Following are bills currently pending in the Massachusetts legislature which would have an impact on Building Officials. The Federation board of directors is making an effort to keep abreast of the potential impact these bills would have on our profession and on public safety throughout the Commonwealth.

Your comments and financial assistance (visit "Support MFBO" page on this site) are crucial to enable us to act to endorse or oppose bills as necessary to benefit us all! If we don’t speak up now, no one will know where we stand. Once these bills get signed into law, we have no one to blame but ourselves for not letting our voices be heard.

Click on the highlighted Bill Number to read the text of the bill. Use the "Back" key to return to this site.

Senate Bill 1241 – An Act Relative to meetings of the Board of Building Regulations and Standards

Prime sponsor:  James Timilty

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding Senate Bill 1241

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials generally supports any effort to make the BBRS public hearings more available to the public.

To the extent that the freeing of constraints on specific hearing dates and locations can be removed, some of which are now archaic, the BBRS may operate in a more responsive way to today’s pressures and code adoption schedules.

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials, therefore, supports passage of Senate Bill 1241.

Prime sponsor:  Representative John D. Keenan (D)

The bill aim is to regulate “smoke detectors in certain residential buildings and structures” at the time of sale or transfer.  It requires that the seller equip a building or structure with approved smoke detectors in accordance with rules and regulations of the board of fire prevention regulations.  The bill also provides that the head of the fire department shall inspect such residential building or structure at the time of sale or transfer for compliance with this section.  This bill has important consequences for many small businesses in the commonwealth as it allows the board of fire prevention to promulgate smoke detector requirements which can differ from the smoke detector requirements provided in the State Building Code.

The Mass. Federation of Building Officials is opposed to this bill for the following reasons:

·         The legislation can and will create a hardship on property owners, home builders, contractors and developers as it allows the board of fire prevention to promulgate smoke detection regulation that will conflict with those in the State Building Code.

·         The bill supersedes any general or special law.  It ignores the date the residential building or structure was constructed thus requiring a newly constructed residential building which complies with the building code at the time of Certificate of Occupancy to comply with a smoke detector requirement promulgated by the board of fire prevention which can differ from the State Building Code.

·         The bill attempts to write building code through legislation, rather than the process established in MGL 143, Sec. 97 which establishes the BBRS for the purposes of adopting and administering a state building code.

House Bill 655 – An Act Relative to swimming pool alarms

Prime sponsor:  Representative Angelo J. Puppolo (D)

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding House Bill 655

House Bill 655, if enacted, would require all “swimming pools” to have alarms installed to be activated if the pool is in use.  The definition of “swimming pool” includes any structure which contains over 24 inches of water, and includes spas, hot tubs and possibly some inflatable temporary pools.

House Bill 655 further requires that all residential “swimming pools” be inspected by the municipal building official annually.  This would include new pools, existing pools, legal and illegal pools – all pools in the municipality.

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials opposes this bill for the following reasons:

• The requirement for annual inspections places an impossible burden on the local building official
• The requirement assumes the building official is aware of all “swimming pools” in his/her jurisdiction.  However, it is well known that many pools, spas, hot tubs, etc. are installed illegally without permits.  These are often installed in back yards, or indoors, and therefore unknown to the building official.
• The requirement puts the burden of inspection on the building official.  The owner of the pool, spa, hot tub, etc. is not required to notify the building official of the existence of the “swimming pool”, or to arrange for annual inspection.  This puts the building official and the community in an untenable position of liability if inspections are not done due to a lack of knowledge of the existence of said pools.
• The bill attempts to write building code through legislation, rather than the process established in MGL Chapter 143, Section 97, which established the Board of Building Regulations and Standards for the purpose of adopting and administering a state building code.

House Bill 1558 – An Act Relative to fire protection systems

Prime sponsor:  Representative Michael F. Kane (D)

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding House Bill 1558

The bill aim is to regulate:  “The method and manner of supervision for all fire protective signaling systems and automatic fire detection systems to be installed in new or existing buildings or structures” by local adoption, and that “The head of the fire department shall determine” how the system will be supervised.  The Massachusetts State Building Code, 780CMR already clearly prescribes options for how a fire protection system can be supervised.  If House Bill 1558 is enacted, it will do away with regulations clearly under the purview of the State Building Code, as established by MGL Chapter 143.

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials is opposed to this bill for the following reasons:

·         The bill attempts to write building code through legislation, rather than the process established in MGL Chapter 143, Section 97, which establish the Board of Building Regulations and Standards for the purpose of adopting and administering a state building code.

·         Massachusetts Stated Building Code was crated to do away with each city and town having their own version of a building code.  This is a step backwards where it comes to having a unified building code.  The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials is opposed to any local option which defeats the purpose of 780 CMR and MGL Chapter 143.

·         The legislation will create a hardship on property owners, home builders, contractors and developers as it allows the head of the fire department to determine how all fire protective signaling systems will be supervised and this can cause conflict with current regulation in the State Building Code.  The legislation will create a hardship on property owners, home builders, small business owners, real estate companies, contractors and developers.  Also, it would be in conflict with current regulations found in the Massachusetts State Building Code.

·         The Massachusetts State Building Code has already established a role for the head of the fire department in the planning, the inspections and the acceptance of fire protection systems.  As such, there is no gain to be had by property owners, home builders, small business owners, real estate companies, contractors and developers.

House Bill 662 – An Act relative to the enhancement of fire and explosion prevention in buildings and structures

Prime sponsor:  Representative Theodore C. Speliotis (D)

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding House Bill 662

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials has developed the opinion that this bill, if enacted, can and will remove regulation in which the Massachusetts State Building Code (780CMR) has full jurisdiction through MGL Chapter 143.  We feel that the issues of quantities of hazardous materials and how the building is to be constructed to store these materials are already addressed in the State Building code.  Going in this direction would result in the creation of dual authorities, which would pose confusion to the end user.

The Massachusetts State Building Code already references these concerns and if this bill becomes law, construction matters shall not be based upon standards which have been established by the code.

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials feels that the creation of a fire appeals board, with a building official on it is a positive, but the Board of Building Regulations and Standards appeals board has already been established to address issues such as those raised by this proposed bill.

House Bill 1574 – An Act further regulating exits in sports complexes

Prime sponsor:  Representative David B. Sullivan (D)

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding House Bill 1574

While titled a bill to regulate “the location of exits in sports complexes”, this bill has far reaching consequences for many small businesses in the commonwealth, and appears to be primarily directed at bars, nightclubs, dance halls and the like.  It could be construed that the title of the bill is intentionally misleading.

If enacted, this bill would require the BBBRS to mandate (presumably through a code amendment) a “luminescence (sic) egress route to all emergency exits”, to be installed at floor level in all nightclubs, sports complexes, dance halls, discotheques, bars, and similar occupancies.  As written, this would include all existing businesses.

The “luminescence egress route” must be “powered by electricity and have a back up battery”.  No further definition of this system is given.  No guidance is given as to where the end user may find a definition, design standards, or any other hint as to how to comply.  It is required, however, that the system, “shall meet state building code and fire code standards”.  We are not aware of any such standards.

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials is opposed to this bill for the following reasons:

• The bill attempts to write building code through legislation, rather than the process established in MGL Chapter 143, Section 97, which establishes the Board of Building Regulations and Standards for the purpose of adopting and administering a state building code.
• The language of the bill is vague.  No standards for such systems are cited.  No definition of “luminescence egress route” is offered.
• The requirement would place an undue burden on owners of small businesses (local bars, nightclubs, VFW halls, etc.).  This includes not only financial hardships in an attempt to comply, but also confusion due to the poorly drafted requirement.  Note that the bill does not differentiate between a sports complex such as Fenway Park and the local VFW with and occupancy load of 75.

House Bill 1751 – An Act Relative to the state building code

Prime sponsor:  Representative David T. Vieira (R)

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding House Bill 1751

House Bill 1751 would amend MGL Chapter 143, Sec. 97 by inserting the following language:  “Notwithstanding any special or general law to the contrary, the board [of building regulations and standards] may not adopt an amendment to the state building code that permits a city or town to accept such amendment on a local option basis”

Passage of this bill would eliminate the adoption of future “stretch” codes, or any other local option codes.

A mechanism is already in place for any city or town to appeal to the BBRS for supplemental, more restrictive or exclusive codes if it can be demonstrated that situations unique to that municipality require such action.  It is our position that this system should be utilized on a case-by-case basis, rather than opt-in code supplements.

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials supports House Bill 1751 as it would prevent the BBRS from adopting future “stretch” codes, and other local option codes often drafted and promoted by special interest groups.

House Bill 2406 – An Act Relative to Fire Protection Systems for Buildings and Structures

Prime sponsor:  Representative Louis L. Kafka (D)

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding House Bill 2406

The bill aim is to regulate “Fire protection systems for buildings and structures”.  This bill has the result and effect of removing all authority for fire prevention from the Building Code.  This proposal is not just for the nominal removal of fire detection or suppression standards from the Building code, but the authorization for the creation of a second Building Code under the newly expanded authority of a Fire Code.

The Massachusetts State Building code is an integrated code incorporating all aspects of building safety.  It is the primary standard for fire prevention in the commonwealth.  Fire prevention and safety is integrated in all aspects of the Massachusetts State Building Code from structural materials allowed, building egress, design, to every mechanical system installed.  Statistical information supports the success of the Building Code which has proven to be very effective in preventing loss of life and property.  There can be unintended consequences to fracturing the Building Code if this direction is taken.

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials is opposed to this bill for the following reasons:

·         Fire codes are primarily a fire safety maintenance code, not a construction code.

·         The proposed legislation removes a significant and critical part of the BBRS mandate for the coordinated development of regulations in buildings.

·         Removing the enforcement authority from the current enforcement authority to be transferred to this new authority would result in higher cost to both the community and State.   Building Officials have already been trained not only in the area being considered by this bill, but also in the areas of the Massachusetts State Building Code which are affected by this as well.  Having another agency to enforce the Building Code would require them to seek additional training which will need to be funded by either the state or local community.

·         The bill attempts to write building code through legislation, rather than the process established in MGL 143, Sec. 97 which establishes the BBRS for the purposes of adopting and administering a state building code.

Senate Bill 1251 – An Act Relative to installation of approved smoke detectors in certain residential buildings and structures

Prime sponsor:  Senator James  E. Timilty (D)

Position of the Mass. Federation of Building Officials regarding Senate Bill 1251

The Honorable James E. Timilty, Chairman

The Honorable Harold P. Naughton, Jr, Chairman

Joint Committee on Public safety and Homeland Security                      

State House, Room 507 and 167

Boston, MA 02133

Re: SB1251 An Act relative to installation of approved smoke detectors in certain residential buildings and structures.

Dear Senator Timilty, Representative Naughton, and members of the Joint Committee,

My name is Daniel P. Walsh and I am the current President of the Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials (MFBO). I would like to provide you with written testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 1251 on behalf of the Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials.  The sponsor is Senator James E. Timilty of Walpole and passage of it would regulate smoke detectors in certain residential buildings and structures.

MFBO formed several years ago to serve as a unified voice for building officials throughout the Commonwealth.  We are comprised of, and represent the members of the three regional inspectors’ associations; the Massachusetts Building Commissioners and Inspectors Association, the Southeast Massachusetts Building Officials Association and the Building Officials of Western Massachusetts. 

The bill aim is to regulate “smoke detectors in certain residential buildings and structures” at the time of sale or transfer.  It requires that the seller equip the building or structure with approved smoke detectors in accordance with the rules and regulations of the board of fire prevention regulations.  The bill also provides that the head of the fire department shall inspect such residential building or structure at the time of sale or transfer for compliance with this section.  This bill has important consequences for many small businesses in the commonwealth as it allows the board of fire prevention to promulgate smoke detector requirements, which can differ from the smoke detector requirements provided in the state building code. 

The Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials Board of Director’s is opposed to this bill because it attempts to write building code through legislation, rather than the process established in MGL 143 §97, which establish the Board of Building Regulations and Standards for purposes of adopting and administering a state building code.  This bill, if enacted can and will create a hardship on property owners, homebuilders, contractors and developers as it allows the board of fire prevention to promulgate smoke detection regulation that will conflict with those in the state building code.  The bill supersedes any general or special law.  It ignores the date the residential building or structure was constructed thus requiring a newly constructed residential building, which complies with the building code at time of the Certificate of Occupancy to comply with a smoke detector requirement promulgated by the board of fire prevention that can differ from the state building code.  The bill ignores the hardened process of petitioning the Board of Building Regulations and Standards for amending the code.

Thank you for this chance to comment on Senate Bill 1251. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. I can be reached at 781-455-7542.

Respectfully,

Daniel P. Walsh, C.B.O., President,

Massachusetts Federation of Building Officials