and will be returned to the house. For further consideration, we're gonna take some communications from the house

• Feb 6, 2026 Senate floor debate (day 18)▶ Watch
  Transcript (8 turns)

  1. Sen. Daniel McCay46:51

     Thank you. Now you see why you don't say the D word about tax. Right? Decouple freaks everyone out. Remember that? Because there are proposals to decouple for other issues. I won't be in favor of them then either. So, house bill 77 Getting back to, uh, our nerdy tax conversation. Uh, and I'm much more commentary on me than anything else. But if you'll remember back when we, uh, back when the Trump tax cut in Jobs Act passed, uh, back in, uh, let's see, 20, I wanna say it was 2016. The deadline for, uh, that bill was, uh, it was set to Sunset in on December 31st, 2025. And so we set our Sunset for the stat deduction at 12 31 20 25 as well. One of the key things that your constituents will be happy about for those who own their own business have their own LLC, uh, that they, uh, that they have as a pass through entity. We've taken that salt deduction and the salt workaround, uh, that was created for the federal system back then. And we've implement, we implemented it at the state level, we've now taking that Sunset off and making it permanent. Permanent. And we are not decoupling from the federal government. And because we are not decoupling, it changes how the state tax tax calculation is for a GI. And what that does is based on our fiscal analysts, I think that it, we, uh, increase state revenue slightly and the only solution to that is to decouple. But again, we're not decoupling. So with that, I'm happy to yield to questions. Thank

  2. Senate President (presiding)48:34

     You. That's good news. Senator. We're looking for discussion to the bill, saying none Now I'm gonna go back to you for a motion. Yeah.

  3. Sen. Evan J. Vickers48:40speaker not certain

     Thank you President. Any further?

  4. Senate President (presiding)48:42

     Any summation? You have to

  5. Sen. Evan J. Vickers48:43

     Thank you President. I'll waive summation to move that house. Bill 77 tax modifications pass.

  6. Senate President (presiding)48:48

     Thank you. And the question is, shall house bill 77 pass roll co Vote. Senator Vickers

  7. Senate clerk48:52

     Baldy Aye. Lewin Aye. Bramer Aye. Bus Comore? Aye. Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Grover Harper. Aye. Kinins Ipson Johnson. Quan McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Aye. Musselman a Owens Mitch Cher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams

  8. Senate President (presiding)49:42

     Aye. House bill 77, having received 27 yay votes, one nay vote, one being absent, passes his body and will be signed by the President

• Feb 9, 2026 House floor debate (day 21)▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)12:40

     Fourth. Fourth Substitute House Bill 65 Construction Code Amendments by representative Tom Peterson. This bill was heard in Business and Labor with a vote of 11 0 5. Representative Tom Peterson.

  2. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson12:53

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, the HP 4 65 fourth sub is our building code bill that came through us. It's the Utah Building Codes. Proud to say that. Um,

  3. Speaker (presiding)13:04

     Representative, I apologize. You, um, you start off with your motion to concur with the Senate amendments. Oh yeah. Sorry. Motion to Concur. Thank you. Uh, representative. The motion before us the House concur with the Senate amendments on four substitute HB 65. Would you like to speak to that?

  4. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson13:19

     Yes. Thank you, Representative Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, so we had a few amendments as it left, uh, the house and got over to the Senate. It does a few things. We amended the proper reference to the 2020 for Utah Swimming pool, uh, in spa code. It, uh, we, we did some amendments to the res to the energy provisions of the residential portion of the Utah residential Code to make sure that, um, they were easy to understand, easy to follow, and easy to enforce. Um, basically taking it to a minimum standard for our state. Um, we had some concern that, uh, that arose, um, from inspectors entering a home, looking at things that were not being worked on, um, and requiring those things that were not being touched to be updated. So we put in a provision in the beginning of the, uh, the Utah residential Code that, um, that just says that if you're not touching it, you don't have to require it to be updated. Um, and then lastly, on, uh, on roofing projects, commercial roofing insulation, there was an amendment that allows, uh, roofing insulation that's in good shape, not wet, uh, to, to remain in place to save money. And, uh, also to, to reutilize good products if the, if the roof decking has been reviewed and found to be in good, good condition.

  5. Speaker (presiding)14:43

     Thank you, Representative Peterson. Discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on four substitute HB 65. None. Would you like to sum Representative Peterson? No. Thank you. Okay. Submission has been waived. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House concur with the Senate amendments on four. Substitute HB 65. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? Voting will now be open for final passage on four, substitute HB 65, seeing all present, and voter voting is now closed. Four. Substitute HB 65 passed this body with 67 Yes. Votes to no votes will be, uh, sent to the Senate for the signature of the President.

All votes

• 13-0-3House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · House Comm - Substitute Recommendation · Jan 22, 2026Roll call
• 11-0-5House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · House Comm - Favorable Recommendation · Jan 22, 2026Roll call
• 67-2-6House floor · House/ passed 3rd reading · Jan 27, 2026Roll call
• 7-0-1Senate Business and Labor Committee · Senate Comm - Substitute Recommendation · Feb 3, 2026Roll call
• 7-0-1Senate Business and Labor Committee · Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation · Feb 3, 2026Roll call
• 20-5-4Senate floor · Senate/ passed 2nd reading · Feb 5, 2026Roll call
• 27-0-2Senate floor · Senate/ passed 3rd reading · Feb 6, 2026Roll call
• 67-2-6House floor · House/ concurs with Senate amendment · Feb 9, 2026Roll call

Tallies are yeas–nays–absent.