mark handler
SAWHORSE
Sides prepare to support, fight sprinkler mandate for new homes
By KEVIN P. CRAVER - kcraver@shawmedia.com
Created: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:30 a.m. CST
http://www.nwherald.com/2012/02/09/sides-prepare-to-support-fight-sprinkler-mandate-for-new-homes/aix0flu/?page=1
To Huntley Fire Protection District Chief James Saletta, mandating sprinklers in new homes is a good idea that saves lives.
To homebuilder and instructor Tom Stephani, it’s yet another Illinois feel-good idea that would only succeed in lowering the risk of the housing market’s recovery.
And with news that Illinois State Fire Marshal Larry Matkaitis will soon formally ask a General Assembly committee to impose the rule statewide, both sides are getting ready to make their voices heard.
Saletta, a member of the fire marshal’s advisory board, says it’s a common-sense and affordable way to limit damage and save lives. The Huntley Fire Protection District approved the mandate at the same time as the village, so new homes built in unincorporated areas covered by the district must comply.
“They are the most effective way of controlling a fire in a home, reducing damage, saving lives and in a lot of cases, minimizing the risks that firefighters take going into a burning building,” Saletta said.
Stephani, who owns Custom Construction Concepts in Crystal Lake and is the state representative for the National Association of Home Builders, disagrees. Safety, Stephani said, is a function of new and safer construction and smoke detectors, not mandated sprinklers.
While 30 other states have rejected imposing such a mandate, Stephani said he worries that Illinois, a “nanny state that wants to protect everybody from everything,” may be the exception.
“It’s consumer choice. It’s not needed. Statistics show there’s not a screaming need out there for safety. It’s not a problem,” Stephani said.
Residential sprinklers are similar to their industrial counterparts. The heat of a fire melts a bulb that holds back water from the system. Home sprinklers are more recessed into the ceiling, and the activation of one does not set off the others.
Only two states, California and Maryland, have a statewide law requiring residential sprinklers in new homes. Pennsylvania enacted a mandate effective in January 2011, but repealed it four months later.
In Illinois, like other states, it’s up to municipal governments to decide. It’s an issue that more of them have been forced to address – most municipalities adopt the International Residential Code developed by the International Code Council as their own standards, and the code as of 2009 included residential sprinklers for new homes.
Huntley mandated sprinklers for new homes in 2005, but repealed the ordinance two years later over concerns regarding the costs and maintenance involved. But the requirement has long been on the books in Barrington, Long Grove and Hoffman Estates. The city of Bloomington in downstate Illinois voted last month to reject a sprinkler mandate, but requires homebuilders to ask the buyers if they want a system installed.
Changes to state codes fall to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, made up of 12 members of the General Assembly, divided equally between both houses and both political parties. State Senator and committee member Pamela Althoff, R-McHenry, confirmed that Matkaitis told the committee late last year that he will present them with a sprinkler mandate.
The marshal’s office is in the process of a regular review of state code, and will likely submit proposed changes within a month, state spokesman Mike Claffey said. He would not comment about particulars.
The committee, which meets monthly to consider rule changes by state agencies, would have to hold public hearings and allow time for people to submit written comments for review. It takes a two-thirds vote, or eight of the 12 members, to block a rule change.
Althoff said she will not form an opinion on the idea until she digests the subsequent public hearings and written comments. But she said she is sympathetic to arguments on both sides.
“I think from a conceptual level it certainly makes sense,” Althoff said. “However, when the housing market is struggling to rebound when the economy is so depressed, timing certainly should be considered.”
Legislatures in several states, such as New Hampshire, Montana and Minnesota, have not only rejected requiring residential sprinklers, but also attempted to forbid their municipalities from doing so. The governors of all three states vetoed the legislation, but New Hampshire lawmakers overrode the veto. A similar measure failed in Springfield in 2009.
The ultimate question for both sides is how effective home sprinklers are versus the cost.
More than 377,000 residential fires were reported in 2009, according to the U.S. Fire Administration, a subsidiary of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They caused a total of 2,590 civilian deaths, 13,050 injuries and caused $7.8 billion in damage.
The odds of dying in a house fire are reduced by 82 percent in a house with both sprinklers and smoke detectors, according to the Northern Illinois Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board, which also supports a statewide law.
A 2008 report by the National Fire Protection Association estimates that installing sprinklers adds an average of $1.61 per square foot of sprinkler coverage.
Stephani and homebuilding groups dispute the cost figure as well as sprinklers’ effectiveness. He said the actual cost is twice that, not counting maintenance, and that sprinklers also have to be installed in unfinished, non-living spaces such as garages, attics and basements.
While homebuilders have a vested interest in the debate, so do the advocacy groups, Stephani said, through what he called a coziness with the sprinkler industry.
“What’s shaping up here is that the sprinkler industry is realizing that they’re losing this battle, so they’re focusing on the states that haven’t made the decision yet,” Stephani said.
State Rep. Mike Tryon, R-Crystal Lake, is not on Althoff’s committee, but said he strongly opposes requiring sprinklers for new home construction.
“You’re billing not only additional cost to building a home, you’re billing an additional cost that varies from city to city and water company to water company,” Tryon said. “While there’s a safety advantage, there’s also raising the price of affordable housing. Fact is, this is another government mandate.”
Jan Keller has operated Antifire Protection Ltd., which designs and installs home sprinkler systems, out of her rural Marengo home for the past 23 years. She said there is no debate that residential sprinklers stop fires, or at the very least buy residents critical time needed to escape.
They do not stand out, she said, and cannot be accidentally set off.
“I’d rather stand on the curb and watch [the house] burn than burn down with it,” Keller said.
By KEVIN P. CRAVER - kcraver@shawmedia.com
Created: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:30 a.m. CST
http://www.nwherald.com/2012/02/09/sides-prepare-to-support-fight-sprinkler-mandate-for-new-homes/aix0flu/?page=1
To Huntley Fire Protection District Chief James Saletta, mandating sprinklers in new homes is a good idea that saves lives.
To homebuilder and instructor Tom Stephani, it’s yet another Illinois feel-good idea that would only succeed in lowering the risk of the housing market’s recovery.
And with news that Illinois State Fire Marshal Larry Matkaitis will soon formally ask a General Assembly committee to impose the rule statewide, both sides are getting ready to make their voices heard.
Saletta, a member of the fire marshal’s advisory board, says it’s a common-sense and affordable way to limit damage and save lives. The Huntley Fire Protection District approved the mandate at the same time as the village, so new homes built in unincorporated areas covered by the district must comply.
“They are the most effective way of controlling a fire in a home, reducing damage, saving lives and in a lot of cases, minimizing the risks that firefighters take going into a burning building,” Saletta said.
Stephani, who owns Custom Construction Concepts in Crystal Lake and is the state representative for the National Association of Home Builders, disagrees. Safety, Stephani said, is a function of new and safer construction and smoke detectors, not mandated sprinklers.
While 30 other states have rejected imposing such a mandate, Stephani said he worries that Illinois, a “nanny state that wants to protect everybody from everything,” may be the exception.
“It’s consumer choice. It’s not needed. Statistics show there’s not a screaming need out there for safety. It’s not a problem,” Stephani said.
Residential sprinklers are similar to their industrial counterparts. The heat of a fire melts a bulb that holds back water from the system. Home sprinklers are more recessed into the ceiling, and the activation of one does not set off the others.
Only two states, California and Maryland, have a statewide law requiring residential sprinklers in new homes. Pennsylvania enacted a mandate effective in January 2011, but repealed it four months later.
In Illinois, like other states, it’s up to municipal governments to decide. It’s an issue that more of them have been forced to address – most municipalities adopt the International Residential Code developed by the International Code Council as their own standards, and the code as of 2009 included residential sprinklers for new homes.
Huntley mandated sprinklers for new homes in 2005, but repealed the ordinance two years later over concerns regarding the costs and maintenance involved. But the requirement has long been on the books in Barrington, Long Grove and Hoffman Estates. The city of Bloomington in downstate Illinois voted last month to reject a sprinkler mandate, but requires homebuilders to ask the buyers if they want a system installed.
Changes to state codes fall to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, made up of 12 members of the General Assembly, divided equally between both houses and both political parties. State Senator and committee member Pamela Althoff, R-McHenry, confirmed that Matkaitis told the committee late last year that he will present them with a sprinkler mandate.
The marshal’s office is in the process of a regular review of state code, and will likely submit proposed changes within a month, state spokesman Mike Claffey said. He would not comment about particulars.
The committee, which meets monthly to consider rule changes by state agencies, would have to hold public hearings and allow time for people to submit written comments for review. It takes a two-thirds vote, or eight of the 12 members, to block a rule change.
Althoff said she will not form an opinion on the idea until she digests the subsequent public hearings and written comments. But she said she is sympathetic to arguments on both sides.
“I think from a conceptual level it certainly makes sense,” Althoff said. “However, when the housing market is struggling to rebound when the economy is so depressed, timing certainly should be considered.”
Legislatures in several states, such as New Hampshire, Montana and Minnesota, have not only rejected requiring residential sprinklers, but also attempted to forbid their municipalities from doing so. The governors of all three states vetoed the legislation, but New Hampshire lawmakers overrode the veto. A similar measure failed in Springfield in 2009.
The ultimate question for both sides is how effective home sprinklers are versus the cost.
More than 377,000 residential fires were reported in 2009, according to the U.S. Fire Administration, a subsidiary of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They caused a total of 2,590 civilian deaths, 13,050 injuries and caused $7.8 billion in damage.
The odds of dying in a house fire are reduced by 82 percent in a house with both sprinklers and smoke detectors, according to the Northern Illinois Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board, which also supports a statewide law.
A 2008 report by the National Fire Protection Association estimates that installing sprinklers adds an average of $1.61 per square foot of sprinkler coverage.
Stephani and homebuilding groups dispute the cost figure as well as sprinklers’ effectiveness. He said the actual cost is twice that, not counting maintenance, and that sprinklers also have to be installed in unfinished, non-living spaces such as garages, attics and basements.
While homebuilders have a vested interest in the debate, so do the advocacy groups, Stephani said, through what he called a coziness with the sprinkler industry.
“What’s shaping up here is that the sprinkler industry is realizing that they’re losing this battle, so they’re focusing on the states that haven’t made the decision yet,” Stephani said.
State Rep. Mike Tryon, R-Crystal Lake, is not on Althoff’s committee, but said he strongly opposes requiring sprinklers for new home construction.
“You’re billing not only additional cost to building a home, you’re billing an additional cost that varies from city to city and water company to water company,” Tryon said. “While there’s a safety advantage, there’s also raising the price of affordable housing. Fact is, this is another government mandate.”
Jan Keller has operated Antifire Protection Ltd., which designs and installs home sprinkler systems, out of her rural Marengo home for the past 23 years. She said there is no debate that residential sprinklers stop fires, or at the very least buy residents critical time needed to escape.
They do not stand out, she said, and cannot be accidentally set off.
“I’d rather stand on the curb and watch [the house] burn than burn down with it,” Keller said.
opcorn
