mandated fire sprinklers; prohibition; applicability
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 1093 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 1093.
You're tracking SB 1093
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 1093 — mandated fire sprinklers; prohibition; applicability
Last action — failed
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 53rd Legislature - 2nd Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
111 added · 92 removedPlain-language change summary
The latest version of Senate Bill 1093 has clarified that municipalities cannot require or penalize homeowners for choosing whether or not to install fire sprinklers in single-family homes or small residential buildings with up to two units. However, this prohibition does not apply to certain existing fire sprinkler requirements established before specific dates, including December 31, 2009, and November 15, 2017. This change is important because it protects the rights of homeowners to make decisions about fire safety features without facing fines, while still allowing municipalities to enforce older regulations for fire safety where applicable.
SB1093 - 532R - IS Ver REFERENCESenate TITLE:Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Fifty-third Legislature Second Regular Session SENATE BILL 1093 AN ACT amending sections 9-807 and 11-861, Arizona Revised Statutes;
mandated fire sprinklers;
prohibition;
applicability State of Arizona Senate Fifty-third Legislature Second Regular Session SB 1093 Introduced by Senator Griffin AN ACT amending sections 9-807 and 11-861, Arizona Revised Statutes;
exception;exceptions;
permit application format A. A municipality shall not adopt a code or ordinance or part of a uniform code or ordinance that prohibits a person or entity from choosing to install or equip or not install or equip fire sprinklers in a single family single-family detached residence or any residential building that contains not more than two dwelling units. A municipality shall not impose any fine, penalty or other requirement on any person or entity for choosing to install or equip or not install or equip fire sprinklers in such a residence. This section subsection does not apply to any codeof orthe ordinancefollowing: that requires fire sprinklers in a residence and that was adopted before December 31, 2009 municipality that required fire sprinklers for all single-family detached residences and residential buildings before November 15, 2017.
1. Any code or ordinance that requires fire sprinklers in a residence and that was adopted before December 31, 2009 municipality that required fire sprinklers for all single-family detached residences and residential buildings before November 15, 2017.
2. Any municipality that before November 15, 2017 required that all new single-family residences be fully outfitted with an approved fire sprinkler system.
3. Any ordinance or other requirement that requires a person or entity to install or equip fire sprinklers in residences that are five thousand livable square feet or more.
4. Any ordinance or other requirement that requires a person or entity to install or equip fire sprinklers in structured sober living homes as defined in section 9-500.40.
E. The board of supervisors shall not adopt a code or ordinance or part of a uniform code or ordinance that prohibits a person or entity from choosing to install or equip or not install or equip fire sprinklers in a single family single-family detached residence or any residential building that contains not more than two dwelling units. The board of supervisors shall not impose any fine, penalty or other requirement on any person or entity for choosing to install or equip or not install or equip fire sprinklers in such a residence. This subsection does not apply to any code or ordinance that requires fire sprinklers in a residence and that was adopted before December 31, 2009 county that required fire sprinklers for all single-family detached residences and residential buildings before November 15, 2017. The provisions of thisthe subsectionfollowing: shall be included on all fire sprinkler permit applications that are for a single family single-family detached residence or any residential building that contains not more than two dwelling units.
F. A1. Any code or ordinance that requires fire sprinklersprinklers permitin applicationa mayresidence and that was adopted before December 31, 2009 county that required fire sprinklers for all single-family detached residences and residential buildings before November 15, 2017. 2. Any county that before November 15, 2017 required that all new single-family residences be infully eitheroutfitted printwith oran electronicapproved format.fire sprinkler system.
G. A3. Any boardordinance of supervisors may not adopt any, or part of any, fire code, ordinance, stipulation or other legal requirement forthat anrequires approved fire apparatus access road or a fireperson apparatus access road extension, or both,entity orto aninstall approved route or aequip routefire extension,sprinklers orin both,residences that directlyare orfive indirectlythousand requireslivable asquare onefeet or twomore. family residence or a utility or miscellaneous accessory building or structure to install fire sprinklers.
A4. Any fireordinance code official may increase or extendother anrequirement approvedthat firerequires apparatus access road or a fireperson apparatus access road extension, or both,entity or an approved route or a route extension, or both, to complyinstall with this subsection. Compliance with this subsection is not grounds to deny or suspendequip afire licensesprinklers or permit. This subsection may be enforced in astructured privatesober civilliving actionhomes andas relief,defined including an injunction, may be awarded against a county. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, damages, lost opportunity costs, interest and the cost of the sprinkler system to a party that prevails in ansection action11-269.18. against a county for a violation of this subsection. The legislature finds and determines that property rights are a matter of statewide concern and a fundamental element of freedom. A property owner's right to use the property owner's property must be protected from unreasonable abridgment by county regulation and enforcement. This subsection supersedes and preempts any regulation adopted by a county regarding an approved fire apparatus access road, fire apparatus access road extension, approved route or route extension. For the purposes of this subsection:
F. The provisions of this subsection E of this section shall be included on all fire sprinkler permit applications that are for a single family single-family detached residence or any residential building that contains not more than two dwelling units.
F. G. A fire sprinkler permit application may be in either print or electronic format.
G. H. A board of supervisors may not adopt any, or part of any, fire code, ordinance, stipulation or other legal requirement for an approved fire apparatus access road or a fire apparatus access road extension, or both, or an approved route or a route extension, or both, that directly or indirectly requires a one or two family residence or a utility or miscellaneous accessory building or structure to install fire sprinklers.
A fire code official may increase or extend an approved fire apparatus access road or a fire apparatus access road extension, or both, or an approved route or a route extension, or both, to comply with this subsection. Compliance with this subsection is not grounds to deny or suspend a license or permit. This subsection may be enforced in a private civil action and relief, including an injunction, may be awarded against a county. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, damages, lost opportunity costs, interest and the cost of the sprinkler system to a party that prevails in an action against a county for a violation of this subsection. The legislature finds and determines that property rights are a matter of statewide concern and a fundamental element of freedom. A property owner's right to use the property owner's property must be protected from unreasonable abridgment by county regulation and enforcement. This subsection supersedes and preempts any regulation adopted by a county regarding an approved fire apparatus access road, fire apparatus access road extension, approved route or route extension. For the purposes of this subsection:
H. IfH. I. If a fire code adopted by a board of supervisors requires the use of a fire watch, an employee who works at the building in which a fire watch is required may serve as the fire watch. A person who is designated as a fire watch shall be equipped with means to contact the local fire department, and the person's only duty while keeping watch for fires shall be to perform constant patrols of the protected premises. The county shall provide the fire watch with printed instructions from the office of the state fire marshal and may provide a free training session before the person's deployment as the fire watch begins. For the purposes of this subsection, "fire watch" means a person who is stationed in a building or in a place relative to a building to observe the building and its openings when the fire protection system for the building is temporarily nonoperational or absent.
I. FromI. J. From and after December 31, 2014, a code or ordinance or part of a uniform code or ordinance that is adopted by the board of supervisors applies to locking devices for pool barrier gates used for means of ingress or egress for semipublic swimming pools. Any new construction or major renovation of a semipublic swimming pool from and after December 31, 2014 must meet the requirements of the code or ordinance or part of the uniform code or ordinance that is adopted by the board of supervisors. This subsection does not apply to a locking device for a pool barrier gate used for means of ingress or egress for a semipublic swimming pool that was installed before January 1, 2015, if the locking device meets the requirements prescribed in section 36‑1681, subsection B, paragraph 3.
View plain text versions (2)
- Engrossed Senate Engrossed Version Current html
- Introduced Introduced Version html
Action History
-
failed
-
house second reading
-
house first reading.
-
transmit to house
-
passed
-
senate second reading
-
senate first reading
Sponsors
- Gail Griffin · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 92 not signed on · 14 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Gail Griffin Republican
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (92)
92 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 92 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Democrat | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 16 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 53% | 47% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (30)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Andrea Dalessandro | — | Nay |
| Bob Worsley | — | Yea |
| David Bradley | — | Nay |
| Frank Pratt | — | Yea |
| Jamescita Peshlakai | — | Nay |
| Juan Mendez | — | Nay |
| Judy Burges | — | Yea |
| Karen Fann | — | Yea |
| Kate Brophy McGee | — | Nay |
| Katie Hobbs | — | Nay |
| Kimberly Yee | — | Yea |
| Lisa Otondo | — | Nay |
| Martin Quezada | — | Nay |
| Nancy Barto | — | Yea |
| Olivia Cajero Bedford | — | Nay |
| Rick Gray | — | Yea |
| Robert Meza | — | Nay |
| Sean Bowie | — | Nay |
| Sine Kerr | — | Yea |
| Sonny Borrelli | — | Yea |
| Steve Farley | — | Nay |
| Steve Smith | — | Yea |
| Steve Yarbrough | — | Yea |
| Catherine Miranda | Democrat | Nay |
| Lupe Contreras | Democrat | Nay |
| David C. Farnsworth | Republican | Yea |
| Gail Griffin | Republican | Yea |
| John Kavanagh | Republican | Yea |
| Sylvia Allen | Republican | Yea |
| Warren Petersen | Republican | Yea |
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 1093?
- SB 1093 is sponsored by Gail Griffin (Republican).
- What is the current status of SB 1093?
- This bill died with 53rd Legislature - 2nd Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 1093?
- Track SB 1093 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 1093
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 1093
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →