# Sprinkler rule tied to housing permits



## mark handler (Feb 23, 2012)

Sprinkler rule tied to housing permits

By Jennifer Robison

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Posted: Feb. 23, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.

Southern Nevada's biggest city has a new fire-sprinkler rule, but the regulation won't affect local homeowners anytime soon.

The city of Las Vegas on Feb. 16 adopted an international building code that calls for fire sprinklers in every new home.

But because of concerns about imposing thousands of dollars in new costs per home in a flamed-out housing market, the rule won't take effect until Southern Nevada's municipalities issue 10,000 new-home permits in one year. That could take a while: Local builders pulled just 4,000 permits in 2011, and with several years' worth of vacant homes languishing on the market, it could be years before demand for new homes picks up substantially. Irene Porter, executive director of the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, said she expects builders to pull about 4,000 permits in 2012 as well.

If the market still hasn't bounced back to 10,000 annual permits by 2015, city officials will reopen talks on whether to require the sprinklers.

Councilman Steve Ross, who sponsored the city measure, called it a "good compromise" in a tough building climate.

"Fire sprinklers are an additional cost to homebuilders, and we are not in an economy right now to implement that kind of additional cost on homebuilders," Ross said. "We want them to build homes right now."

Las Vegas' new rule resembles one already in place in Clark County. Randy Tarr, Clark County's assistant manager, said the regulation calls for a balancing act.

"Fire chiefs and building officials value the safety component that sprinklers can bring," Tarr said. "But with such bad economic times that we're in and with what contractors and home-builders are going through, it was not a good time to add this additional layer of cost into their environment. The message (the Clark County Commission) is sending is that we still see sprinklers as a safer means of construction, and we'll come back to it at a later time."

A study commissioned by the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association helped encourage local officials to think twice about mandating sprinklers now.

The study, conducted by local research and consulting firm Applied Analysis, found that fire-sprinkler systems cost $2,500 to $4,000 per home. And every $1,000 increase in a home's cost prices 1,600 families out of buying, according to statistics from the National Association of Home Builders.

Plus, sprinkler systems need routine maintenance, and there's no way to force homeowners to keep systems maintained, Porter said.

Houses are also made with safer materials today, with stronger, treated woods, improved electrical systems, smoke detectors and bans on combustible materials such as shake-shingle roofs, Porter added.

Finally, homeowners' insurance rates don't drop substantially with sprinkler systems, because insurers expect water damage bills to offset lower fire-related costs.

"You have to look longterm at what homebuyers really want," Porter said. "Do they want to pay that increased cost? We're finding that they don't."

Delaying the rule took the builders' association more than a year for "really intensive technical review" with local fire officials, Porter said. The city of North Las Vegas didn't adopt the code at all. Only the city of Henderson adopted it without conditions.

Porter said Henderson officials adopted the code several months ago, before the Applied Analysis study was done. Builders plan to revisit the issue with Henderson, she said.

As with local jurisdictions, states and municipalities nationwide are adopting the sprinkler code haphazardly.

Only California and Maryland have adopted the rule without limits or conditions. South Carolina has adopted the regulation to take effect in 2014. Missouri placed a moratorium on the rule until 2019. North Carolina requires sprinklers only in attached townhomes. Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and West Virginia all voted against the requirement, while Illinois and New York use an older, sprinkler-free code. States including Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Texas passed laws banning local jurisdictions from adopting the sprinkler requirement.

Contact reporter Jennifer Robison at jrobison@review journal.com or 702-380-4512.


----------



## beach (Feb 23, 2012)

> Houses are also made with safer materials today, with stronger, treated woods.....


What type of "treated" wood are they using besides sill plates?


----------



## cda (Feb 23, 2012)

""""Southern Nevada's municipalities issue 10,000 new-home permits in one year"""

so the snhba is going to have some bean coounter checking on permits and when they hit 9999, all of sudden building permit request will stop!!!!!


----------



## mark handler (Feb 23, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> """"Southern Nevada's municipalities issue 10,000 new-home permits in one year"""so the snhba is going to have some bean coounter checking on permits and when they hit 9999, all of sudden building permit request will stop!!!!!


No

Thats when the sprinkler requirement kicks in


----------



## mark handler (Feb 23, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> What type of "treated" wood are they using besides sill plates?


 Fire retardant treated (FRT) wood


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 23, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> NoThats when the sprinkler requirement kicks in


I think cda is right once they get close to 10,000 permits the HBA will keep the submittals down so that the requirement never triggers.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 23, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> """"Southern Nevada's municipalities issue 10,000 new-home permits in one year"""so the snhba is going to have some bean coounter checking on permits and when they hit 9999, all of sudden building permit request will stop!!!!!


They might stop at 9995 just for safe measure, in case 4 jane/joe dailys decide to build their own home and pull their own permits.


----------



## steveray (Feb 23, 2012)

SEE....YOU CAN PUT A PRICE ON SAFETY!..... As long as it does not hurt the businesses, you can be safe!  The theory is now proven sound, now we are just haggling over a price....


----------



## permitguy (Feb 23, 2012)

I'd say they basically punted this one.  I'm sure the mandate is not a foregone conclusion - the issue will likely be re-evaluated in its entirety as they get closer to the threshold.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 23, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I'd say they basically punted this one.  I'm sure the mandate is not a foregone conclusion - the issue will likely be re-evaluated in its entirety as they get closer to the threshold.


At least they didn't out right ban sprinklers like some "other states" did.  Irene certainly did a thorough job of going down her list of reasons not to have sprinklers...I am still perplexed by this safer, treated wood she speaks of though.  We must not be in the right market around here.  I haven't seen fire treated lumber used in a single residential project.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 23, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Finally, homeowners' insurance rates don't drop substantially with sprinkler systems, because insurers expect water damage bills to offset lower fire-related costs.


Personally, I think this is BS. What do they think firefighters use to put out the fire? If I was an insurance company, I'd rather pay out replacement of a water-damaged room rather than rebuilding a complete or partial structure, which would have uncontrolled water damage (firefighters will not be careful).

I'd like to see the statistics that substantiate this statement (if there are any).


----------



## mjesse (Feb 23, 2012)

RLGA said:
			
		

> Personally, I think this is BS. What do they think firefighters use to put out the fire? If I was an insurance company, I'd rather pay out replacement of a water-damaged room rather than rebuilding a complete or partial structure, which would have uncontrolled water damage (firefighters will not be careful).I'd like to see the statistics that substantiate this statement (if there are any).


The issue around here is frozen pipes, not water used for fire fighting.

While working in the insurance restoration industry, I would average 9 water damage calls to each fire call. Fire jobs are usually more costly (there is data to back that up) but the frozen pipe flooding happens WAY more often.

mj


----------



## RLGA (Feb 23, 2012)

mjesse:  That makes sense.  Thank you.


----------



## beach (Feb 23, 2012)

> Fire retardant treated (FRT) wood


And you actually believe they are using FRT????



> What type of "treated" wood are they using besides sill plates?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 23, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> And you actually believe they are using FRT????


I have in La Habra Heights and Big Bear


----------



## beach (Feb 23, 2012)

Read the quote again, it insinuates that homes are built using "treated" wood so they are safer, therefore, sprinklers are not needed......

But I think you know that's BS just as much as I do...... There may be a very small possibility that a home was built with frt wood, but I highly doubt it. I framed a lot of homes in Big Bear, Running Springs, Arrowhead, etc..... The cost is way too high, it's cheaper to sprinkle it.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 23, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> Read the quote again, it insinuates that homes are built using "treated" wood so they are safer, therefore, sprinklers are not needed......But I think you know that's BS just as much as I do...... There may be a very small possibility that a home was built with frt wood, but I highly doubt it. I framed a lot of homes in Big Bear, Running Springs, Arrowhead, etc..... The cost is way too high, it's cheaper to sprinkle it.


it may be cheaper to sprinkle it, but it decreases the chances your sprinkler pipe will melt and the ceiling will cave in when you light up that "out-door only" gas appliance.  (insert emoticon/symbol for devil)


----------

