Administrative Rules Review Committee

effect adopting the International Code will have on homebuilders, drinking water, government, the division, the Homebuilders Association and the economy. He said that the comment period on the latest version of the rule lasts until August 15.
        
    _ Mr. Robert Bergman, Executive Director, and Mr. John Young, Legal Counsel,
Utah Mechanical Contractors Association, addressed the committee. Mr. Bergman distributed a handout and briefly explained the issue. In summarizing the issue, he said the current code is more prescriptive. The Association views the Uniform Building Code Commission process as flawed and in need of review by the Legislature. Mr. Bergman said he thinks the statute gives the commission authority to make the choice but the process used to prepare and file the rule is not technically correct. Mr. Bergman explained both codes and further expressed his concerns. When a person has an issue that impacts industry, it has to have a voice and a vote in that process. The new code being proposed does not allow that.

    _ Mr. Tom Lewis, Utah Pipe Trades Educational Program, stated that the Uniform Building Code Commission (UCC) voted to place the issue on the consent calendar for the September meeting prior to the ending of the comment period. The issue has been settled by placing it on the consent calendar. In his opinion, the rules have been violated by making the decision before the end of the comment period.     

    _ Mr. Doug Short said the rule was pulled because of some incorrect dates and will be refilled by July 15. He explained the process when a proposed rule is filed.

    _ Ms. Cathy Tilby, Chair, Uniform Plumbing Code and Health Advisory Committee, said that the committee has been accused of being biased because of not having representation on the committee that supports the adoption of the International Plumbing Code, a homebuilder, who would stand to profit from the adoption of the IPC, or a building official whose organization would gain complete control of the plumbing code. She said that it would be inappropriate.

    _ Ms. Diane Nielsen, Director, Department of Environmental Quality , distributed a handout. She believes that there is a process in place for providing comment and emphasized that the Department did file comments on the proposed rule with the Uniform Building Code Commission on June 16. She stated that the International Plumbing Code for 1997 is less protective of public health and the drinking water systems than is the Uniform Plumbing Code of 1997. In the comments, Ms. Nielsen said the department pointed out some ways that the International Plumbing Code could be amended if it were adopted to make it more protective of public health. She said that the changes are numerous and significant. She then highlighted the changes that would have to be made.

    Mr. Ken Bousfield, Division of Drinking Water within the Department of Environmental Quality, explained the function of the Uniform Plumbing Code.

Note:    A copy of Ms. Nielsen's presentation is on file in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel .

    Mr. Charles Broka, Department of Health, distributed the department's comments to committee members and highlighted some specific differences in the two codes.

        Mr. Andrew Henderson, plumbing contractor, expressed his concerns. After looking at the International Plumbing Code he had some concerns. He expressed that if the code is not going to be changed to be equal with the current code, he requested to not change codes. Plumbing contractors are the ones that will have to deal with the public when something goes wrong. Mr. Henderson urged caution when choosing the adopted code.

    Mr. Hancock said as Chair of the Uniform Building Code Commission that he had conducted the meetings of the commission and that the pubic hearings were under the direction of Judge Steven Ecklund. He said the commission has not ignored public comment but has encouraged and allowed public comment. Some changes have been made and have been reviewed. Mr. Hancock discussed the plumbing provisions in the Uniform Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code.

    Mr. Ron Ivie, Building Official and a member of the Uniform Building Code Commission, presented background information on the three promulgating agencies and the corporation that was formed among the three model code groups in the United States. The reason for this was to formulate a single code nationwide called the International Code.

    Mr. Hancock distributed a handout and reported that he had prepared a list of 19 issues that he had presented to the Commission. He responded to several accusations that were made during the meeting. Committee discussion followed.

     MOTION:    Rep. Stephens moved that the committee move on to the next agenda item.
    The motion passed with Chair Harward and Sen. Steiner voting against the motion.

    Speaking to his motion, Rep. Stephens said it appears to him that there are two sides to the issue. It is also unfair to compare one amended code with one unamended code. He said that the groups are still working through the process. He does not feel comfortable recommending the issue to an interim committee until the final recommendation of the commission is made.

    Sen. Buhler supported Rep. Stephens motion.

    Chair Harward said he would recommend an interim committee study the issue in substance as to whether this organization has potential problems and that he would vote no on Rep. Stephen's motion.
    
    Sen. Steiner spoke against the motion because he feels it is significant that the director of the Department of Health and the director of the Department of Environmental Quality have presented specific problems they have with the International Code.

    Rep. Ure spoke in favor of the motion. He believes the process has been healthy. He said he hesitates getting the Legislature involved.

    Sen. Stephenson said that when the hearing period has ended and the rule takes effect, if people are not happy, the issue may be put back on the agenda for referral to another committee. Another possibility could be that committee members may vote to ask the Legislature to repeal the rule in the next General Session.
    
    Sen. Buhler requested the record reflect a conflict of interest.
    
4.    R562-5e Fraud -- Rep. Harward

    _ Mr. Randy Russon, Business Owner, gave a brief explanation of a problem regarding a prior employee. He said in 1994 he had owned a franchise and decided to sell the business. At that point the new owner had decided to not retain an employee that had worked for Randy for approximately 18 months. Out of common courtesy, Mr. Russon notified the employee that he would be let go by the new employer. Without Mr. Russon knowing, the employee planned to start his own business and compete against Mr. Russon and had gone out to Mr. Russon's customers during off hours and done work for them. The next day the employee contacted Job Service to collect unemployment. Mr. Russon said over an eight-month period the employee played the system and collected from Job Service over $5,000 in benefits. Mr. Russon said he had started a juice business. He explained that there is a 90% rule that states if an individual does not sell more than 90% of the assets and is a sole proprietor the individual must take the prior history rate into the new business.

    He explained that his rate at that time was at .007. The next year beginning in 1996, because of what the employee had done by collecting unemployment benefits, Mr. Russon's rate had gone up to .08 which calculated out as a 1,000% increase from one year to the next. Mr. Russon said he could end up paying $13,645. Comparing that rate to .007, he would have paid $1,100. He stated that the employee only collected $5,000, so he will pay Job Service almost two and one half times over what the employee collected.

    Chair Harward said he would like to understand what the division's response would be on the collection of unemployment benefits when an individual is actively developing a new business, and why an employer would pay better than twice what was paid out. Is this the procedure used and are the rates authorized by the statute?

    Mr. Jim Finch, Unemployment Insurance Director for the Department of Workforce Services, Division of Workforce Information and Payments in the Unemployment Insurance Section, addressed Chair Harward's questions. He said in his mind it is not a question of fraud but more of the taxation. He said an individual is entitled to benefits as long as the person is unemployed through no fault of his/her own and actively seeking full time work. Mr. Finch referred to the current rule and explained the way tax rates are determined. Committee discussion followed.

    Chair Harward said he would like to have the language in the statute and the language in the rule that governs when one is entitled to unemployment insurance particulary as it relates to this question. He said he would like the calculation as to how this would work if, with his permission, Mr. Russon's records were used to see if his base will stay the same as it is today. Mr. Russon gave his verbal approval and Mr. Finch said he would prepare the information for a future committee meeting.

5.    R714-205 Vehicle Window Tinting --

    Mr. Hunsaker explained this issue and distributed a handout showing the statutory cite and rules involved. He then explained the statute.
    
    Sgt. Dennis Platt, Supervisor, Safety Inspection Program, Utah Highway Patrol _ said windshield replacement in a motor vehicle has to meet the requirements of federal regulations. In the code, it lists specifications for different qualities and grades of glass. He explained the federal standard.

    Chair Harward said the statute does not reflect that.

    Mr. Dee Larson, Associate General Counsel, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, explained that the rule attempts to resolve a concern that can only be properly addressed by statutory change.
    
     MOTION: Rep. Stephens moved to prepare R714-205 for nonreauthorization next year. The motion passed unanimously.

6.    Committee Business -

     Scheduled meetings for August: August - 13th and 27th

7.    Adjourn - MOTION: Rep. Ure moved to adjourn to meeting at 12:05 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
                            F:\USERS\ADMRULES\WPFILES\7-9-97.MIN