mark handler
SAWHORSE
Fire Marshals, Builders At Odds Over Bill To Require Sprinklers In New Homes
Disagree On Whether Measure Would Save Lives
By DANIELA ALTIMARI, altimari@courant.com The Hartford Courant
5:46 p.m. EST, March 3, 2011
HARTFORD Connecticut
A bill that would mandate sprinklers in all new homes won the praise of fire marshals but the disapproval of building officials at a public hearing Thursday.
Fire marshals from several communities who came to the state Capitol complex Thursday said the measure would save untold lives.
Officials with the Home Builders Association of Connecticut, however, told the legislature's public safety committee that the requirement would add significant costs without reducing the number of fire deaths.
New homes are already fairly fire-safe, said Bob Fusari Sr., past chairman and president of the home builders group. Most have fire-stopping materials, upgraded electrical systems, hard-wired smoke detectors, and better escape routes, he said.
Fatal fires, Fusari added, are far more likely to occur in homes built before 1985. "People are dying in the older homes yet we're putting sprinklers in new homes,'' he told the committee during a public hearing.
The International Residential Code, a comprehensive set of requirements for home building, has embraced the sprinkler mandate for all homes built after 2013.
Only two states, California and Pennsylvania, currently have a statewide mandate that all new residential homes come equipped with a sprinkler system. Connecticut requires sprinklers in nursing homes, schools and buildings taller than four stories, among other structures, but not in one- and two-family homes, as this bill would dictate.
The home building industry says it should be a matter of personal choice: Consumers who choose the expense of installing a sprinkler system should have the right to do so, but the state should not mandate it for all new construction. The association estimates sprinklers would add $10,000 to the cost of building a 2,400-square-foot home.
Fire safety advocates dismiss that argument, saying no one would leave proven lifesaving devices such as smoke detectors and seat belts to "personal choice." Cost is often used to fight improvements that wind up preventing countless deaths, but homeowners with sprinkler systems would benefit from certain financial incentives as well, such as reduced insurance premiums, they say.
Old Saybrook Fire Marshal Donn V. Dobson noted that few home builders flinch at the cost of adding granite to a kitchen, or any of the other bells and whistles that are often standard in new construction. And many of those same arguments about cost used against sprinklers were also raised in 1978, when battery-operated smoke detectors were first mandated in new construction, he said.
"Everybody said smoke detectors were going to break the bank,'' added Kevin J. Kowalski, Simsbury's fire marshal. "Sprinklers have been proven to save lives and they're not as costly as they say they are."
Disagree On Whether Measure Would Save Lives
By DANIELA ALTIMARI, altimari@courant.com The Hartford Courant
5:46 p.m. EST, March 3, 2011
HARTFORD Connecticut
A bill that would mandate sprinklers in all new homes won the praise of fire marshals but the disapproval of building officials at a public hearing Thursday.
Fire marshals from several communities who came to the state Capitol complex Thursday said the measure would save untold lives.
Officials with the Home Builders Association of Connecticut, however, told the legislature's public safety committee that the requirement would add significant costs without reducing the number of fire deaths.
New homes are already fairly fire-safe, said Bob Fusari Sr., past chairman and president of the home builders group. Most have fire-stopping materials, upgraded electrical systems, hard-wired smoke detectors, and better escape routes, he said.
Fatal fires, Fusari added, are far more likely to occur in homes built before 1985. "People are dying in the older homes yet we're putting sprinklers in new homes,'' he told the committee during a public hearing.
The International Residential Code, a comprehensive set of requirements for home building, has embraced the sprinkler mandate for all homes built after 2013.
Only two states, California and Pennsylvania, currently have a statewide mandate that all new residential homes come equipped with a sprinkler system. Connecticut requires sprinklers in nursing homes, schools and buildings taller than four stories, among other structures, but not in one- and two-family homes, as this bill would dictate.
The home building industry says it should be a matter of personal choice: Consumers who choose the expense of installing a sprinkler system should have the right to do so, but the state should not mandate it for all new construction. The association estimates sprinklers would add $10,000 to the cost of building a 2,400-square-foot home.
Fire safety advocates dismiss that argument, saying no one would leave proven lifesaving devices such as smoke detectors and seat belts to "personal choice." Cost is often used to fight improvements that wind up preventing countless deaths, but homeowners with sprinkler systems would benefit from certain financial incentives as well, such as reduced insurance premiums, they say.
Old Saybrook Fire Marshal Donn V. Dobson noted that few home builders flinch at the cost of adding granite to a kitchen, or any of the other bells and whistles that are often standard in new construction. And many of those same arguments about cost used against sprinklers were also raised in 1978, when battery-operated smoke detectors were first mandated in new construction, he said.
"Everybody said smoke detectors were going to break the bank,'' added Kevin J. Kowalski, Simsbury's fire marshal. "Sprinklers have been proven to save lives and they're not as costly as they say they are."
