Subcommittee reviews amendment to bar local technical changes to state building code; delays HB 428, retains HB 244 for more review

A House subcommittee on Executive Departments and Administration heard technical testimony Thursday on an amendment to House Bill 428 that would prohibit municipalities from adopting local technical amendments to the New Hampshire State Building Code while allowing administrative amendments for permits, fees and certificates.

Phil Sherman, chair of the Building Code Review Board, told the committee the amendment would move scattered municipal building-code provisions into RSA 155-A and “essentially continue to prohibit technical amendments but allow administrative amendments.” He said the change is intended to preserve municipalities’ ability to tailor administrative practices such as plan review and permit procedures while preventing local governments from changing technical requirements in the model codes.

The amendment collapses material now spread across the 67x RSA series and RSA 4722 into 155-A, Sherman said, and would require that any local ordinance or amendment that affects code enforcement be submitted to the Building Code Review Board (BCRB) for confirmation. Sherman described the confirmation review as limited to statutory compliance — whether a local amendment is less stringent than the state code and whether it conflicts with the fire code — and said that is why the amendment uses the word “confirm” rather than “approve.”

The amendment would: preserve municipal control over administrative elements (permit issuance, fee schedules, and certificates of occupancy) provided they are not less stringent than the state code; prohibit local technical changes to the model codes; and consolidate references to local enforcement mechanisms in 155-A. Sherman noted that about 141 municipalities currently enforce the building code and that many municipalities must now revise ordinances to comply with the consolidated statutory structure.

The committee’s discussion focused on several technical and timing issues. Members flagged an outdated drafting reference to a 60-day submission window tied to a July 1 effective date; Sherman agreed that the paragraph’s date language needed correction (he suggested changing the reference to “within 60 days of July 1, 2024”). He also acknowledged many municipalities missed the earlier 60‑day submission window and that the amendment’s effective date should leave towns and cities sufficient time to rework ordinances and return them for confirmation.

State Fire Marshal Sean Toomey appeared to explain how fire-code provisions should be aligned with the building-code statute. Toomey said the committee should clarify which provisions remain with the state fire-code statute and which belong in RSA 155-A. He described the practical difference between administrative and technical items: administrative changes could include specifying the model or type of a key cylinder for an alarm pull station or the preferred manufacturer of a Knox box, while technical changes would affect design-level requirements such as sprinkler design or detailed sprinkler emitters.

Toomey said technical changes should follow the state-level amendment process and public hearing, while some administrative matters could remain transparent at the local level for operational consistency.

The committee also discussed related legislation in the Senate (Senate Bill 94) that more explicitly addresses fire-code local amendments; members suggested coordinating the bills to avoid inconsistent changes across the statutes that govern building and fire codes.

Action and next steps: the subcommittee recessed action on HB 428 and instructed Sherman to take the amendment draft to the Office of Legislative Services for an official version. Members agreed to schedule a brief follow-up subcommittee meeting before the next regular ED&A meeting to review the OLS draft. The committee voted to recommend retaining HB 244 so staff and stakeholders can review the broader statutory recodification that moves building-code material from the 67x series into RSA 155-A for further editing outside the current session.

Sherman and Toomey emphasized the amendment is intended as technical and procedural: it would not change the fundamental responsibilities of municipal officials but would centralize code references and limit local authority to administrative practice rather than technical code content.

The subcommittee did not take a final vote on HB 428 during the session; members requested a formal OLS amendment to circulate before making a recommendation.