# Illinois Sides prepare to support, fight sprinkler mandate



## mark handler (Feb 13, 2012)

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 Pennsylvania enacted a mandate effective in January 2011, but repealed it four months later.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.


----------



## Msradell (Feb 14, 2012)

I love articles like this that state facts such as:

_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._

It would be interesting to see how many of those residences didn't have smoke detectors.  My guess is the additional sprinklers presents very few injuries and deaths but only helps in the damage category.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 14, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> I love articles like this that state facts such as: _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._ It would be interesting to see how many of those residences didn't have smoke detectors.  My guess is the additional sprinklers presents very few injuries and deaths but only helps in the damage category.


  In 2009, more people killed themselves with firearms than the total number of injuries and deaths in residential fires.  Almost 10 times as many people died from falls as in residential fires.

  Heck, more people even died from malnutrition - should the building code require a cupboard of healthy snacks?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf


----------



## permitguy (Feb 14, 2012)

> Safety, Stephani said, is a function of new and safer construction and smoke detectors, not mandated sprinklers. 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.


This man is severely misinformed on several important facts.  With the exception of cost, which we've established is difficult to debate over such a large geographic area, every argument he is making is easily proven false.  Newer consruction is not safer (the opposite is true), maintenance costs are non-existent to insignificant, and sprinklers in these systems are not required in garages and attics.



> In 2009, more people killed themselves with firearms than the total number of injuries and deaths in residential fires.Almost 10 times as many people died from falls as in residential fires.
> 
> Heck, more people even died from malnutrition - should the building code require a cupboard of healthy snacks?


Except for falls, I don't see how those things fall under the scope of the building code.  As for falls, I'm not sure much more can realistically be done.


----------



## incognito (Feb 15, 2012)

Just more BS from the fire cartel. If all new homes built over the last 5 years have RFS how many of the 2590 deaths actually survive? Yeah they do not keep that stat because it would show the expense does not justify the end result--unless you manufacture or install RFS.


----------



## permitguy (Feb 15, 2012)

Based on your logic, building codes should never have been developed in the first place since they wouldn't have applied to construction that preceded their implementation.  Most can see the absurdity of that logic.  There may be legitimate arguments against RFS, but this isn't one of them.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 15, 2012)

And, we're off..........! opcorn


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 15, 2012)

It really makes you wish you could force the truth from both sides


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 15, 2012)

> _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_


What is a residential fire?

SFR, mobile home, apartments, Are they all lumped together or ar statistics available for each group of housing?

Because if 50% are mobile homes then 50% will never be addressed by the ICC codes and if 50% are apartments well they have been addressed in the last 2 code cycles.

Lets be accurate and informational about the statistics being quoted? How about breaking them down by region. Last I looked my state did not even have 1 death per 100,000


----------



## permitguy (Feb 15, 2012)

The information is freely available on the USFA website:  http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/index.shtm

I don't know when or from where the reporter got the information, as the 2009 numbers listed currently are different (356,200 fires, 2,480 deaths, 12,600 injuries, $7.4 billion in damage).  The 2010 numbers are 362,100 fires, 2,555 deaths, 13,275 injuries, and 6.65 billion in damage.

The total number does include mobile homes and multi-family, but the numbers are further broken down into "1&2 family, multi-family, and other".  From 2003-2010, the averages for 1 & 2 family are as follows:  66% of total residential fires, 80% of residential fire deaths, 66% of residential fire injuries, and 78% of residential fire dollar loss.  I'm not sure what the "other" category entails (I'd like to know if anyone can answer), but those averages from 2003-2010 are as follows:  6% of total residential fires, 4% of total residential fire deaths, 4% of residential fire injuries, and 4% of residential fire dollar loss.  The balance is multi-family.

If you look around the USFA site, I'm fairly sure you can find additional statistics by region, etc.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 15, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> The information is freely available on the USFA website:  http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/index.shtm  I don't know when or from where the reporter got the information, as the 2009 numbers listed currently are different (356,200 fires, 2,480 deaths, 12,600 injuries, $7.4 billion in damage).  The 2010 numbers are 362,100 fires, 2,555 deaths, 13,275 injuries, and 6.65 billion in damage.    The total number does include mobile homes and multi-family, but the numbers are further broken down into "1&2 family, multi-family, and other".  From 2003-2010, the averages for 1 & 2 family are as follows:  66% of total residential fires, 80% of residential fire deaths, 66% of residential fire injuries, and 78% of residential fire dollar loss.  I'm not sure what the "other" category entails (I'd like to know if anyone can answer), but those averages from 2003-2010 are as follows:  6% of total residential fires, 4% of total residential fire deaths, 4% of residential fire injuries, and 4% of residential fire dollar loss.  The balance is multi-family.    If you look around the USFA site, I'm fairly sure you can find additional statistics by region, etc.


  The numbers come from cdc - see the link I provided.  They are probably much more accurate than those from USFA because of better reporting infrastructure.

  I believe that USFA includes mobile structures in one and two family.

  Other may include boarding houses and SRO's.


----------

