H.B. 470 Building Inspection Amendments: transcript

House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee, Feb 17, 2026

1. Committee chair47:00

   We're going to, uh, invite, uh, Representative Ward to come up next HB four 70. And Senator, thank you for your patience. Uh, before we do that, let's take care of our business. Um, we need to, uh, approve the minutes of, uh, February 12th from our Business and Labor Committee meeting on that date. Can I get a motion for that? Okay. We have a motion from, uh, representative Wynn. Uh, any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, we'll take a voice. Vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. The minutes are approved. Where my thing go? Sorry. My control board has, there it is. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, representative Board, go

2. Rep. Raymond P. Ward47:58

   Ahead. Um, thank you Mr. Chair and thank you committee. I do have a person online, Lori, saying, um, who I would like to have just give a part of my presentation when I get to that point. If she could be made to be a panelist. Thank you. Thank you. Um, this bill, uh, would allow homeowners who are doing a remodel on their home to go through a third party for the inspections or the plan review that's needed, um, for that process. So, pretty simple, um, idea, but an important one. Um, colleagues. Over recent years, we have thought about a number of services where we used to conclude that that service should be done by a single government backed monopoly. Um, but over recent years, we have concluded in several important instances that we would be better off to allow a broader array of providers to produce the service. Uh, just a couple of examples are with school choice. There was a time when we said we will have one public school system and a family will go to one school within that system. And over time, we have come to conclude that if we gave families more choices, uh, through, uh, online schools and charter schools, um, or private schools or home schools, that we families would do better. And that's been a good direction for our state to move. Um, another example is with the provision of healthcare. There were a, there was a time when we said, these services here can be provided by doctors only. No one else can provide these services. And over time we've concluded that there are other providers that can help provide those services. And we've made provisions for nurse practitioners and PAs to provide those services. And our system is more robust because we moved to allow people who are qualified to also provide the service. And I, this, I bring this bill to you, um, in that, uh, exact same spirit, um, is really just saying that we have a thing right now, which we say must be done by, by the government only, but we'd like to allow a couple of those steps to be done by qualified third parties. When someone, uh, remodels their home, two of the many steps that they have to go through are a plan review. Someone has to look over their plan and make sure that it's according to building code before they can get their permit. And then also, um, after the work is done, then there needs to be an inspection of that to make sure it was done according to the building code. Um, and this, this bill would just say that for those two steps, you could also go through a qualified, licensed, third parties, the same people who can provide those other services to get those, um, two steps done already for the inspection process. We already have a process in place that says if a city is going a little slow, um, that after a short period of time, uh, a homeowner can go to a list of inspectors that the city maintains, which ones they trust and say, these are acceptable. And then use that list of third parties to get the inspection done. So for home remodels, this would just allow that, you could go to that same list and have one of those inspectors do it from the get-go when you needed to have the inspection done. And then similarly, you could use that kind of person for the plan review, uh, process. I'm not a developer. Um, so I don't, I don't come in with a whole bunch of experiences that I personally have had in it. But in my own few experiences with my own home and my own little medical office building where we've had to do some projects, I have felt that when I was working with a contractor, I felt in that person in my conversations with that person, an urgency to do a good job of work. And that meant to try and get the project done quickly. Um, and it meant to try and get it done in a way that was less expensive. And in their conversations and in what I could tell was important to them, those two things to get done in timely fashion and in a way that was good, but still less expensive, always was on their mind when we were going through the part of the process that involved the inspections or the city staff and their, those important role, those steps are also important. But I did not sense in working with that stuff, although they were very professional and did a good job, and I'm appreciative of their expertise, but I did not sense in them that it mattered to them if the project got done quickly or a little slower, or if it got done in a way that cost a little more or cost a little less. And at times that, that was very frustrating to me. But they're not, um, incentivized or hired to care about those things. And to me, that would be an important thing if there were professionals with equal skill. But who did also those things mattered, um, to them in the way that they did their job. Um, we have talked a lot about the cost of housing and housing being very, very expensive. Um, here in the legislature, we have made a lot of plans. We've talked about reorganizing our government entities. Um, and, and we've talked about a lot of things where we take somebody's tax money and and subsidize something else. Um, and my fear is that those things won't help improve housing affordability as much as it will afford it, if we will take, actually take steps that do make it a little quicker to get a housing project done and make it a little bit less expensive just to get the project done. This bill doesn't apply to new housing. It replies only to remodels. Um, but that also gets passed on. If that takes longer and is more expensive, that gets passed on somehow when you try and, um, sell the home. So to me, a person in their own home carrying out a project should have maximum leeway about how to carry it out. This is their own home and they're deciding how to take care of it. So to me, that person should have the ability to go through a third party, um, if they would like. And that is the change that is made in this bill. So I'd like to turn for a minute to, uh, uh, Lori Sane, who was previously in the legislature in Colorado and has done some significant work on this issue. If we could

3. Committee chair53:44

   Go ahead, Lori. Thank you.

4. Lori Saine, former Colorado state representative53:46

   Okay. Thank you so very much. And, um, very pleased to be here today. Um, animal members of the Business Labor and Commerce Committee. Um, my name's Lori Ang. I represent myself today. I'm a former, uh, state representative, former county commissioner and former Alec Board member. I'm a supporter of legislation introduced by a Representative Ward because it represents the future, a path forward. That's a, a true run win because it makes homes more affordable while increasing revenue to local governments. Central to the bill is, I believe is a simple question. Our private sector, third party inspectors as qualified as government inspectors. So licensed engineers, uh, master electricians and ICC certified inspectors meet the highest national standards. And many third party inspectors already inspect commercial projects, industrial facilities and insurance claims. So they're licenses. Insurance and professional liability create strong accountability in rural areas. A single inspector is often shared across, across multiple towns, dozens of towns. And this can create some severe delays. Uh, this bill empowers residents in small towns to build and renovates without waiting weeks or months. It also gives rural, uh, homeowners the same opportunities enjoyed in some of your larger municipalities. But even in well-staffed jurisdictions, projects can pile up. And in many small towns, the only employee is a clerk who is working part-time and con contracting out these inspections. So allowing a licensed PE to guide, uh, stamp plans eliminates back and forth delays. Uh, it speeds approvals, uh, and its benefits both the homeowners and local officials. Now, it may never happen in Utah that a project is delayed because staff dislikes a person or a project. But in this case, the bill provides elected officials another tool to ensure projects are treated fairly and equally under the law. Uh, allowing homeowners to choose a qualified third party inspector saves time at reduced costs and introduces a healthy marketplace competition that improves service quality. Housing affordability, as you know, is collapsing for many families nationwide and record high property prices. Interest rates have doubled mortgage payments, uh, thousands of homeowners cannot afford to move. So they're basically locked into existing homes. But what they can't afford and they're choosing to do, is to renovate, to add space for family, to accommodate aging parents or disabled children, or modify, uh, lower energy costs with more efficient systems or backup power. Um, again, this, this streamlining permitted process will tend to lower housing costs, energy costs, uh, making living more affordable. It should accelerate and, uh, with construction and renovation, expand housing supply. And it's designed to improve government efficiency by freeing local staff to focus on complex or high impact projects that will actually deliver more revenue to the local, local jurisdiction. So as efficiency increases, local governments actually benefit as well. Faster improvements raise property values and increase local revenue. Texas and Florida have passed similar legislation and certified private engineering firms have worked faster, cheaper, and equally safe inspection and review services proving that the model works. Uh, many other jurisdictions are adopting similar third party permitting systems, uh, like Albuquerque, New Mexico. Uh, in December, 2025, the American Legislative Exchange Council or Alec adopted a model policy on third party inspectors, recognizing this is a limited government approach that encourages the free market while preserving federalism and local control. The future does belong to those who can build and create opportunity. And nationwide this, there is a housing crunch. Uh, lawmakers have the ability to ease unnecessary regulatory burdens and that Americans face in their everyday lives. And I'm, um, happy to say, I think this bill will certainly do that. I'll be delighted to take any questions on how this policy may be handled at the local level. Thank you so much.

5. Committee chair57:42

   Thank you. Does that conclude your presentation? It does. Thank you. Great. We'll bring it back to the committee for clarifying questions. We'll start with Representative Thurston.

6. Rep. Norman K Thurston57:52

   Thank Mr. Chair for this will be either for the sponsor or for his guest. Um, is, is there any reason why municipalities or local governments couldn't do this today if they wanted to? Does state law prohibit this type of an arrangement if the count or the cities wanna do it voluntarily?

7. Rep. Raymond P. Ward58:12

   I, I, I, I'm not sure about that. I would say by habit they don't, But they could. I mean, like this, I mean, is our expert online maybe could help us with that as well. Um,

8. Lori Saine, former Colorado state representative58:25

   Uh, I believe the, the, uh, legislation designed, um, to, uh, allow this to happen across jurisdiction, which basically gives the, empowers the homeowner to choose, right? Right.

9. Rep. Norman K Thurston58:36

   But that's not my, that's Not my Question prohibiting. Sorry ma'am. That's not my question. My question is, do the cities have the power to do this voluntarily without us mandating it to be a statewide?

10. Rep. Raymond P. Ward58:46

    Can I try and answer it again? Rip? Yeah, sure. Cities voluntarily have this power. Currently, the homeowner does not have any ability to choose this thing. This bill would allow to the homeowner to choose a thing they can currently not choose.

11. Rep. Norman K Thurston58:58

    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12. Committee chair59:00

    Great. Thank you. Um, Representative Gwynn.

13. Rep. Hoang Nguyen59:06

    Thank you. Mr. Chair here in the state of Utah, historically, is there issues or delay with being able to get these, uh, permits revealed and approved?

14. Rep. Raymond P. Ward59:16

    So I feel like in my projects that, that I have worked on, which are not many, that that part of the process has gone slowest. I feel like when a monopoly provides a service and the monopoly tells you, well, I'm doing a good enough job, the standard should to, to decide whether to keep the monopoly doing it or to allow other individuals, qualified individuals to do that service should not be whether that Monopoly thinks it's doing a good job. I would not go to Comcast and say, oh, you did a survey that you were providing good service. You must be providing really good service. No one else can provide the service. The, if other providers are able to provide the service, we should have a very high standard before we allow someone to maintain a monopoly over the service.

15. Committee chair1:00:07

    Okay. Thank you. Thank you representative, uh, Representative Peterson.

16. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:00:15speaker not certain

    Thank you. Mr. Chair. Um, just looking at this bill online, 2 75, you mentioned it would apply to alterations. Could an alteration be an addition?

17. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:00:30

    In general? My intention would be that if it's owner occupied, that for these issues, they be allowed to go through a third party. Um, for, and the issues are does the plan meet building code and has the, has it been carried out according to building code, if the project that's being taken care of may cross over into land use issues, if it meets a, a land use, whether it's too close to a setback or something else, the land use still needs to sit with the city to determine the, the issues that I want to deal with in the bill are, does it meet building code in the plan? And has it been done according to building code?

18. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:01:10speaker not certain

    To, to my question then, would an alteration be considered an an addition be considered an alteration?

19. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:01:19

    Yes. But the portions of addition that crossed into land use would still be taken care of by the city.

20. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:01:24speaker not certain

    I don't see that anywhere in your bill. It says they shall issue the permit immediately upon application.

21. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:01:32

    Um, I'm happy to, to clarify that, uh, within the bill, if, if with language that would meet that. Okay. The land use, uh, so my intent is those two things. Is the, are the drawings according to building code and has the job been done according to building code, if there's issues of land use that still belongs to the city.

22. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:01:51speaker not certain

    Sure. I just, I just don't think we're addressing that in the language. That may be your intent. I don't think the language says that. Um, the other thing that I, as I read this bill, um, I would, would be other reviews that are building codes such as fire review. Um, and if you're doing a an A DU in the basement, that alteration would change things significantly and land use may want to weigh in. So I have some concerns with that. Um, but honestly, I agree. I agree with what you're trying to do. Um, and I appreciate that. I I, when you started your comments, you specifically said that we're, we're outsourcing a lot of these things such as education, and I can't think of a single time where we've outsourced anything to do with public safety. Um, maybe you could speak to, uh, a time where we've outsourced, uh, public safety.

23. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:02:52

    Um, I, I think he, healthcare is an issue where safety is a paramount concern. Healthcare, whether someone lives or die matters a lot. And yet when we looked at that, we did choose to say these other licensed classes can provide equally safe healthcare, um, and changed how we did

24. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:03:08speaker not certain

    It. Sorry. The regulation of public safety.

25. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:03:15

    I can't think of an example off the top of my mind. Okay. But the intention is to use licensed people who have the same qualifications, um, to do the job.

26. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:03:24speaker not certain

    So I just wanna close, I I do believe that there is some merit with the proposed bill. I think the land use task force meets all interim long to discuss issues like this to get buy-in from all the different individuals that are going to, to have an opinion on this. And while I agree wholeheartedly, what you're trying to do is something that we need to do. I would, I wish, I don't believe these issues have been prioritized with that group. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. Um, but I wish this would be a priority for that group to come forward with, with a group of legislation, uh, together from the land use task force to make sure we get this right. Because I think just with the language you have here, um, I have concerns, uh, from a building official standpoint. So I appreciate it. I think it has merit, and I think we should look at this. 'cause I think it is an issue and I think it would solve some problems. Uh, as somebody that's waited for a very long time to get a simple permit. Uh, I believe the issue is real. Uh, but I would like to see it go through that process. So thank you.

27. Committee chair1:04:37

    Thank you representative, uh, Representative Whyte.

28. Rep. Stephen L. Whyte1:04:42

    Thank you. Mr. Chair. If I may ask a, maybe a kind of two-pronged question. Thank you for presenting the bill here this morning. The topic of building inspection inspections have been at the legislature for a couple of years from a builder's perspective that time is money, but we also need to have proper safety. And as a result of that, a couple of bills were passed this last legislative session. That one I had an opportunity to work on. I'm kind of looking into some data points looking into this particular bill that's before us today. And I'm wondering if you by chance have some other data points. I'll just share two examples that I'm seeing. One is from the Utah League of Cities and towns, where they have looked at 129,000 building inspections in 2024. And that 99.8% of inspections were completed within the three day timeframe. And then another data point that I'm looking at is from the 2024 performance audit of the Utah Housing Policy from the office of the Legislator Auditor General. And after reviewing complaints against cities, they wrote quote, after reviewing all complaints that were specific enough to allow follow up, we were unable to find evidence of cities acting in bad faith regarding requirements and timeliness. So looking at these two data points, I'm wondering if, if you're seeing some other data points or other issues that we might not be aware of?

29. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:06:08

    Yeah, thank you for that question. So I am not here to argue that cities are acting in bad, bad faith at all. I think cities are acting in good faith and doing the best job that they can. I think that the way they're incentivized and the way they do their process does not lead to them having a deep seated interest in keeping low and making the project move quicker because nothing about how they do their job, it pays them more if they do those things. And nothing about them pays them less if they don't do those things because they are a monopoly that we have granted. And I don't, with regards to just whether or not the monopoly is doing a good job, I, on a basic level, don't think that a monopoly doing a survey about whether it itself is doing a good job is a good way to measure from my personal experiences and from other people that I have worked with on those individuals' experience, they have found this portion of the process to often be longer and slower and more difficult than the other portions of the process. And to me, that's not unexpected. Um, just because we've set it up to only allow one party to do it.

30. Committee chair1:07:21

    Thank you. Representative. Um, I don't see any more lights, but I'm gonna ask a couple questions if that's okay. Um, first of all, I just wanna make sure I understand what you're doing here. So the bill is gonna allow residents to choose whether they go with the city or a th an authorized third party inspectors that Correct. For inspections and plan review on remodels where they live there already? Yep. Okay. So, so me as a homeowner, if I wanted to do any of those or needed any of that, I could choose to either go with the city or one of their authorized Correct. Third party contractors. Okay.

31. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:07:59

    Although the bill also says that the city may still come inspect anything where they wish to, but what, just as I'm doing the job, I may choose a third party.

32. Committee chair1:08:07

    Okay. Alright. So, uh, Lori, uh, mentioned, and I think you did too, that, uh, this actually helps increase revenues for cities. So I was wondering how that is and, and, uh, and if that is the case, why do many of the cities that have contacted me about your bill, uh, suggest that, that they don't really support the bill, especially if it's doing everything that we're saying and actually it benefits them with increased revenues. Could you or Lori speak just a little bit more to that?

33. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:08:43

    I'll take Lori's answer first.

34. Lori Saine, former Colorado state representative1:08:45

    Oh, okay. Well, the, the thank you, um, representative. So I would say that with government is a finite resource as you know, since you work in government, right. And I, I think there's, there's a tendency sometimes to clinging to what you know, but if you can take staff, I mean, you can look at some cities for some examples like express permitting, Albuquerque and others, where, you know, you're using less staff and they're making it more automated. You can put less staff on those smaller projects and you can move staff to larger projects. Either all, if you can use the private sector to speed up processes, which is this is, I think have been, has been proven to do in those cities. And in those states, you can actually generate more value for the local government. 'cause you're building more value by adding onto property, um, adding value onto, um, increased permitting times. And a lot of people, by the way, this might not be reflected in their survey, but sometimes people just quit. They, they don't follow through the permit process because it comes to ones, if you can make it easier for people to add value to their homes, it's gonna add revenue to your local government.

35. Committee chair1:09:55

    Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, we have, uh, Representative Ballard.

36. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard1:10:02

    Yes. Thank you so much. Um, I just have a question because I, uh, well, first of all, does, does this include, um, inspections, um, or approval for any planning? Or is this just for, uh, the actual building permit?

37. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:10:18

    So it is for plan. So it is only for remodels. Mm-hmm. And it is for plan review, which you must do before you get your building permit. And it is for the inspections to make sure that the building was done according to building code. It's for those two things.

38. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard1:10:31

    Yeah. I, I just wanna make a comment. I would love to add something to this bill. Um, and I've talked to a couple of my colleagues about this, but sometimes when you submit plans to a city, um, the third party review after you've done all the engineering and the third party review takes a month, that's, that's a problem. When if you go out to your own third party to say, Hey, will you approve this? It may take two days, three days. So I totally agree with this, with the problem that this is, and you know what, if somebody wants to pay on their own, let them pay on their own. If they wanna wait for the city, then they wait for the city. Um, but I think that the idea of having, uh, another entity as an option for, um, for remodels and such, I think it's a great idea. What, there's nothing that can, that should stop an individual from doing that remodel if, if the city just is not responding well,

39. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:11:30

    Uh, agreed. And to me, there's nothing that should stop a period of a person from being able to do that. Even if the city's responding fine. I, I don't think it, we should have to prove bad faith before allowing this to a person. 'cause I don't think there is bad faith. I just think it's slower sometimes, even with good faith.

40. Committee chair1:11:44

    Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any more lights. So we are going to go to the public for comment. Uh, who from the public would like to speak to this? Okay. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We have five. Do we have anybody online? Okay. We have seven people. Alright, sir. Come up and feel the, the, the seats representative if you want join us up on the S here and, uh, we're gonna give you, uh, two minutes.

41. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:12:17

    Thank you. I'm, uh, Kanosh Rivera with Vanguard qa. Um, we are a private ICC inspection company. We have served, uh, nationally and we've served Utah for decades here. We actually do this service Now in the private sector, we have company people that actually engage us to help them with these pre-planned reviews. We also work with the cities. Um, we, uh, work with the production, um, for new contractors, new construction on a regular basis. But this, um, is an issue for the public. The public going to the third party plan review and the delays that happen there. Um, that does take time. But the, the bigger thing is, is that here in Utah, we are a lot of do it yourself people. And so what happens is, is you get an inspection or you get a plan review and they are end, they end up with a lot of delays, a lot of work that's not done properly, or the inspection doesn't get done in a timely matter. And we, we help take off that, um, pressure in temp or that pressure for the cities. Um, I support h HB uh, four 70 because I feel that it does give the private sector more availability. It also gives the homeowners more options and it does drive, um, revenue for the cities and it helps our economy move faster. But it also helps with the builds and the rebuilds and what you end up getting when you buy that house after someone has done that work before. Um, we've been doing this for a number of years. Uh, I'm open for questions. I had a whole speech here, but I sort of got derailed. I apologize.

42. Committee chair1:13:55

    We do, we do have a question for you. Yes. Representative Thurston.

43. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:13:58

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, I'm trying to reconcile in my mind, so if I'm gonna do a do it yourself project and I got down, I got the building permit, everything ready to go. Um, and then I am needed to get it inspected. It wouldn't make sense to me that the person that helped me on the front end with all the design and all that stuff should also be the one on the backend approving that. And then I just have to get a yet another party involved. And how are, how are they gonna, how is this gonna save anybody any time? This is all about getting stuff done faster.

44. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:14:32

    No, sir. We don't, we don't do the actual architecture or the other parts. We look at the ICC rules, um, of the building permits themselves of what the code is. Um, just like the inspectors of the cities do. We work with the cities all of the time, um, helping them with four ways and other type of inspections to help the builders be able to fast track that. But also on remodels, um, when they've run into engineering issues or they don't have the inspectors in the cities, they have a certain skill set and they have certain, um, how should I say this? Uh, they have certain skill sets and credentials, but they are not, they don't have the practical knowledge in some of these cases. And we come in and help them with that.

45. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:15:13

    But is it, how is this faster? Because this is all, this has all been about delays and getting stuff done faster. So how is this

46. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:15:20

    Faster? The cities are overwhelmed in their, in their inspections and what they're doing on a regular basis. Um, Representative Whyte, I would look into those statistics that you have, um, in regards to the 90 and the percentage of next day, um, inspections and stuff. We've been doing this for years and do it on a daily basis. And there's, there's some, I, I'd love to talk about some more statistics with that in regards to the speed is that these are lower level type inspections. Your city inspectors need to be dealing with the stuff that's going to be class action suits, large builders, the other part of the production builders and the stuff that lays there. Um, we can take some of that pressure off of them and work in conjunction with them.

47. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:16:02

    So the answer is that you're hiring less lower skilled people to take the place of higher skilled people. And that's how you're making up the speed?

48. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:16:09

    No, no. We are not lower skilled people. That's that What you just Just said. We, we, no, we are ICC certified. We have all of our B ones, B twos, B fives. We actually, our people are more trained than your in the city inspectors. So we're, 'cause we're an independent

49. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:16:22

    One. So you're higher skilled than the city inspectors.

50. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:16:24

    We are as skilled or higher? Yes.

51. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:16:26

    As skilled or higher. Yes. So how, like, I still don't understand how this is faster

52. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:16:29

    Because the, the homeowner would have the option to be able to get their in stuff looked at prior to them building, prior to bringing it in and putting it into the stack at the city and overburdening the city with all of the other plan reviews and the third party plan reviews and the other part that the city has to go through to ensure that they are, um, not liable or making any mistakes. We can do a plan review and those things on a regular basis. We do it for a lot of custom homes now. Okay.

53. Committee chair1:16:55

    Let's keep moving. Thank you representative. Uh, Representative Peterson.

54. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:17:00speaker not certain

    Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I, I didn't catch your company you worked

55. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:17:03

    For. It's called Vanguard qa. Qc. Um, it used to be GC three. I purchased the company, um, 'cause they were a vendor of ours. And prior to that, um, we worked with Quality built and back in the day it was Xerox. Xerox here, uh, in Utah.

56. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:17:16speaker not certain

    And can you tell me what cities you represent now or you're working with?

57. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:17:20

    We work statewide, um, and also in Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada. What

58. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:17:24speaker not certain

    Cities specifically are you working with,

59. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:17:27

    Uh, specific right now? Um, daybreak, uh, Springville, uh, Spanish Fork. We're working in Orem. We're working in Salt Lake City, Park City, uh, Summit County. Okay. Um, up in Logan, we work with Holmes Homes visionary. Um, we work with Fieldstone with, uh, on the, on the commercial side or on the production side. And then with the cities themselves, we've had a lot of work with Millcreek with on some of their infield, um, reviews. Also with Murray and also with Centerville.

60. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:17:57speaker not certain

    Are you on their third party approved inspector list?

61. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:17:59

    The third party inspection list is, is an interesting, it was a great concept. What the cities did though is they actually cross pollinated. They didn't go to the outside third parties. In fact, a lot of the cities say that we don't even exist in the state, which is sort of interesting. Um, but they actually cross pollinated. So some of the cities have, um, I'll just take Millcreek for one. They may have holiday and someone else stated as their cross pollination for their third party inspections so that they can meet those spec those next day inspections and fast track that.

62. Committee chair1:18:31

    Okay. Let's keep going here. Thank you.

63. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:18:34

    Uh, Representative Dunnigan. Thank you. Resident Ward. If I'm doing a project and I have the city building official come out, do they charge me for that? Do they charge me an inspection fee?

64. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:18:47speaker not certain

    It's was that to me? I'm sorry there. That, that is part of the fee that you do with your, um, building inspection and your permit, um, that is part of the fee that subsidized to those, to that inspection group. Yes.

65. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:18:59

    So if I have a third party inspector come inspect it, would I still pay that fee to the city?

66. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:19:05

    They still will. Yes. Okay. We're, we're hired a lot by contractors to help them with their trades to help ensure that their trades are doing their warranty work

67. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:19:14

    Properly. I'm just wondering how it saves the homeowner money. If I'm gonna pay the, the city and pay the private inspector,

68. Ken Rivera, Vanguard QA1:19:21

    It's gonna save the time. Um, it's gonna save time and they're still gonna have to pay the building fee, the permit fee to the city. How that's allocated? I don't, I don't know. But that they can't, they can't build the addition or anything without that. All that we're doing is giving them an inspection outside of that, of those items. Thank you. And there would be a fee there for us. You Yes.

69. Committee chair1:19:40

    Thank you representative. Okay, we're gonna move on. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your you bet. Comments. Let's, let's fill these chairs. Representative, do you mind just coming up here so we can fill all three of these? Does anybody else that wants to speak come on up?

70. Lauren Cole, Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities1:19:56

    Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Lauren Cole. I'm here on behalf of Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities. And we support this bill because it addresses a core problem, unnecessary bureaucracy that prevents property owners from responding to our housing shortage and contributing to the incremental growth of their communities. As has been discussed ad nauseum this morning. Right now, if a homeowner wants to add a basement apartment for their aging parents or rental income, they face months of delays in mounting costs from permitting processes. These are not safety issues. They're arbitrary restrictions that block people from creating much needed housing on their own land. Overregulation has prevented the private market from meeting our community's housing needs. Many property owners want to create homes to rent or sell, but municipal bureaucracy makes it nearly impossible. Today's patchwork of regulations creates layers of unnecessary red tape that drives up costs and reduces supply. This bill takes an important step by streamlining the inspection process while maintaining safety standards through qualified professionals. When a homeowner adds an accessory unit or makes modifications that expand our housing choices, they shouldn't wait months for routine inspections. We need to restore property rights and clear regulatory barriers because every delay and every unnecessary requirement makes housing less affordable for families trying to stay in their communities. Thank you for considering this bill.

71. Committee chair1:21:18

    Thank you. I think we have a couple of questions for you, Representative Peterson. Sure.

72. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:21:22speaker not certain

    Thank you Mr. Chair. Is it your understanding that this bill would allow an A DU to be built in a basement through this process?

73. Lauren Cole, Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities1:21:29

    Uh, my understanding of alteration would be that that would be included, correct? I mean, you're the, you are the code expert. I believe

74. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:21:37speaker not certain

    I'm asking you what your understanding of the bill is.

75. Lauren Cole, Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities1:21:39

    I think I make a distinction between alteration and addition in the ways that you, uh, distinguish earlier. Okay.

76. Committee chair1:21:46

    Thank you Representative Thurston.

77. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:21:48

    Thank you. Um, so keep It short, please. Yes. You, you said that that that homeowners are, are suffering months long delays for routine inspections. Do you have any specific cases of cities that are causing months long delays for routine inspections that you could provide to us?

78. Lauren Cole, Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities1:22:04

    I don't have specific cities in their timeline. I just know that that is a, a routine across communities and frankly, uh, is an issue that multiple states and cities, um, experience that just the, the permitting delays are not, it's not baked in.

79. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:22:19

    Do you have, do you have data on that?

80. Lauren Cole, Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities1:22:21

    I do not at this time. Okay, Great. Thank you.

81. Committee chair1:22:26

    Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Lemme turn this on On my own.

82. Kevin Greene, Americans for Prosperity1:22:32

    Lemme you, Mr. Chairman committee. Kevin Green with the Americans for Prosperity, uh, speaking in favor of the bill. I will be short. Um, I think when government can take the opportunity to get out of the way, uh, Utah should lead and be the government that chooses to do that. I think this bill simply gives an option to property owners. Um, they can choose to take that or they can't. Um, and I also think it's worth, even if this right doesn't decrease time delays or decrease costs, I think it's worth giving that option and allowing that to be something that can happen. Uh, we have a, a major housing crisis. I think this is a small step in a, a long list of many that we need to be focused on. Um, but let's free, uh, use free market principles a allow, uh, the private market to solve problems. Um, and, uh, just ask that you support this bill.

83. Committee chair1:23:25

    Thank you. Okay. We're gonna close Public comment. Great. I don't wanna be here anyway. No, Go, go ahead, Taaz. Thank you.

84. Taz Biesinger, Utah Homebuilders Association1:23:34

    Uh, uh, thank you Mr. Chair Taaz be, or the Utah Home Builders Association. I'm gonna try to respond to most of the questions have been asked, but in my advanced stage, I may forget a couple. So if I, if I miss yours, then it wasn't intentional except for Representative Peterson. Uh, that will be no, first off, Representative Peterson. As far as the land use task force, the Home Builders Association has raised this issue for years with that task force. And the small, the local government have summarily dismissed it as, as a discussion they don't want to have. And so that would be great if we could resolve this internally with that group, but it's not something that we've been successful at addressing. Secondly, uh, for regarding the, the, the cost and the delays, primarily, most of the delays are in the, uh, plan review. Uh, a a uh, anecdotally, my daughter, uh, began last summer to finish their basement. They waited almost six months just to get the plan review. They could have finished the entire project in less time, but they sat and waited for a building permit to be issued. As far as the inspection times, I don't know that we have any a month long delay in inspection, but certainly days, if not weeks delays, you call in and ask. As far as the reporting Representative Whyte, um, the Home Builders Association respectfully disputes the, the league stats. Uh, I, I believe that they're asking the cities if they're in compliant with the state law. Most of 'em say, yes, we are. And that's why they're in the 90% tile. They claim that they are. We have builders that su suggest otherwise, and we're happy. Uh, any of you, uh, want any specifics? We we're more than happy to provide that day data. Now, I don't have any as far as, uh, inspections that are month long, but certainly the, the process of just simply getting a building permit issued our months, uh, uh, and, and, and go on and on. Uh, back to my daughter's situation, they got their loan to finish their basement and sat on it over six months, paying interest on that loan, uh, before they even started. And so that's where the cost comes in. Representative Dunnigan, they paid interest on a loan that sat there and gave them zero benefit. Uh, they were hoping to have the project finished before Thanksgiving, and they're just barely, last night, they, they video chatted with my wife, showing them moving into, uh, some of the, some of their children into their rooms into the basement. And so that, that's the result of the cost. As far as, again, the, the cost of performing the, the plan check and the building permit, uh, I'm sorry, the inspections is included in the building permit. We're not asking for that, any of that to be refunded so the city can collect those fees and then not provide that service. It's, it, it, it, the, the expense for that third party is, is born by the, by the homeowner or the contractor. So we, we really support this bill and we, we hope that you'll support it and we think it's a, a great step in the right direction. Thank you.

85. Committee chair1:26:50

    Thank you. All right, go ahead. How many more do we have here? You're okay. You're the last one, then we'll go online. Okay. Thank you.

86. Jared Tingey, Utah League of Cities and Towns1:27:01

    Thank you Chair members of the committee, uh, Jared Tingey with League of Cities and Towns, and, um, as you can imagine, we oppose this bill and, uh, for quite a few reasons. Um, we, uh, we don't, uh, see with the data that we've provided and whether it's disputed or not, um, we would ask, we've been asking for a long time, give us data that shows differently. And we are, we want that. If our data is wrong, show us 129,000 building inspections that were discussed. And, and I can't believe that 129,000 would be reported as, uh, incorrectly. Um, and I don't, uh, when, when we try to solve problems, when we hear about these, these issues, typically we'll go to the city managers and say, can you help us out here? The response is always, we didn't even know about this. Absolutely. And that issue is solved immediately. Or the other, the other thing that happens is, we'll, we'll, uh, go and ask What about this? And as the more we investigate, the more we look into it, the more we find facts that weren't completely accurate or, um, weren't, weren't, uh, complete. Um, and were able to solve those problems. Um, as, uh, Representative Whyte and Representative Peterson said here, we work through the land use task force, uh, HP 3 96, HP 58, uh, last year we worked through the plan review process, streamlining the plan review process. Um, and we currently are working on a joint letter with all of the entities, including the Home Builders Association and the Property Rights Coalition and others to discuss how to solve problems. Um, we don't think that this is the right route to go. Uh, we're always willing to discuss, we're always willing to talk. Um, for that, we, we oppose this bill.

87. Committee chair1:29:33

    Thank you. Okay. We're gonna go online. Uh, Tom Mills, I think this is the right bill you wanted to talk to, right?

88. Tom Mills, Alpenglow Energy1:29:46

    Uh, yes it is. Uh, and, and thank you very much. Apologies for, um, chiming in at the wrong time. Um, I'd like to thank the committee and, um, Representative Ward for presenting this bill. Um, speaking on behalf of, of a solar company. Um, I can actually provide the, the committee with some real tangible differences. For example, I can take the same solar electrical one line, submit it in Sandy, and get a turnaround in maybe two to three days and pay $200 for that permit. And I can take that same electrical one line, submit it to Wasatch County or Summit County, um, and pay anywhere from 1200 to 1500 for the same, same project. Um, and I typically, we don't see that that permitting process. Um, it takes about three weeks to a month in, in those cities. So I, I guess the, the point I'm trying to make is for whatever reason, not all cities seem to have the same kind of resources, uh, for an identical project specification.

89. Committee chair1:31:09

    Great. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Okay. Now we're going to go to Kanosh Adams Kanosh, if you could turn on your video. Kanosh. Do we have you, is he still there? Can you hear me now? Uh, just barely go ahead and turn your video on, please. There we go. Now we can see you. Go ahead.

90. Ken Adams, Adams Construction and Maintenance1:32:08

    Appreciate it. Uh, thanks for the time. One of the key things for me that I see as a contractor, uh, construction manager and owner's representative, is that owners become very frustrated in the very beginning process. And the key point of all this is safety. If the owner decides to not pull a permit because the process is too difficult to time consuming, how does that help with safety? Uh, the other thing is in response to the A DU comment is, I don't know what this bill covers, uh, because there's already a law that says that a owner builder cannot do something for public use. And so public use, uh, cities currently do not allow or shouldn't if they are, allow for a homeowner to do an A DU because it is for public use. Uh, so that gets turned down in a lot of cities that I work with ERs with. Um, so I don't know if it's bypassing that in this bill or not, but something to be aware of. Um, my other experience in this is with the cities, this would definitely help with the ebbs and flows that they tend to have. And by being able to outsource this, then they're not potentially having to hire new employees. So it does seem like a cost savings to me. Um, I think the reality, I understand the league's point of view with their statistics, but the reality is so much of this is undocumented to be 99 plus percent with no problems. But yet me personally have experienced this probably with 30, 40% of the projects that I've been involved with owners on, uh, that doesn't seem Real.

91. Committee chair1:34:12

    Okay. Thank you. Kanosh, could you identify yourself and your location and your organization for the record?

92. Ken Adams, Adams Construction and Maintenance1:34:20

    Uh, Yes. My name's Kanosh Adams. I'm based out of American Fork, Utah, and company is Adams Construction and Maintenance.

93. Committee chair1:34:29

    Thank you. Okay. We have one more online then we'll close co public comment. Uh, Richard,

94. Richard Higginson, EcoStar Insulation1:34:46

    I'm here now. Can you hear me?

95. Committee chair1:34:47

    Yes, go ahead. And can you see me as well?

96. Richard Higginson, EcoStar Insulation1:34:50

    Yes. I apologize for that. Uh, I'm a contractor. Uh, my experience is, and I'm based in Bountiful, Utah. The name of my company is EcoStar Installation. We're an installation specialty contracting company. We do work along the Wasatch front and the Wasatch back. And my comments specifically are dealing with building inspections or progress inspections rather than on permitting or plan review. Uh, several years ago, there was quite a problem with, uh, getting inspections scheduled in a timely manner. That problem has disappeared, uh, in all the inspections we do, we're we're within one or two days, maybe very, uh, rarely, uh, does that drag to three days. But municipalities and counties have, uh, have retooled. They've hired folks, and they're getting to all of our inspection requests typically within one or two days. And those inspection requests are, are six to eight per day. So I just wanted to share that the, the inspection aspect of this is a non-issue. Uh, I don't have any personal information on permitting and plan review, but that's my comment on inspection scheduling.

97. Committee chair1:36:14

    Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Uh, thank you. I I have a question for you. In, in your experience, do you think, uh, the, if, if you're still around, Is he still there? Richard, are you still there?

98. Richard Higginson, EcoStar Insulation1:36:29

    Okay, I'm still here. Okay. Okay.

99. Committee chair1:36:31

    Uh, do, do you feel like the quality from a third party or, or from the municipality, would, do you think the quality would, um, be any different?

100. Richard Higginson, EcoStar Insulation1:36:42

     Uh, I've, we very rarely have to deal with third party inspectors. Inspectors, although some municipalities do use an independent, uh, third party service. Uh, I haven't found them to be, or in their performance. Uh, it's just that almost all of our experiences with either municipal or county officials.

101. Committee chair1:37:06

     Got it. Thank you. Oh, Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you everybody. Okay. We're gonna close public comment and bring it back to the, uh, committee for further discussion and action. You didn't have a sub or anything, did you? Okay. Representative Ballard,

102. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard1:37:29

     Yes. I make a motion to pass out favorably HB four 70 building inspection amendments. And I'd like to speak to that. Go ahead. Um, I really appreciate this because this does include a plan review and the building inspection portion. And I would say that Mr. Basinger's comment is very accurate. I, for the people that I've talked to and know of, um, usually the city is pretty responsive for the, for an inspection. But, uh, the cities that I know have a challenge trying to get the plan review. And it does take months. And, um, one of the comments when I asked a specific city, you know, what is happening? Why is it taking so long? And I said, how many, how many third party contractors do you use? And they said, well, we're contracted. We did an RFP and we chose the best company. I'm like, wait a minute. So you don't have like four or five options if somebody's delayed or doesn't want to help. You know, put your city as the priority of all the other things. And they said, no, but we did an RFP to just see if we could get the right price. And I was like, well, there's the delay right there. So I, I think this is good for business, it's good for homeowners, it's good for, um, for all the way around. And, um, it does save cities money 'cause they're not the ones that have to pay for that third party contract. Um, and ultimately it also provides the standards that are needed for the certification of those inspectors, um, and review parties. So recommend this favorably.

103. Committee chair1:39:02

     Thank you, representative. Okay. We have a motion, uh, to move with a favorable recommendation, HB four 70. We'll open it up for further discussion. Representative Peterson.

104. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:39:15speaker not certain

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just for clarification, uh, to the sponsor, the inspections that we're talking about must be done by one of the third parties approved by the city's currently. Is that correct?

105. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:39:28

     That is correct. With the language in the bill at this time. I mean, that, that's just how the bill is written and that's correct.

106. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson1:39:34speaker not certain

     Okay. Um, I, I just want to be on the record. I, I think I, I'm not gonna vote in favor of the motion, but I think that this is an issue that we need to bring to the table. Um, and I hope that, that the home builders testified today that the, that the league that the land use task force was not willing to take this issue up. I think this needs to be a message to that body, that this is a serious issue that we need to address that, that the statistics that are being quoted. Um, I'm not sure as a contractor that I believe those statistics either. I've had my own delays in my own projects. Um, and so I, I have concerns about that. But I think this, there's a process that, that we go through that gives us really good legislation and, uh, that's everybody coming to the table. So if, if next year this same bill comes to the table and the land use task force has decided not to hear it, I would support this bill. But I think it needs to go through that process.

107. Committee chair1:40:44

     Thank you, Representative Thurston.

108. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:40:47

     Thank you. I'd just like to add to Representative Peterson's comment that I would really like to see, I mean, the cities can do this. They don't need us to tell all cities, you all have to do this way. In fact, I'm generally not a fan of telling all cities everywhere you have to do things the same way. But, uh, I would like to see a city step up and say, we'll, we'll give this a try. We'll give it a try. We'll, we'll see if it makes a difference, if it makes life better. And if multiple cities wanna step up and give it a try, be even more happy. 'cause then we can really see if this works, if it makes a difference, if it causes all sorts of problems. But that's also, I guess, a message to, to the league. Find some cities that are willing to innovate and try something different for please. So we don't have to do it to everybody all at the same time.

109. Committee chair1:41:30

     Thank you representative. Uh, Representative Kyle?

110. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:41:33

     Yeah, I, I'd like to speak in favor of the motion. I, I think it's important. I, I mean, when I, when I built my home, I waited six months for, uh, approval for a septic system. Uh, I know this doesn't, this isn't in there, but I think we should expand it to the health departments as well. I think that's something to look at. Um, that's, that's time and money that's out of people's pockets. And, um, and maybe they say that they get most of 'em done, but each individual person should be able to have the option to get, keep their project moving. Uh, and it's, uh, so I I, I very much support this bill and I, I encourage support everyone else's support as well. Thanks.

111. Committee chair1:42:09

     Great. Thank you. Okay. The motion is to move with a favorable recommendation. Do HB four 70 building inspection amendments?

112. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:42:20

     Do I some at some point or?

113. Committee chair1:42:22

     Yes. We'll go to the sponsored as some please. Thank

114. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:42:25

     You. Because I would like to respond a little bit to a couple of the points that have been made. Go ahead. Um, to Representative Thurston's comment, I, I am not bringing the bill on behalf of the cities to defend their right. They can do this. I come with the bill on behalf of the property owners who cannot, uh, do this so that they can, they will have a chance to do it all monopolies deeply and honestly believe that they're doing a good job. I have not come across a monopoly yet that thought it was a good idea for it to give up some of its power and let someone else do it. We say that the land use task force operates by consensus, and that is a positive way to phrase things. On the one hand, that's important. Another way to say that sense is the land use task force operates in a way that any party there that strongly dislikes something, has a veto over that policy going forward. And if that is the format in which this is gonna be decided, then the policy will not go forward. There needs to be a format where it can be discussed, where individual parties don't have a veto over good processes to let them go forward. The league is, is correct in saying they're always willing to talk, they're always willing to discuss. And that's true. They have, they have visited with me when I have wanted to visit with them. But in the end, it, it seems to me that it's not a surprise that the league does not, does not wish to have another way to do this. But property owners do deserve this relief. And the individual anecdotes alone from here, including my own experience, are that this does not go quickly 98% of the time. Thank you.

115. Committee chair1:44:01

     Thank you, representative. Okay. We'll go back to the maker of the motion.

116. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard1:44:04

     Uh, yes. I, I concur with that just because this is, uh, Utah. We do things, uh, that supportive a business, the economy, and, um, I'm hearing everybody supports it except for the city, um, and the, and their, and their process. But I think, uh, with what is in place, there is time to make some tweaks. And I think that's all that this bill needs is a few tweaks. If they're wanting to help come to the table to make it better, maybe more than three inspectors, right? As an option. I just think this is it. It is a monopoly. And the cities are not necessarily in a hurry. 'cause it's not their dollar that is, um, waiting under a construction loan. And so I think this is the Utah way is to open this up and to promote better business.

117. Committee chair1:44:53

     Great. Thank you. Okay. We are going to, uh, take a roll call. Vote Representatives. Ballard? Yes. Burton Dunnigan, no. Ivory. Yes. Win Peterson. No. Thurston, no white, no. Wilcox? Yes. Chair Malloy. No. Chair. Kyle? Yes. Okay. So the, uh, bill passes seven to, oh, it fails. I'm sorry. The bill fails. I'm used to saying it passed, but, uh, seven to four with the, uh, yes. Votes being Ballard, Representative Ballard Ivory, Wilcox and Kyle.

118. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:45:50

     Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Committee for your

119. Committee chair1:45:52

     Time. Thank you representative. Appreciate it.