fatboy
Administrator
Writing's on the wall i'll be amending them out for now, will know more in a couple weeks. Early feedback from council shows support for getting rid of them.
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
RFS Adoption
- Thread starter fatboy
- Start date
Big Willie
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 38
The State of Mississippi [ I am told ] has not adopted the RFS. Some jurisdictions HAVE
adopted the 2009 codes, but have not yet required the RFS in the new, renovated or
altered 1 & 2 Family Dwellings construction.
The state legislators have a bill working its way through the governing bodies /
committees that will prohibit [ statewide ] the RFS requirements in the 2009 & 2012
codes. The state HBA is pushing hard ( $$$$$ ) to get this bill passed quickly!
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2011/html/SB/2900-2999/SB2997IN.htm.
As an update to this proposed legislation, in section (f) requiring two members from the
statewide Building Officials Association, to be on the statewide Building Codes Council,
no members were "allowed - selected - included" on the recent bill update. ( Read in to
it whatever you want ).
adopted the 2009 codes, but have not yet required the RFS in the new, renovated or
altered 1 & 2 Family Dwellings construction.
The state legislators have a bill working its way through the governing bodies /
committees that will prohibit [ statewide ] the RFS requirements in the 2009 & 2012
codes. The state HBA is pushing hard ( $$$$$ ) to get this bill passed quickly!
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2011/html/SB/2900-2999/SB2997IN.htm.
As an update to this proposed legislation, in section (f) requiring two members from the
statewide Building Officials Association, to be on the statewide Building Codes Council,
no members were "allowed - selected - included" on the recent bill update. ( Read in to
it whatever you want ).
Yankee
Registered User
Interesting thought , , , what passive protections have been written out due to the inclusion of RFS?peach said:
fatboy
Administrator
Two hour separation, went to one hour in townhouse construction.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Sprinkler system extinguishes Upper Merion PA house fire
Published: Friday, February 04, 2011
http://timesherald.com/articles/2011/02/04/news/doc4d4cc0e7dcefd412532724.txt
By KEITH PHUCAS
Times Herald Staff
UPPER MERION — A townshouse fire sparked by a cigarette in the township’s Rebel Hill section Friday was extinguished for the most part by the home’s sprinkler system and damage was minor, according to PA's Upper Merion Fire Marshal John Waters.
The blaze at the wood-framed Lemonton Way home, which began close to 6:30 a.m., could have been catastrophic without the sprinklers.
“(The burning house) probably would have reached a flashover and collapsed,” he said. “This place would’ve been rockin’ and rollin’.”
Waters determined the blaze, which started in the basement, was caused by ashes that fell from a lit cigarette. Only a few cardboard boxes were burned.
“One sprinkler head actually put out 85 percent of the fire,” he said. Firefighters used a minimal amount of water to finish off the blaze compared to an average residential fire.
According to the U.S. Fire Administration, a department of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 356,200 fires in the U.S. in 2009 costing $7.3 billion. In those blazes, 2,480 people died and 12,600 people were injured.
Though Upper Merion has required sprinkler systems in new homes since 1988, Pennsylvania only mandated the fire-suppressing systems statewide last year for townhouses. The law became effective for new single-family homes Jan. 1, 2011.
Only Pennsylvania and California now require sprinkler systems in all new residential construction.
Homebuilders have resisted the new law complaining mandating sprinklers will drive up the cost of new homes and lobbied to remove the requirement from the state code. Many homebuilding organizations believe the fire-suppression systems should be the choice of home buyers not mandated by government.
The debate has the Pennsylvania Builders Association squaring off with the Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition, which enthusiastically supports the new regulations. Waters is co-chairman at the Harrisburg-based sprinkler coalition.
Some “85 to 90 percent of people who die in a fire, die in a house fire,” Waters said earlier this month in an interview with Gretchen Metz, a staff writer with the Daily Local News.
The building code changes stem from an update introduced in 2009 by the International Code Council, a nonprofit organization that produces model construction codes. Sprinklers, which were recommended for most rooms of a house, would be in addition to smoke detectors.
The building code was challenged in Commonwealth Court by the Pennsylvania Builders Association and others after it took effect in 2010.
The builders association argued that changes to the residential code, the sprinkler rule in particular, would increase the cost of building a new house by roughly $15,000. That impact demand as well as adversely affect the availability of financing for homes.
The court dismissed the association’s petition last year.
Published: Friday, February 04, 2011
http://timesherald.com/articles/2011/02/04/news/doc4d4cc0e7dcefd412532724.txt
By KEITH PHUCAS
Times Herald Staff
UPPER MERION — A townshouse fire sparked by a cigarette in the township’s Rebel Hill section Friday was extinguished for the most part by the home’s sprinkler system and damage was minor, according to PA's Upper Merion Fire Marshal John Waters.
The blaze at the wood-framed Lemonton Way home, which began close to 6:30 a.m., could have been catastrophic without the sprinklers.
“(The burning house) probably would have reached a flashover and collapsed,” he said. “This place would’ve been rockin’ and rollin’.”
Waters determined the blaze, which started in the basement, was caused by ashes that fell from a lit cigarette. Only a few cardboard boxes were burned.
“One sprinkler head actually put out 85 percent of the fire,” he said. Firefighters used a minimal amount of water to finish off the blaze compared to an average residential fire.
According to the U.S. Fire Administration, a department of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 356,200 fires in the U.S. in 2009 costing $7.3 billion. In those blazes, 2,480 people died and 12,600 people were injured.
Though Upper Merion has required sprinkler systems in new homes since 1988, Pennsylvania only mandated the fire-suppressing systems statewide last year for townhouses. The law became effective for new single-family homes Jan. 1, 2011.
Only Pennsylvania and California now require sprinkler systems in all new residential construction.
Homebuilders have resisted the new law complaining mandating sprinklers will drive up the cost of new homes and lobbied to remove the requirement from the state code. Many homebuilding organizations believe the fire-suppression systems should be the choice of home buyers not mandated by government.
The debate has the Pennsylvania Builders Association squaring off with the Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition, which enthusiastically supports the new regulations. Waters is co-chairman at the Harrisburg-based sprinkler coalition.
Some “85 to 90 percent of people who die in a fire, die in a house fire,” Waters said earlier this month in an interview with Gretchen Metz, a staff writer with the Daily Local News.
The building code changes stem from an update introduced in 2009 by the International Code Council, a nonprofit organization that produces model construction codes. Sprinklers, which were recommended for most rooms of a house, would be in addition to smoke detectors.
The building code was challenged in Commonwealth Court by the Pennsylvania Builders Association and others after it took effect in 2010.
The builders association argued that changes to the residential code, the sprinkler rule in particular, would increase the cost of building a new house by roughly $15,000. That impact demand as well as adversely affect the availability of financing for homes.
The court dismissed the association’s petition last year.
conarb
Registered User
A few cardboard boxes burn and in a giant leap of logic the fire department PR man declares that a conflagration was prevented by a sprinkler. How many house have small fires every year that don't burn the house down and/or kill people?
Every fire that occurs the fire marshal calls the press and uses it for a photo-op, if there were sprinklers lives were saved, if there weren't sprinklers lives would have been saved if there were sprinklers, if there were sprinklers and they didn't activate there is always an excuse (see Wells New York), if there were sprinklers and they did activate and lives were lost there is always an excuse (see Vallejo California). The way to stop this propaganda campaign is go after the firefighters' salaries and pensions, and we are doing that here, they are grossly overpaid and in most cases do more damage than good, and when they call press conferences like this it is sickening.
FM William Burns
Moderator
I respectfully request that you please refrain from lumping all fire service professionals in your tirades about RFS, salaries and pensions and especially when relating all fire service professionals to those actions permitted by your state. The historic arguments you have made throughout various threads leading to fire service salaries is getting old. I don’t believe you see other populations affected by your comments continually bashing home builders like yourself.
Personally, I can agree that many states will face shortfalls in public employee pension funds as exposed recently on a network news magazine type show. It is my interpretation that these states’ pension boards facing these shortfalls, blindly borrowed against public employee funds to spend frivolously on other wants and in some cases not needs as referred to by the sitting governor of the garden state. I can also agree that these same boards allowed a system legal to date, where GREED factored into the final payout equations. Some employees took all the overtime they could during the last three years of their employment to bolster their best three years which are factored into an equation to finalize the percentage of annual distributions to affected employees driving up those salaries.
Unfortunately, employees with years to go are now being affected by these legally greedy actions by their former employees and that’s the really sad part for existing public employees but that’s an argument best addressed in other forums of discussion. My recommendation is to get active and address your concerns on factors contributing to the shortfalls and future pension multiplier rules in your state’s public pension system and stay on topic with your disagreement concerning residential fire sprinkler system adoptions without throwing in all fire service professionals into the discussion.
P.S.
Yes, it's not just fire service professionals who abuse the allowances for padding the "best 3" rule your garbage, public works, water, electiric, sewer and of course police share in the historic contributions to the problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatboy
Administrator
Well said FMWB...........
forensics
Bronze Member
The bottom line that nobody seems to grasp is that sprinklers don't cost any more than our current cost of providing fire protection! Sprinklers meerly shift the cost of fire protection to the very ones who increase the burden on the system.(Think IMPACT fee)
The truth is all that residential fire sprinklers do is transfer the fire protection cost to the homeowner (and builder) instead of the tax dollars that are currently used to build fire stations and purchase apparatus and train and hire firefighters
When the system does not save the home (or worse the occupants) the insurance pays and we all pay for that!
This is a crazy plan to shift the first level of responsibility to the homeowner for his home and family what an unamerican idea that is (NOT)!
The truth is that the tax payers are subsidizing the production builders and when the public gets that fact straight they will denmand sprinklers in all new homes.
The truth is all that residential fire sprinklers do is transfer the fire protection cost to the homeowner (and builder) instead of the tax dollars that are currently used to build fire stations and purchase apparatus and train and hire firefighters
When the system does not save the home (or worse the occupants) the insurance pays and we all pay for that!
This is a crazy plan to shift the first level of responsibility to the homeowner for his home and family what an unamerican idea that is (NOT)!
The truth is that the tax payers are subsidizing the production builders and when the public gets that fact straight they will denmand sprinklers in all new homes.
mjesse
Registered User
That argument works only if you can provide a tax break for homes with RFS. For some reason, I don't see that happening.forensics said:
mj
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
So those areas that have adopted RFS quit hiring and training firefighters, they haven't purchased any new equipment. I doubt it.
conarb
Registered User
The obscene firefighter salaries and benefits are inextricably linked to the kickbacks from the corrupt fire sprinkler industry, this whole mandate was the result of fraud, fraudulent statistics, and fraudulent kickbacks to public employees to vote in the mandate. One of the biggest frauds was taking numbers from the cheapest parts of the country, did I hear $1.99 a foot? Around here it's mpore like $9 a foot, had I not been about to get out of the mandate on my current project it would have cost me $200,000 more including 15.000 gallons of water shortage located on the property, that's $50 a square foot, had I been located on property served by municipal water It would have cost me much more because of an additional $350,000 for the larger water meter, pushing the square footage costs to well over $100 a square foot.<Marshal Burns said:
Firemen sit around and do nothing most of the time, if a carpenter even stops moving and producing he is fired; meanwhile lazy firemen sit on their asses in firehouses counting the days until the reach 50 and can retire on several hundred thousand dollars a year of my taxpayer money, while I'm 75 and still working. This pension crises is exploding to the point that it's about to create an economic collapse bigger than the mortgage crisis.
Simply put Marshal Burns, you firefighters have lied and cheated you way through life and this RFS fraud is the final straw, it's now payback time.
inspecterbake
Sawhorse
The borough I work in adopted sprinklers 6 years ago and the fire department which is volunteer just said that in the next year or two they need to have more money to stay afloat so I guess it's good we have sprinklers if there are no more fire departments. The older homes will be on there own or maybe require sprinklers retroactive in the next code cycle.
fatboy
Administrator
Again CA, you are generalizing, and to boot, you're getting personal. As I said in another post, I don't know why anyone would live in California, what a jacked up state. It is not anything like what you describe in most of the rest of the US.
Why do you have to even buy a meter for a fire line? Around here, you get charged for the fire line tap, the labor for it. $500-600
Why do you have to even buy a meter for a fire line? Around here, you get charged for the fire line tap, the labor for it. $500-600
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
No meter or impact fees here for fire lines. Just the tap fee about the same as fatboys.
If they privatized the ambulance service around here our guys would not have to leave the station except to go to the grocery store.
Seriously they do a fine job and are busy but actual fire calls and vehicle accidents have been few every month. thank goodness
The old VFD chiefs for the surrounding areas have left and the new ones have signed mutual aid agreements and a central dispatch is now in place so the city is responding outside the jurisdiction more. I guess that means the city tax payers get to subsidize the rural fire departements since there is no cost reinbursements in the mutual aid agreement.
If they privatized the ambulance service around here our guys would not have to leave the station except to go to the grocery store.
Seriously they do a fine job and are busy but actual fire calls and vehicle accidents have been few every month. thank goodness
The old VFD chiefs for the surrounding areas have left and the new ones have signed mutual aid agreements and a central dispatch is now in place so the city is responding outside the jurisdiction more. I guess that means the city tax payers get to subsidize the rural fire departements since there is no cost reinbursements in the mutual aid agreement.
FM William Burns
Moderator
Conarb,
Again you lump us all together which obviously shows your lack of judgement and objectivity and I'll leave it at that.........carry on if you must Richard.
Others:
On another note, I met with some people including industry the other day that realize now the shortfall of their campaign and that a compromise might be necessary. Just when one thinks no one is listening.....................
Mt.,
Consolidation is growing nationally and will continue to do so as FD's struggle to maintain manpower during this poor economic climate. Oh our region of the country is the same as your and fatboy's regarding taps. The real number is somewhere around 87% nationally that do it the the way our states do.
Again you lump us all together which obviously shows your lack of judgement and objectivity and I'll leave it at that.........carry on if you must Richard.
Others:
On another note, I met with some people including industry the other day that realize now the shortfall of their campaign and that a compromise might be necessary. Just when one thinks no one is listening.....................
Mt.,
Consolidation is growing nationally and will continue to do so as FD's struggle to maintain manpower during this poor economic climate. Oh our region of the country is the same as your and fatboy's regarding taps. The real number is somewhere around 87% nationally that do it the the way our states do.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatboy
Administrator
Bump......
Still unresolved as of now, going to a Council worksession on 3/22, but they and the Mayor, City Manager are getting a lot of calls from builders, realtors starting to speak up, and the powers that be appear to be tiring of it, so I still think they will give me direction to amend them out. There's talk of something similar to Missouri, requiring the builder/owner sign something opting out, I'm not to thrilled about that. They are either in, or out as a requirement. I can leave P2904 in as how to install, the charging language for it states, "Where installed", the requirement requiring them in R313, would be what gets amended out.
Anyway, just wanted to see if anyone else wanted to chime in on what you are doing in regards to RFS's locally, or at a statewide level. Anyone else?
Still unresolved as of now, going to a Council worksession on 3/22, but they and the Mayor, City Manager are getting a lot of calls from builders, realtors starting to speak up, and the powers that be appear to be tiring of it, so I still think they will give me direction to amend them out. There's talk of something similar to Missouri, requiring the builder/owner sign something opting out, I'm not to thrilled about that. They are either in, or out as a requirement. I can leave P2904 in as how to install, the charging language for it states, "Where installed", the requirement requiring them in R313, would be what gets amended out.
Anyway, just wanted to see if anyone else wanted to chime in on what you are doing in regards to RFS's locally, or at a statewide level. Anyone else?
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
The Minnesota legislature just shot down residential fire sprinkler requirements.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Senate hearing tommorrow to listen to comments about NOT allowing the Building Codes Division to require sprinklers in one and two family dwellings. Passed house last month. My guess it will pass the Senate too
hlfireinspector
Silver Member
Sorry Big Willie this is the bill as passed. The bill was passed as "Home Rule" meaning local jursidiction can pass what they want.Big Willie said:
MS S 2997
AUTHOR:
Flowers ®
TITLE:
Building Codes Council
INTRODUCED:
01/17/2011
DISPOSITION:
Pending
LOCATION:
SENATE
SUMMARY:
Provides that the Mississippi Building Codes Council shall not enact any ordinance, bylaw, order, building code or rule requiring the installation of a multipurpose residential fire protection sprinkler system in a new or existing one- or two-family dwelling.
STATUS:
01/27/2011
From SENATE Committee on INSURANCE: Do pass with substitute.
01/27/2011
To SENATE Committee on BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
01/27/2011
From SENATE Committee on BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Do pass with substitute.
TOPIC ASSIGNMENTS:
15.10.5
Firefighting and Firefighters
16.1.5
Fire Alarms, Smoke Detectors, Extinguishers
16.1.15
Building Codes and Standards- Misc
16.3.1
Community and Housing Development
TEXT HITS:
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 17-2-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE MISSISSIPPI BUILDING CODES COUNCIL, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COUNCIL SHALL NOT ENACT ANY ORDINANCE, BYLAW, ORDER, BUILDING CODE OR RULE REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF A MULTIPURPOSE RESIDENTIAL FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A NEW OR EXISTING ONE- OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLING; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
--Next Hit--
(g) The Mississippi State Fire Marshal, or his designee, to serve ex officio, nonvoting .
--Next Hit--
(4) The State Fire Marshal shall convene the first meeting of the reconstituted council before October 1, 2011, and shall act as temporary chairman until the council elects from its members a chairman and vice chairman. The council shall adopt regulations consistent with this act. A
--Next Hit--
(a) International Building Code and the standards referenced in that code for regulation of construction within this state. The appendices of that code may be adopted as needed, but the specific appendix or appendices must be referenced by name or letter designation at the time of adoption.
--Next Hit--
(b) International Residential Code (IRC) and the standards referenced in that code are included for regulation of construction within this state. The appendices of that code may be adopted as needed, but the specific appendix or appendices must be referenced by name or letter designation at the time of
--Next Hit--
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the council shall not enact any ordinance, bylaw, order, building code, or rule requiring the installation of a multipurpose residential fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire sprinkler protection system in a new or existing one- or two-family dwelling. However, the county boards of supervisors and municipal governing authorities may adopt, modify and enforce codes adopted by the council, including the adoption of codes which require the installation of fire protection sprinkler systems in any structure.
permitguy
Gold Member
fatboy,
Just got word that Centennial has adopted the '09 IRC with sprinklers effective Jan 1, 2013.
Just got word that Centennial has adopted the '09 IRC with sprinklers effective Jan 1, 2013.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Home sprinklers will save lives and won't kill the housing recovery
Published: Wednesday, April 06, 2011, 5:03 AM
By John Waters
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/04/home_sprinklers_will_save_live.html
On April 29, 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation adopted strict regulations aimed at ending long delays on airport tarmacs in which passengers were held as hostages. Airlines could now be fined up to $27,500 per passenger for a flight that remains on the tarmac for more than three hours.
JOE HERMITT, The Patriot-News/fileIn 2010, sprinklers were required in all new apartments and condos and in new single family homes by 2011.
Before the new law was enacted, the Air Transport Association, on behalf of the nation’s largest airlines, lobbied to block government regulation of tarmac delays. Carriers made commitments to fix problems using voluntary measures, and they argued that government regulations forcing planes back to the gate after three hours would lead to more canceled flights and huge consequences for air travelers. Compelling as they might have seemed, DOT didn’t buy these arguments, and government acted to protect the public interest.
According to a Dec. 8, 2010, USA Today article, six months later, the airline industry achieved a miraculous milestone. The nation’s 18 largest airlines reported not a single tarmac delay of more than three hours for the month of October versus 11 such delays in October 2009. Moreover, since the new rule had gone into effect, only 12 extended tarmac delays were reported, versus 546 during the same period in 2009.
The “gloom and doom” predicted by the airlines never happened. In fact, while the rate of flight cancellations remained essentially unchanged, airlines improved overall on-time performance, mishandled fewer bags and received fewer passenger complaints. Given the incentive of avoiding stiff DOT fines, airlines and airports found ways to make operational adjustments that essentially ended torturous tarmac delays.
What does all of this have to do with residential fire sprinklers? Plenty. For the last 30 years, since residential fire sprinklers first became available, the home building industry has fought vigorously to block regulations that would require fire sprinklers as a standard feature in new homes. But the organizations who write our nation’s building codes eventually stopped buying industry arguments that are inconsistent with public welfare.
Effective Jan. 1, all U.S. model codes require new homes to be equipped with fire sprinklers. Unlike DOT’s regulations, however, these model code requirements are not law until states and local jurisdictions adopt them, and HBAs in many states (including Pennsylvania), having lost the model code debate, have pulled out all stops to block adoption of these codes.
Just as airlines warned of “gloom and doom” from tarmac delay rules, the Pennsylvania Home Builders Associations warn of dire consequences if jurisdictions require fire sprinklers in new homes. Their primary argument against fire sprinklers is that they will increase the cost of new homes, which in turn will delay or kill recovery of the housing market. Although that’s a nice sound bite, it fails the “perspective” test in several ways:
1. There’s no evidence that putting fire sprinklers in new homes will impact sales prices. Builders have the option of adjusting other home construction features to offset the cost of sprinklers to maintain current pricing in a competitive market. Fluctuating prices of land, lumber, concrete, etc. are routinely dealt with in that way.
2. Even if the cost of a fire sprinkler system were directly added to the sales price, the impact on monthly payments is insignificant after credits that reduce home insurance costs; for instance, State Farm Insurance, offers a 10 percent discount in homeowner’s insurance for properties protected with automatic sprinklers.
3. If the cost of fire sprinklers were enough to kill the housing recovery, so too would a 0.1 percent increase in the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage, which has about the same impact on a monthly mortgage payment. Although rates routinely rise and fall by much more than this amount, the housing market marches on.
4. As does Pennsylvania, the states of California and Maryland have adopted the International Residential Code, including fire sprinkler provisions. These states didn’t buy the argument that sprinklers will kill the housing recovery.
It is unfortunate that many builders fail to see the contribution that residential fire sprinklers could make in driving new home sales. Builders’ main competition in selling new homes is the resale market, and features such as energy efficiency and fire sprinklers differentiate new homes from existing homes, making existing homes obsolete. Safety, security and energy efficiency are powerful incentives that can drive a buyer to purchase a new home instead of a resale.
The California Building Industry Association understood the liability risk and made a prudent decision when it supported statewide adoption of the IRC, including the fire sprinkler requirement. The Pennsylvania HBAs, who like the airline industry seemingly suffer from a lack of confidence in their members’ ability to adapt and innovate, just don’t get it. Ultimately, their members might pay the price.
John Waters is co-chairman of the Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition.
Published: Wednesday, April 06, 2011, 5:03 AM
By John Waters
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/04/home_sprinklers_will_save_live.html
On April 29, 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation adopted strict regulations aimed at ending long delays on airport tarmacs in which passengers were held as hostages. Airlines could now be fined up to $27,500 per passenger for a flight that remains on the tarmac for more than three hours.
JOE HERMITT, The Patriot-News/fileIn 2010, sprinklers were required in all new apartments and condos and in new single family homes by 2011.
Before the new law was enacted, the Air Transport Association, on behalf of the nation’s largest airlines, lobbied to block government regulation of tarmac delays. Carriers made commitments to fix problems using voluntary measures, and they argued that government regulations forcing planes back to the gate after three hours would lead to more canceled flights and huge consequences for air travelers. Compelling as they might have seemed, DOT didn’t buy these arguments, and government acted to protect the public interest.
According to a Dec. 8, 2010, USA Today article, six months later, the airline industry achieved a miraculous milestone. The nation’s 18 largest airlines reported not a single tarmac delay of more than three hours for the month of October versus 11 such delays in October 2009. Moreover, since the new rule had gone into effect, only 12 extended tarmac delays were reported, versus 546 during the same period in 2009.
The “gloom and doom” predicted by the airlines never happened. In fact, while the rate of flight cancellations remained essentially unchanged, airlines improved overall on-time performance, mishandled fewer bags and received fewer passenger complaints. Given the incentive of avoiding stiff DOT fines, airlines and airports found ways to make operational adjustments that essentially ended torturous tarmac delays.
What does all of this have to do with residential fire sprinklers? Plenty. For the last 30 years, since residential fire sprinklers first became available, the home building industry has fought vigorously to block regulations that would require fire sprinklers as a standard feature in new homes. But the organizations who write our nation’s building codes eventually stopped buying industry arguments that are inconsistent with public welfare.
Effective Jan. 1, all U.S. model codes require new homes to be equipped with fire sprinklers. Unlike DOT’s regulations, however, these model code requirements are not law until states and local jurisdictions adopt them, and HBAs in many states (including Pennsylvania), having lost the model code debate, have pulled out all stops to block adoption of these codes.
Just as airlines warned of “gloom and doom” from tarmac delay rules, the Pennsylvania Home Builders Associations warn of dire consequences if jurisdictions require fire sprinklers in new homes. Their primary argument against fire sprinklers is that they will increase the cost of new homes, which in turn will delay or kill recovery of the housing market. Although that’s a nice sound bite, it fails the “perspective” test in several ways:
1. There’s no evidence that putting fire sprinklers in new homes will impact sales prices. Builders have the option of adjusting other home construction features to offset the cost of sprinklers to maintain current pricing in a competitive market. Fluctuating prices of land, lumber, concrete, etc. are routinely dealt with in that way.
2. Even if the cost of a fire sprinkler system were directly added to the sales price, the impact on monthly payments is insignificant after credits that reduce home insurance costs; for instance, State Farm Insurance, offers a 10 percent discount in homeowner’s insurance for properties protected with automatic sprinklers.
3. If the cost of fire sprinklers were enough to kill the housing recovery, so too would a 0.1 percent increase in the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage, which has about the same impact on a monthly mortgage payment. Although rates routinely rise and fall by much more than this amount, the housing market marches on.
4. As does Pennsylvania, the states of California and Maryland have adopted the International Residential Code, including fire sprinkler provisions. These states didn’t buy the argument that sprinklers will kill the housing recovery.
It is unfortunate that many builders fail to see the contribution that residential fire sprinklers could make in driving new home sales. Builders’ main competition in selling new homes is the resale market, and features such as energy efficiency and fire sprinklers differentiate new homes from existing homes, making existing homes obsolete. Safety, security and energy efficiency are powerful incentives that can drive a buyer to purchase a new home instead of a resale.
The California Building Industry Association understood the liability risk and made a prudent decision when it supported statewide adoption of the IRC, including the fire sprinkler requirement. The Pennsylvania HBAs, who like the airline industry seemingly suffer from a lack of confidence in their members’ ability to adapt and innovate, just don’t get it. Ultimately, their members might pay the price.
John Waters is co-chairman of the Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition.
fatboy
Administrator
Had first reading of our ordinance to remove RFS's entirely from the IRC for one-two-family dwellings. Will pass on second/public reading 4/19. Will revisit when adopting the 2012 cycle, tentativelly 1/1/13.
RJJ
Co-Founder
It seems a little funny how we all debated the sprinkler issue back on the the old BB. Now with all the white water behind us we are down to pure politics. The state by state, town by town vote on if they want them or not. This is where I always felt it should be played out. Let the towns and cities and states deside. If it had been left in the appendex we would be in the same place. Got to love America!