Transcript Highlights:

• This rule was put in place in case of fires at a time before fire suppression was created, or fire-rated
• Existing building codes and other rules around fire rating of interior and exterior walls, as well as
• Council will include in the new 2027 building code.
• Pew examined fire deaths in these cities, and we found overall that fire death rates in single-stair
• In fact, the fire modeling showed that the highest fire death risk is when sprinklers and smoke alarms

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing and Human Services met with a quorum, adopted the June 16, 2026 minutes, and then unanimously adopted S-1 substitutes for House Bills 5570 and 5571. The chair said the committee would take testimony and likely not move to final passage that day, in order to allow more discussion and questions. The bills, as substituted, would allow local governments to permit certain multifamily buildings up to four stories to be built or converted with a single staircase, subject to conditions such as limits on units per floor, floor size, and existing fire safety requirements. A sunset provision was described as ending the statute once LARA adopts corresponding building code rules. Representatives Fairbairn and Wooden testified in support, saying the bills are intended to address Michigan’s housing shortage by making smaller infill and “missing middle” projects more feasible and less costly. They argued the current two-stair requirement drives up costs, makes land assembly harder, and limits development on narrow or irregular lots. Senators asked about stair width, emergency safety, the choice of four stories instead of six, and why the American Institute of Architects opposed the approach; the sponsors said the 48-inch stair width was intended to allow two-way movement, four stories was a compromise aligned with expected code changes, and the architects preferred rulemaking over statutory change. Supportive testimony came from Pew Charitable Trusts, which said research from New York City, Seattle, and other places found fire death rates in modern single-stair buildings to be indistinguishable from other multifamily buildings, and that modern safety features such as sprinklers, alarms, and fire-rated construction make these buildings safe. A developer from Ann Arbor and the Michigan Home Builders Association said the reform would improve floor-plan efficiency, reduce wasted circulation space, lower construction costs, and help smaller projects pencil out. Abundant Housing Michigan also supported the bills, estimating they could reduce apartment construction costs by nearly 13%. The clerk read in numerous written cards in support from business, housing, municipal, and advocacy groups, while the Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs and the Michigan Professional Firefighters Union were listed as neutral. The committee adjourned without further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• the difference between the fire code and building code that Mr.
• the difference between the fire code and building code that Mr.
• the difference between the fire code and building code that Mr.
• the difference between the fire code and building code that Mr.
• currently in fire code some of the currently in fire code some of the things<01:25:19.080> that

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the code.
• new codes through 2031.
• new codes through 2031.
• which our code is based is national building code, which runs on a three-year cycle and which our code
• to fire.

Summary: The committee heard a series of housing and wildfire-recovery bills, with members repeatedly framing the package as a response to the Los Angeles fires and the state’s broader housing affordability crisis. AB 306, by Assembly Member Schultz, would place a six-year moratorium on new residential building-code updates and local code modifications except for health-and-safety emergencies. Supporters argued it would reduce costs and provide certainty for rebuilding and new housing production, while opponents from environmental, clean-energy, and labor groups warned it would freeze beneficial code improvements, delay innovation, and limit local control. Despite those concerns, several members said they would support the bill while seeking amendments, and the committee voted it out on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. The committee also approved AB 301, which would require state agencies to follow shot-clock style deadlines for reviewing building permits, and AB 253, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to conduct certain post-entitlement permit reviews if local departments take more than 30 days. Supporters said both bills would reduce delays, lower costs, and speed rebuilding and housing production; some members emphasized that safety reviews must remain intact. AB 301 passed on a due pass vote to Appropriations, and AB 253 passed 8-0 to Local Government. AB 462, by Assembly Member Lowenthal, would exempt accessory dwelling units in Los Angeles County’s coastal zone from coastal development permit requirements, with the goal of speeding ADU construction for disaster recovery and housing supply. Supporters said ADUs are a proven tool and that the bill would help displaced residents and future coastal disaster areas; one member of the public opposed the bill, arguing ADU proliferation can change neighborhood conditions. The committee sent AB 462 to Appropriations on an 8-0 vote. The final bill discussed, AB 299, would let disaster-displaced families stay in hotels, motels, and short-term rentals for more than 30 days without triggering landlord-tenant rules, mirroring an earlier homelessness-related law; the transcript ended as the author began presenting the bill and its support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fire Prevention and Building Code and the New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code.
• Code Act, there's not a statutory requirement when these... ...Uniform Fire Prevention and Building
• It's still stuck in the fire code process, and we've been told it may be five years before that actually
• and construction code, whether that be from the electric code or mechanical code, if those are things
• enforcement of a violation of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or local building codes,

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Housing, Construction and Community Development Committee met with quorum present and considered a full agenda of housing, code enforcement, and rent regulation bills, many of which had passed the Senate in prior years. Early measures included a statewide residential rental registry (S.912), penalties and reporting for vacant and abandoned properties (S.925), and extending tenant response time for major capital improvement rent increase applications (S.1461). The committee also advanced several code-enforcement and fire/building-code bills, including measures to expand remedies for Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code violations (S.3406), increase the Secretary of State’s code enforcement powers (S.4165 and S.4534), and authorize investigations into code administration and enforcement (S.4535). Members raised concerns about local fiscal impacts, the scope of state authority, contractor use, and whether the bills adequately define or limit “imminent threat” and related enforcement powers. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on S.4852, which would require the Codes Council to review and act on updates to international model codes within 18 months. Senators debated whether the bill would speed up code adoption or, as some feared, weaken economic reasonableness considerations by striking the word “economically” from the statutory standard. Supporters said the bill was intended to ensure prompt review of widely used model codes and noted other statutory safeguards remain in place; opponents worried about reduced attention to cost and practical impacts, especially amid housing and utility capacity constraints. The committee also discussed S.6368A, requiring complainants to receive copies of compliance orders issued after code complaints, and S.6600B, mandating inspections of certain non-fireproof buildings in New York City. Additional bills advanced included standards for all-gender bathroom design and construction (S.7131A), compensation for required code-enforcement personnel training (S.7159), and audits of individual apartment improvements in rent-regulated units (S.8046A). Several measures were reported to Finance, while others were reported to the floor. Throughout the meeting, votes were largely along expected lines, with some members voting negative or “without recommendation” on the more expansive code-enforcement bills. No bill was defeated, and all items on the agenda were reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• which is a state fire code.
• which is a state fire code.
• is a state fire code.
• fire codes to Define to the building of fire codes to Define recovery<00:35:29.839> homes<00:
• fire code requirements into building and fire code requirements into play<00:36:28.760> Recovery<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• which is a state fire code.
• sides on the fire code and the building sides on the fire code and the building code<00:18:52.600
• code sides and especially on the fire code sides and especially on the fire code<00:18:54.320>
• which is a state fire code um and I 153 which is a state fire code um and I think<00:18:59.320> the
• fire codes to Define to the building of fire codes to Define recovery<00:35:29.839> homes<00:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Municipal and County Government subcommittee met on February 19, 2025 to gather additional information on House Bill 432, which concerns recovery houses. The first witness, State Fire Marshal Sean Tumi, said his office had worked with stakeholders for more than a year on the bill’s definition changes and supported the revised definition. He explained that the bill removes vague language such as “safe, healthy, family” and instead relies on fire-code requirements and certification standards, including a primarily non-transient dwelling unit and living as a single household. He distinguished recovery houses from boarding or rooming houses and from other congregate settings such as group homes or transitional housing, saying those other uses do not currently have the same exemptions. Members questioned Tumi about fire safety, inspections, smoke alarms, egress, and whether sprinklers should be required. He said recovery houses are inspected by the fire marshal’s office and local fire departments, with annual inspections under state fire code provisions, and that operators must work with a certifying body. He described the inspection process as checking alarms, extinguishers, heating systems, cooking equipment, street numbers, and no-smoking rules, and said new houses are generally given time to obtain certification. He also said he would prefer sprinklers everywhere but believed mandating them for these existing structures would likely shut down many recovery houses and significantly harm the recovery community. Bill McKenny of the New Hampshire Building Officials Association then testified in support of HB 432. He said recovery housing is an important step after treatment and that the 2024 code changes and the bill help align state law with federal disability law. He emphasized that certification through a recognized organization gives code officials confidence that standards are being monitored, and warned that if a recovery home loses certification it would lose the waiver from sprinkler requirements and could be treated more like a boarding or rooming house. No vote or final action was taken at this meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• that modern building codes and fire codes undergo a robust scientific development process and peer review
• <00:33:51.960> and<00:33:52.120> fire<00:33:52.519> codes modern building codes
• and fire codes modern building codes and fire codes undergo<00:33:54.159> a<00:33:55.320>
• As the Fire Council mentioned, the Building Code Council goes through a very robust review process of
• As the Fire Council mentioned, the Building Code Council goes through a very robust review process of

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on a wide range of housing-related bills. HB 295 on Hawaiian homelands drew support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and individual testifiers who described long waits for DHHL housing, while the Department of Hawaiian Homelands offered comments noting that lowering the Native Hawaiian blood quantum from 50% to 25% would require multiple legal and federal review steps. The committee also heard testimony on several Hawaii Public Housing Authority measures, including HB 99, HB 1096, HB 1097, HB 1095, HB 1093, and HB 1094, which generally received agency support and little or no public opposition during the hearing. HB 1094 prompted questions about the handling and sale or donation of seized property, and the agency said it lacked capacity to manage that work directly and would need to consult the Attorney General on liability concerns. The committee then heard HB 1056 and HB 1467, both related to a proposed Hawaii Homes or housing resiliency program. DCCA, the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, the Climate Advisory Team, and Hawaii Realtors supported HB 1056, while the Attorney General requested clarification on fund language. The Insurance Commissioner said DCCA was willing to run the program and that strengthening homes would help keep insurance available in Hawaii. For HB 1467, the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority and Climate Advisory Team also supported the measure, with the Attorney General raising concerns about delegation, the special fund, and extension authority. Testimony on both bills emphasized hurricane retrofits, with some witnesses urging harmonization of the two similar proposals and one witness warning that the bills could conflict with efforts to reduce building-code minimum standards. Other measures included HB 1013 on important agricultural lands, which received support from HHFDC, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, DBEDT, the Agri-Business Development Corporation, and Purple Maiʻa Foundation, with some agencies offering comments. HB 1294 on agricultural workforce housing drew comments from the Attorney General, who said commissions may be established by law rather than by the department itself, along with support from OHA, a council member, and the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus. HB 89 on teacher housing received support from OHA and education groups, while the Attorney General said the bill may have constitutional issues and suggested amendments to set standards for voucher applications. HB 276 on condominiums and HB 528 on residential leases also drew support, with no testimony in opposition. HB 415 on public safety and fire sprinklers generated the most clear split in testimony: the State Fire Council, a fire department representative, and an individual supported the bill, arguing sprinklers improve safety and can prevent major losses, while BIA Hawaii, Pacific Home and Appliance Distribution, NAAP Hawaii, Gentry Holmes, and DR Horton Hawaii opposed it, saying the added cost would worsen housing affordability and that existing codes already address safety. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing; the chair repeatedly closed each bill after testimony and questions, and the hearing moved through the agenda without recorded committee votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a triennial code proposal and adoption process with intervening codes adopted every 18 months.
• , and some of the interim codes and reach codes that have been mentioned.
• Not all code provisions—the residential code is about this thick—it falls into a lot of different places
• updates, interim code updates, reach codes, and what types of code development are actually in the benefit
• The devastating fires in Eaton, Palisades, and the Hughes Fire, which was in my district, really demand

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on March 19, 2025, adopted its committee rules unanimously, and then heard a series of housing, insurance, and disaster-recovery bills. Early bills focused on wildfire relief and insurance issues, including AB 238 on mortgage forbearance for Los Angeles County wildfire survivors, AB 493 on insurance payout interest for homeowners, AB 597 on consumer protections after disasters, and AB 226 on strengthening the California FAIR Plan’s liquidity tools. Supporters generally framed these measures as necessary protections for disaster survivors and market stability, while opponents and concerned witnesses raised issues such as investor guidelines, compliance conflicts, and market disruption. Several members also noted equity concerns and the need to balance relief with consistency across the state. The committee also heard a cluster of housing-production bills. AB 306 proposed a six-year pause on new state building code updates affecting residential construction and limits on local code modifications, drawing strong support from housing and building industry groups who argued it would reduce costs and improve predictability. It also drew opposition from code, environmental, and clean-energy advocates, who warned about safety, local control, and the loss of important code updates. AB 253 would allow licensed third-party professionals to perform plan checks if local review takes 30 days or more, and AB 301 would impose state-agency permitting timelines similar to those already applied to local governments; both were presented as ways to reduce delays and speed housing development. AB 462 would exempt ADU construction from coastal development permit requirements in Los Angeles County, especially to aid fire recovery and expand housing supply. After hearing testimony and brief member discussion on each measure, the committee placed the bills on suspense or advanced them as appropriate. In the suspense hearing at the end of the meeting, the committee took up the suspense-file bills and reported AB 226, AB 238, AB 301, and AB 306 out with due pass recommendations on roll call votes. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:32:05.199> code find that I can issue a state fire code find that I can issue a state
• Now, we just don't have the fire code.
• I will share on the fire code variance side.
• fire code, we reach I'm currently on the fire code, we reach back<01:35:53.600> out<01:35:53.760
• <01:42:10.239> or<01:42:10.480> the codes, whether the fire code or the codes, whether

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, members, a fire code allows a governmental entity to require a permit and inspection for the new
• State law currently allows for counties with populations above 250,000 people to adopt a fire code.
• Counties adjacent to those counties can also adopt fire codes.
• State state law allows for counties to contract with cities to enforce a fire code.
• Travis County adopted and began enforcing a fire code in 2005.

Transcript Highlights:

• Add to that we have something called the stretch energy code, which is an opt-in code, and then, of course
• , the promulgation of the specialized municipal opt-in code, yet another energy... ...code.
• But remember, fundamentally, the state building code was promulgated because it's a safety code.
• And in residential structures of three stories or greater, the code does require fire sprinkler suppression
• And in residential structures of three stories are greater, the code does require fire sprinkler suppression

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've formerly been the fire marshal for the city, which is charged with enforcing the state fire code
• When I first learned the state properties were not under any obligation to comply with state fire code
• of the state fire code, which they are not authorized to enforce.
• As the local fire jurisdiction, the building code requires us to provide plan reviews for state projects
• As a local fire jurisdiction, the building code requires us to bribe plan reviews for state projects.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Public Safety and Homeland Security Joint Committee heard testimony on several bills focused on accessibility, fire safety, and transportation safety. House 2569, expanding adaptable housing for people with disabilities and seniors, drew broad support from Rep. Christine Barber, disability advocates, and members of the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council. Witnesses said the bill would close gaps in the Architectural Access Board’s authority, require more adaptable housing in rehabs and older conversions, and extend accessibility requirements to employee-only work areas. They emphasized the shortage and cost of accessible housing, the benefits for aging in place, and the risk of institutionalization when accessible units are unavailable. The committee also heard strong support for House 2577, which would allow local fire departments to inspect and enforce fire code compliance in state-owned buildings. Rep. Robert Cataldo and Boston Fire Chief Pat Ellis described this as closing a long-standing loophole that leaves state properties outside local fire-code enforcement, despite the hazards posed by aging state buildings and life-safety systems. Fire service representatives also supported bills to create a statewide technical rescue system under the Department of Fire Services, standardizing training, equipment, funding, and coordination across regional rescue teams, and they backed related fire-safety measures including sprinkler-related legislation and professionalism measures. Rep. James O’Day testified for House 2676, which would require window screens to prevent child falls, arguing it is a common-sense safety measure and noting recent fatal incidents. Ann Shuey and John Kalura testified for House 2601, which would require motor coach passengers to wear seat belts, citing a family tragedy, low seat-belt use, and research showing signage can improve compliance. Steven Poglisi of NAGE supported House 2568, requiring carbon monoxide alarms in public buildings, describing a past CO exposure incident involving a union member. The committee took no votes on the bills during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• What do they need to do to stay up to date on the fire protection code?
• The fire protection code changes every day—not every day, but every couple of years—that has to be updated
• Municipalities have their own enhancements to the Florida Fire Code.
• What do they need to do to stay up to date on the fire protection code?
• Municipalities have their own enhancements to the Florida Fire Code.

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum and took up a series of bills, beginning with PCS for HB 743 on social media use by minors. The sponsor said the bill would extend last session’s restrictions by requiring parental access to messages for minors ages 15 and 16 and allowing law enforcement access with a warrant or parental request. Members raised concerns about abuse situations and private communications, but the sponsor said the bill was aimed at protecting children from grooming and trafficking. The PCS was supported in public testimony and passed 15-0. Members then approved HB 1161, which would let victims of altered sexual depictions or deepfakes demand removal of the content and pursue civil remedies if it is not taken down; an amendment clarified a definition tied to federal law, and the bill passed 14-0. The committee also passed local bills for Duval County (HB 4053) and Oviedo/Seminole County (HB 4031) creating special alcohol licensing exception areas, and HB 717, which increases penalties for unlawful demolition of historic buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places, with supporters from historic preservation and local government groups. The committee next approved HB 1035 on building permits for single-family dwellings, as amended, to extend permit validity around building code updates, speed approvals after emergencies, and create faster review timelines for smaller projects; members questioned possible loopholes and storm-related applications, while the home builders association supported the measure. It also passed PCS for HB 1219 on employment agreements, creating a framework for covered non-compete and garden leave agreements for higher-wage employees or those with access to confidential information; several members objected to its impact on workers and the marketplace, and the vote was 11-5. Additional favorable votes were taken on HB 799 regarding condominium alcohol licenses, HB 869 expanding underground utility contractors’ scope to include certain fire line work after a contested amendment and testimony from both utility and fire sprinkler groups, HB 1071 on alternative plan reviews and inspections, PCS for HB 981 on athlete representation and NIL compensation, and PCS for HB 801 on HVAC/mechanical contractors repairing and replacing certain pool heaters, both of which drew mixed testimony and debate over scope and safety. The final item introduced was HB 311 on repair of motorized wheelchairs, which the sponsor said would improve access to parts, tools, and independent repair options for users.

Transcript Highlights:

• I thought we codified the common law portion of... excuse me, code law within the code section maybe
• We are codifying that particularly in the business code here so that it's in this code.
• How is it applicable to the business code?
• Into that volunteer fire department, whatever is the fire department that's mandated by some city around
• station, get the fire truck, and head to the fire.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• code okay HB 745 first up we have fire code okay HB 745 first up we have fire chief<01:53:33.159
• Fire Council.
• The fire chief of each county shall keep in the county's fire chief's office a record of all fires occurring
• The fire chief of each county shall keep in the county's fire chief's office a record of all fires occurring
• The fire chief of each county shall keep in the county's fire chief's office a record of all fires occurring

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard three House bills related to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. HB 606 would extend the Act 279 special fund to June 30, 2028, continue deposits and appropriations to help eliminate the DHHL waitlist, and require a strategic plan and annual reporting. DHHL strongly supported the measure, saying most of the initial $600 million had been used and that the need remains large, with more than 29,000 people on the waitlist. Public testimony also supported the bill, emphasizing its importance to Native Hawaiian families and concerns about Hawaiians leaving the islands because of housing costs. A member noted the bill is a priority and that the committee will keep working on how to fund another $600 million. HB 1086 would exempt DHHL homestead lot and housing development from general excise and use taxes. DHHL supported the bill, saying any tax savings would reduce the eventual cost of housing for low-income beneficiaries. The Department of Taxation said it could administer the measure and noted it is already being implemented under the governor’s emergency proclamation, with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2026. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered technical comments and urged the committee to weigh existing benefits already received by DHHL beneficiaries. HB 1307 would appropriate funds for DHHL water well development and geothermal exploration on Hawaiian homelands. DHHL said the bill is a follow-up to prior study funding and would support slim-hole drilling, site evaluation, and consultant work to identify viable geothermal resources, especially on Hawaiʻi Island. Several testifiers opposed the bill, arguing there had been inadequate beneficiary consultation, raising environmental, cultural, and safety concerns, and objecting to using $20 million for geothermal rather than housing. In response to committee questions, DHHL staff explained that the goal is to gather information for a future public-private partnership to develop geothermal electricity, and that a Chapter 343 environmental review would be required later in the process. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Code.
• department and fire marshal.
• The rest of the package in the building code, the fire code, the mechanical code, the plumbing code,
• city fire department.
• So things like energy code.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , to an urban fire.
• the fires.
• as a deputy fire chief.
• We asked them what they were doing before the fires, during the fires, after the fires.
• for wildland building codes as well as defensible space codes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation tools, with members and witnesses emphasizing that California’s wildfire losses, insurance costs, and affordability pressures require a broader strategy than the status quo. The chair framed the issue as a tipping point for the state and asked witnesses to discuss how to scale mitigation, improve coordination, and make programs more effective and sustainable. Early testimony from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety explained how embers, flames, structure density, and combustible materials drive community conflagrations, and described the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home standards, including a base “Prepared” level and an enhanced level. IBHS said California is ahead of other states but still needs standardized, verified mitigation, and noted research suggesting home hardening can reduce losses and improve insurability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office highlighted key policy questions for lawmakers, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. Members pressed for practical, lower-cost approaches, and witnesses repeatedly stressed that the first five feet around a home is critical, that many mitigation steps are DIY or relatively low-cost, and that financing will be necessary because many homeowners cannot afford full retrofits. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption challenge, not something the state can fully pay for, and recommended a blended model of education, low-interest loans, smaller grants, and insurance discounts to drive mass adoption. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council and Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described local programs using assessments, neighborhood-based Firewise efforts, grants, and resident participation, while also calling for better marketing, clearer standards, workforce development, and stronger links between mitigation and insurance benefits. In the later panels, Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal described the state’s layered approach: parcel-level hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation. Cal Fire said its defensible space inspection program needs ongoing funding and staffing to remain permanent, and the LAO said the proposal has merit but could be modified depending on budget conditions and alternative funding sources. Cal Fire also described a forthcoming defensible space financial assistance program focused on Zone Zero and vulnerable communities, estimating about $8,000 per home and roughly 3,125 homes served with the proposed funding. The State Fire Marshal clarified that local Zone Zero ordinances cannot be less restrictive than state minimum standards, though local governments have flexibility above that floor. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses returned to the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, consistent standards, targeted incentives, and sustained funding to move from pilot efforts to mass adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• , to an urban fire.
• the fires.
• as a deputy fire chief.
• We asked them what they were doing before the fires, during the fires, and after the fires.
• space codes.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's what fire code and building code demands be built.
• And that's what fire code and end.
• code requirements of fire doors and fireproof material.
• <04:18:38.000> code complies with safe fire code complies with safe fire code requirements
• So there is a discrepancy between our building code and fire code, and we have to fix that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We keep our fire chiefs honest.
• But under the Century Code and with the overall goal of serving as the senior fire authority for the
• I am the Arnagard Rural Fire District Fire Chief and District Board President.
• I'm the fire chief of Carrington Fire. I'm I'm also an NDFA instructor.
• I'm the fire chief.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee was called to order, a quorum was established, and the minutes from the prior meeting were approved. The first major presentation came from Montana Public Employees Retirement System executive director William Hollahan, who gave an overview of Montana’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Compensation Act plan. He explained that the plan covers volunteer firefighters in unincorporated areas, is funded by 5% of state fire insurance premium taxes, and currently serves 228 departments with about 2,936 active members and 1,242 retirees. He described eligibility rules, annual training and reporting requirements, benefit levels for partial and full pensions, disability, death, medical, and funeral benefits, and said the plan is actuarially sound with roughly $60 million in assets and a funded ratio slightly above 100%. Committee members asked about prior-service credit, whether EMS personnel are included, the effect on recruitment and retention, and whether expanding coverage would require a funding analysis; Hollahan said prior service is not credited, EMS is not currently included, and any expansion would need financial review. Tim Walleen of Workforce Safety and Insurance then presented a draft North Dakota workers’ compensation solution for volunteer firefighters and volunteer EMS personnel. He explained that volunteer responders are already covered by workers’ comp for medical and wage-loss benefits, but the proposal would set a minimum annual wage of $30,000 for calculating wage-loss benefits for qualifying volunteers, with the benefit paid at two-thirds of that amount. Representative Porter suggested tying the volunteer definition to existing code rather than a fixed dollar amount, and Walleen agreed. Questions focused on whether search and rescue or other volunteer emergency services could be included, whether departments would face new paperwork, and whether volunteer organizations can already elect coverage; Walleen said there would be no additional paperwork and that volunteer coverage is already available. The committee also heard from volunteer fire service representatives and the state fire marshal. An Oakes-area firefighter, Mr. Olson, testified that small departments are struggling with retention, communication, and administrative burdens, especially around separate bookkeeping and funding rules for donated or fundraising money, and he said departments need clearer guidance from the state. State Fire Marshal Dr. Matthew Clark introduced himself and outlined a broader effort to improve education, support, and coordination for fire departments, including a planned 10% audit of certificates of existence beginning in 2027, more outreach through his office, and better assistance with training, reporting, and grant access. He said his office is authorized under current law to provide these services, but the role has been vague and underused. Finally, Arnagard Rural Fire District Chief Rick Schreiber testified in favor of new recruitment and retention ideas, including retirement-style benefits, health insurance, tax incentives, scholarships, grants, and more remote or regional training. He said volunteer departments are losing members, that local tax and donation funds are already stretched, and that any new retirement or incentive program should be sustainable and likely involve a mix of state and local support.