SMOKE ALARM/FIRE ALARM - S.B. 337 (S-3)-339 (S-1): FLOOR ANALYSIS
sans-serif">Senate Bill 337 (Substitute S-3 as reported by the Committee of the Whole)
Senate Bill 338 (Substitute S-2 as reported by the Committee of the Whole)
Senate Bill 339 (Substitute S-1 as reported by the Committee of the Whole)
Sponsor: Senator Shirley Johnson (S.B. 337 & 338)
Senator Michael D. Bishop (S.B. 339)
Committee: Local, Urban and State Affairs
CONTENT
The bills would amend various statutes to require that dwelling units in certain multiple dwellings be equipped with smoke alarms; require certain buildings declared to be historic sites to be equipped with a fire alarm system; and prohibit approval of a work permit in an historic district unless an applicant certified that the property had or would have a fire alarm system or a smoke alarm. Senate Bill 337 (S-3) is tie-barred to Senate Bill 742, which would amend the Single State Construction Code Act to require the owner of a building or structure to install smoke alarms.
Senate Bill 337 (S-3) would amend the Housing Law of Michigan to require each dwelling unit contained within a class A multiple dwelling to be equipped with a single-station or multiple-station smoke alarm. A “dwelling unit” would be a single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more people, including permanent provisions for cooking, living, sanitation, and sleeping. (Under the Law, a class A multiple dwelling is a dwelling “occupied more or less permanently for residence purpose by several families”, in which cooking, toilet, and kitchen sink accommodations are contained within separate apartments, suites, or groups of rooms, such as tenement houses, apartment houses, and duplex apartments.)
A person owning or managing a class A multiple dwelling would have to comply with the bill. A person who violated the bill would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to 90 days, or both.
The bill would define “smoke alarm” as a single-station or multiple-station alarm responsive to smoke and not connected to a system. The bill also contains definitions of “single-station smoke alarm” and “multiple-station smoke alarm”.
A class A multiple dwelling constructed before November 6, 1974, would have one year from the date rules were promulgated under the Single State Construction Code Act (as proposed in Senate Bill 742), to comply with the bill. An existing building that was converted to a class A multiple dwelling would have to comply with the requirements imposed by that Act.
Senate Bill 338 (S-2) would amend the downtown development authority Act to provide that the preservation of facilities, buildings, or structures determined by a municipality to be historic sites would have to include, at a minimum, equipping the site with a fire alarm system. A “fire alarm system” would be a system designed to detect and annunciate the presence of fire, or byproducts of fire, and would include smoke detectors.
Senate Bill 339 (S-1) would amend the Local Historic Districts Act to prohibit a historic commission from approving a permit application for work unless the applicant certified that the property where the work would be done had, or would have before completion, a fire alarm system or a smoke alarm that complied with the Single State Construction Code Act. The bill would define “fire alarm system” as that term would be defined in Senate Bill 338 (S-2), and “smoke alarm” as that term would be defined in Senate Bill 337 (S-3).
Proposed MCL 125.482a (S.B. 337) - Legislative Analyst: George Towne
MCL 125.1651 & 125.1679 (S.B. 338)
399.201 a & 399.205 (S.B. 339)
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no data to indicate how many offenders would be convicted of violating Senate Bill 337 (S-3). Local units of government would incur the costs of misdemeanor probation and incarceration in a local facility, which varies by county. Public libraries would benefit from any additional penal fine revenue collected.
Senate Bills 338 (S-2) and 339 (S-1) would have no fiscal impact on State or local government.
Date Completed: 10-20-03 - Fiscal Analyst: Bethany Wicksall
- David ZinFloor\sb337
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.