Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fortified Roofs Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee defers fortified-roof bill after debate over cost, code preemption and inspection roles
Summary
Representative Freeman asked to work on a substitute to House Bill 453, which would have established fortified-roof requirements in the coastal boundary. Testimony from Smart Home America and discussion of a Legislative Auditor report highlighted potential insurance benefits and implementation costs; the committee voluntarily deferred the bill.
Representative Freeman asked the House Commerce Committee to defer House Bill 453, a proposal addressing fortified roofs on residential property in coastal-zone boundaries, and said she will work on a substitute after stakeholder input.
Ms. Vygras read the bill summary: it was "relative to the construction of a roof in the coastal zone boundary to provide for fortified roofs on residential property in the coastal zone boundary to provide for requirements and standards and to provide for related matters."
Julie Shaiu Woodard, president and CEO of Smart Home America, told the committee that Louisiana's building code already contains most fortified roofing standards and cautioned against mandating Fortified designation in code because the designation and evaluation add costs for homeowners. "Fortified is not a product, you cannot walk into Home Depot or Lowe's and ask for it," Woodard said, and she added that "your code has 97% of fortified in it now." She explained that designation requires an evaluator trained by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) and produces a certificate documenting compliance.
Woodard warned that requiring designation could impose extra fees homeowners cannot afford and said the state code council is the appropriate forum for implementing remaining measures. Committee members raised the question of whether parishes should have more authority to adopt local measures; Freeman said she was exploring a substitute that could "allow the parishes some of their own oversight" because local governments currently cannot adopt certain changes under state provisions.
Committee members and witnesses discussed costs and funding: Woodard said inspection costs "about $7.50 to a thousand dollars depending on where you who who you're going to inspect," and representatives noted replacement roofs done to fortified standards are more expensive than routine replacement roofs. Representative Jordan observed that new construction is generally built to current code standards but that replacement roofs can carry additional costs for owners who seek formal Fortified certification.
Representative Newell and others emphasized the goal of lowering insurance rates by increasing fortified roofs, citing a legislative-auditor report and prior examples in other states. The committee agreed to defer the bill; Representative Reiser moved to voluntarily defer HB 453, the motion carried with no objections, and the author said she would develop a substitute.
Members asked that Ed Seiler of the legislative auditor be allowed to present the auditor's March report on the Fortify Homes program when the measure is returned; timing for that presentation will depend on when a substitute is filed.
