Bill to restrict local authority to require engineers on many single‑family plans draws strong opposition at public hearing

A House committee held a public hearing on House Bill 566, a proposal that would prohibit counties and municipalities from requiring a registered architect or professional engineer to approve plans for single‑family residences under three stories tall (with a municipal exception for Baldwin County). Witnesses at the hearing urged the committee to reject the bill or to refine it, saying local building officials need discretion to require engineering reviews in specific circumstances.

The bill's sponsor (name not specified in the transcript) said the measure is intended to lower costs and regulatory burdens on homebuilders. Proponents, including Jeremy Walker of the Alabama Association of Realtors, argued local over‑regulation increases home prices. "We believe this is part of a broader problem... that is directly leading to higher home prices," Walker said, and urged further dialogue during the off season rather than immediate passage.

Opponents focused on public safety and local conditions that can make engineering oversight necessary. Greg Robinson, a structural engineer with more than 40 years' experience, told the committee that the International Residential Code covers most single‑family construction but that local building officials still need the ability to request engineer or architect input for unique site conditions such as beachfront erosion, wave impact, deep fill, or troublesome soils. "There are unique circumstances that do need to be addressed by the building official who will call on structural engineers and the architects to do that," Robinson said.

Emily Holly, a licensed structural engineer and board member of the Structural Engineers Association of Alabama, described the bill as a removal of local authority and said that could endanger lives. "This is a matter of life safety," Holly said, and asked the committee not to strip authorities having jurisdiction of the right to require engineering for residential structures when warranted.

Andy Hawthorne, a building official representing the ICC Alabama Gulf Coast chapter, cited the International Residential Code's wind‑speed threshold and a code section that requires a design professional when ultimate design wind speed equals or exceeds 40 mph. Hawthorne said much of the Gulf Coast and several counties exceed that threshold and rely on professionals for life‑safety design. He told the committee, "A design professional is required for wind design when the ultimate design wind speed equals or exceeds a 40 miles an hour." He also said the code citation is in the 2024 edition of the residential code.

Witnesses and members discussed the bill's geographic carve‑out: the draft exempts municipal requirements in Baldwin County but not the Baldwin County Commission's own county‑level authority. Committee members repeatedly asked why Baldwin County cities were treated differently from Mobile County municipalities and sought clarification on whether "construction plans" in the bill includes site plans (witnesses said it does not). Members also discussed whether the bill would prevent jurisdictions from requiring an engineer when a site investigation or special foundation is necessary; witnesses said it would not stop private or voluntary use of engineers, but would remove a jurisdiction's ability to require them in many cases.

A Realtor witness acknowledged successful programs in coastal counties to reduce insurance costs and manage storm risk, but said those successes should be addressed on a case‑by‑case basis rather than by a statewide mandate. The bill's proponents and opponents both urged further study and dialogue; several speakers said the legislative calendar made immediate passage unlikely and asked for off‑season conversations.

The committee did not take a final vote on the bill during the public hearing; the chair closed the hearing and adjourned the meeting.

Ending: The public hearing on HB 566 concluded with no immediate committee vote; witnesses urged preserving local authority for site‑specific engineering requirements.