Committee retains bill seeking single statewide building and fire code

The Executive Departments and Administration Committee on April 16 retained Senate Bill 94, a measure that would bar municipalities from adopting local amendments to the state building code and create a uniform statewide standard.

Supporters told the committee a single code would reduce construction costs and regulatory unpredictability as builders move between towns. Representative Peter Schmidt, who opened the hearing on the bill, said the measure aims to give developers “a level playing field.”

The bill drew testimonies from industry and policy groups. Drew Klein of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy said building-code variations are a “ghost issue” that raise housing costs and hinder new construction. Alex Katrubas of the Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire and Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, urged standardization to reduce delays and unexpected compliance expenses for residential and commercial projects.

Fire-safety stakeholders supported a single code but asked the committee to preserve limited local administrative flexibility for enforcement. Sean Toomey, identified in committee testimony as state fire marshal, and Marshall Toomey (testimony labels vary) said they and local fire chiefs have worked with camps and builders to identify a distinction between “administrative” amendments — e.g., information about alarm panel key types or sprinkler connection sizes — and “technical” amendments that change safety requirements. Toomey said administrative amendments help with permitting and inspections and urged the committee to allow them where necessary for local enforcement.

Committee members said a House companion bill (HB 428) is being amended to include the fire code and administrative amendments. The committee voted to retain Senate Bill 94, allowing the House bill work to proceed and avoiding conflicting language between the two measures.

Votes at the committee roll call recorded the motion to retain as approved (yes votes recorded in committee). No final statutory language was enacted at the hearing; the record shows the committee opted to retain the Senate bill and continue work on the House vehicle that incorporates fire-code and administrative provisions.

The bill’s proponents said the intent is not to remove local enforcement authority but to make state codes and state amendments transparent and consistent, and to limit surprise local changes that can raise the cost and complexity of building projects. Committee members asked staff and advocates to continue coordinating to ensure exceptions and administrative enforcement mechanisms are clearly defined in the companion vehicle.