# RFS Adoption



## fatboy (Jan 26, 2011)

OK, need to do a show of hands, who all has adopted the 2009 IRC unamended, in regards to the Residential Fire Sprinkler requirements?


----------



## mn joe (Jan 26, 2011)

Minnesota has not adopted the 2009, and will not. This is due to "budgetary considerations".  Read into that whatever you want.

Joe


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 26, 2011)

A bill currently being considered prohibiting the state building codes divison from adopting the IRC sprinkler requirements. 1st meeting Friday morning. Well see what happens


----------



## rshuey (Jan 26, 2011)

PA has adopted it fully.


----------



## High Desert (Jan 26, 2011)

What did Colorado do?


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 26, 2011)

Michigan is out with no plans of re-visiting.  Too bad we lost the structural protection for a cycle also.


----------



## mjesse (Jan 26, 2011)

Not here.

Likely to adopt the 2012 completely though.

mj


----------



## dbrown (Jan 26, 2011)

Not here either, mainly due to a legislative snafu. I believe that a resolution/edict came down stating that residential sprinklers could not be considered prior to 2014.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 26, 2011)

Colorado does not adopt a state building code, up to local AHJ's. Right now, I am the only AHJ that has adopted it fully, over a year ago. Ran it before my BOA, went before council, answered any questions, no pushback. Well, now that 1/1/11 has rolled around, now my CM wants to revisit it. I think if we amend it out now, we would sure be putting ourselves in a liability situation.


----------



## conarb (Jan 26, 2011)

California has adopted it.



			
				Fatboy said:
			
		

> I think if we amend it out now, we would sure be putting ourselves in a liability situation.


Don't worry, sue-happy California was on the IBC for all occupancies for a three-year cycle, they crossed out the IBC sprinkler mandate with no litigation.

Thought: Wonder if we are "sue-happy" because we have an inspector named "Sue" up in the farthest reaches of our state? Is sue happy?


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 26, 2011)

Omaha, Nebraska is still on the 2006 IRC.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jan 26, 2011)

Missouri has passed a law that requires home builders to offer RFS to all buyers of new homes.  The seller must abide by the buyer's decision and no local law or ordinance can say otherwise.  This state law has a sunset provision for December of 2012.  This will give local municipalities the time to gear up.  In this state, there is no statewide anything construction except for an elevator code.  Its all up to the local municipality for building codes and the local fire district (not often the same as the municipal boundary lines) to adopt building and fire codes.  And yes, the fire districts can adopt building codes as well as the municipalities.  Confused yet?

Bottom line: Nobody in Missouri will have RFS adopted in the next year or two due to the home builders efforts at the state capital.


----------



## Alias (Jan 26, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> California has adopted it.Don't worry, sue-happy California was on the IBC for all occupancies for a three-year cycle, they crossed out the IBC sprinkler mandate with no litigation.
> 
> Thought: Wonder if we are "sue-happy" because we have an inspector named "Sue" up in the farthest reaches of our state? Is sue happy?


hardie har har CA............   :lol:

Sue, where the west still lives......and not a C-16 contractor within 150 miles.


----------



## High Desert (Jan 26, 2011)

Not adopted in the mandatory statewide code, but a jurisdiction can go through the State Building Codes Division for a local ordinance, which is a difficult and cumbersome process. One of the criteria for the ordinance was to address the local system development fees. We've had this local process for several years but no jurisdiction has used it yet.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 26, 2011)

Some Denver suburbs:

Greenwood Village - Amended to include IRC structures with a total building area over 7700 sf (effectively all homes in their jurisdiction).

Cherry Hills Village - Adopted (I think they've have had a sprinkler ordinance for some time).

Parker - Adopted, but changed effective date for sprinklers to Jan 1, 2013.

Unincorporated Arapahoe County - Deleted in it's entirety.

Unincorporated Douglas County - Just adopted the '06 codes in April of '09.

Lone Tree - Still on the '06 codes.


----------



## JBI (Jan 26, 2011)

New York State is using (a modified) 2006 I-Codes. May try for a double upgrade in our next cycle (jump up to the 2012). Serious debate has been going on for some time about RFS here.


----------



## peach (Jan 30, 2011)

FM Bill makes a good point.. we gave passive protection away in favor of active protection; if we don't accept the sprinklers and adopt everything but that part, you have inherently unsafer structures than we've ever had..

My point in all of this.. going way back...  never (EVER) get rid of the passive protection.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 30, 2011)

If our RFS requirement goes away based on Council action, I will follow up immediatelly with an amendment to put the fire separation requirements back in from 2006.


----------



## fireguy (Feb 2, 2011)

Obviously I am in favor of sprinklers, in commercial and residential.  Not because I make money from the service and repair, but because I have seen sprinklers control a fire in my 20 years of riding the tailboard.  Here is a news report about the speed of fire extension in newer homes.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/modern-furnishing-homes-burn-faster/story?id=12806666&page=1


----------



## High Desert (Feb 2, 2011)

fatboy, Oregon also put the firewall requirements back.


----------



## mn joe (Feb 2, 2011)

I'm missing something.  What "firewall" are we talking about in the 2006 IRC?

Joe


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 2, 2011)

2006 IRC

R317.2 Townhouses.

Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated by fire--resistance-rated wall assemblies meeting the requirements of Section R302 for exterior walls.

Exception: A common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 33 through 42. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R317.3.

2009 IRC

R302.2 Townhouses. Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated by fire-resistance-rated wall assemblies meeting the requirements of Section R302.1 for exterior walls.

Exception: A common 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 34 through 43. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4.


----------



## High Desert (Feb 2, 2011)

Thanks for clarifying for me. I should not have used the term "firewall."


----------



## FredK (Feb 2, 2011)

06 codes here and likely to be there until someone finds money for new code books and training, so I expect in 13 or 14 we'll go to the 12 and if sprinklers are still in the code then amend them out.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 2, 2011)

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.


----------



## Big Willie (Feb 4, 2011)

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  ).


----------



## Yankee (Feb 5, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> FM Bill makes a good point.. we gave passive protection away in favor of active protection; if we don't accept the sprinklers and adopt everything but that part, you have inherently unsafer structures than we've ever had..My point in all of this.. going way back...  never (EVER) get rid of the passive protection.


Interesting thought , , , what passive protections have been written out due to the inclusion of RFS?


----------



## fatboy (Feb 5, 2011)

Two hour separation, went to one hour in townhouse construction.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## conarb (Feb 5, 2011)

> 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.


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?





> ... according to PA's Upper Merion Fire Marshal John Waters.


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 (Feb 5, 2011)

> 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


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.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 6, 2011)

Well said FMWB...........


----------



## forensics (Feb 9, 2011)

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.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 9, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> 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)


That argument works only if you can provide a tax break for homes with RFS. For some reason, I don't see that happening.

mj


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 9, 2011)

> 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


So those areas that have adopted RFS quit hiring and training firefighters, they haven't purchased any new equipment. I doubt it.


----------



## conarb (Feb 9, 2011)

<Marshal Burns said:
			
		

> 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.


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.

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 (Feb 9, 2011)

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 (Feb 9, 2011)

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


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 9, 2011)

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.


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 9, 2011)

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.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 2, 2011)

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?


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 2, 2011)

The Minnesota legislature just shot down residential fire sprinkler requirements.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 2, 2011)

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 (Mar 2, 2011)

Big Willie said:
			
		

> The State of Mississippi [ I am told ] has not adopted the RFS. Some jurisdictions HAVEadopted the 2009 codes, but have not yet required the RFS in the new, renovated or
> 
> altered 1 & 2 Family Dwellings construction.
> 
> ...


Sorry Big Willie this is the bill as passed. The bill was passed as "Home Rule" meaning local jursidiction can pass what they want.

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 (Apr 6, 2011)

fatboy,

Just got word that Centennial has adopted the '09 IRC with sprinklers effective Jan 1, 2013.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 6, 2011)

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 (Apr 6, 2011)

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!


----------



## hlfireinspector (Apr 6, 2011)

Horn Lake - D.C. Gillespie, 88, founder of Paradise Gardens Cemetery, formerly of West Memphis, AR, passed away Monday, April 4, at the Med Burn Unit. D.C., nicknamed “Hoss”, was star point guard from the 9th-12th grade. He continued to play basketball in the Navy and also in league play in the Memphis area until he was 35 years old. D.C. served in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps during World WII where he was stationed in San Diego, CA and New Guinea. He eventually settled in West Memphis, AR and established Broadway Motors. In 1957, D.C. developed Paradise Gardens Cemetery at Edmondson, AR which he operated until1997. He served on the Arkansas State Cemetery Board and was President of the Arkansas Cemetery Association. D.C. was the Program Concession manager at Southland Greyhound Park from its inception until his retirement from Southland in 1994. D.C. will always be remembered for his jokes / practical jokes and his longtime parrot companion, Timer, that often accompanied him on his shoulder. D.C. is survived by his wife Barbara Shannon Gillespie, his daughter Cheryl Roberson of Antioch, TN, and his son, Don C. Gillespie and his wife Irene of Lexington, SC. DC leaves 3 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren. A very special thanks to North Delta Hospice Care . In lieu of flowers memorials may be made to St. Jude Children Hospital or a charity of the donor’s choice. Roller-Citizens Funeral home, West Memphis, AR. is in charge of services and burial will be in Crittenden Memorial Park, Marion, AR. Visitation will be from 6-8 p.m. Thursday evening and funeral services will be at 1 p.m.Friday in the chapel. Online guestbook: www.rollerfuneralhomes. com Roller-Citizens Funeral Home (870)735-1000

Another sensless fire death. Could RFS have prevented this death. Only one way to find out!


----------



## Mark K (Apr 6, 2011)

Are there deaths due to fire?  The answer is yes but the real question is how do we reduce the total loss of life and how does society pay for it.  I will suggest that if we took the money spent on residential fire sprinklers and used it to address public health issues and other causes of loss of life that we would save more lives.

hlfireinspector has identified one of the ways to bias the decision making process related to risk reduction.  You simply make people aware of each loss of life due to fire.  Thus the loss of life due to fire has more weight than the loss of life due to other causes.  Why is there this emotional bias in the fire community?  Is it because they see these deaths regularly and are more sensitive to the issue or are there other motives?  In either case it behoves the rest of us to try to put this issue into perspective.  It would also be nice if the fire community would try to develop a sense of perspective.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 7, 2011)

Mark & Hlfireinspector: I agree with both of you. I have sat and listen at the hearings, been to the pep rallies and seen just how the vote went down with ICC looking the other way. As an inspector I will enforce the code as written and adopted by which ever AHJ I work for. Keeping this whole issue in perspective is always a challange and perhaps if every home in America had sprinklers there may be no deaths. I don't believe that will ever come into being. In the mean time people have the right to choose. If a state or city deside not to mandate then that is fine. It is the way it should be. It should be a choice of a community not some national mandate.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 7, 2011)

> If it had been left in the appendex we would be in the same place.


I'd have to disagree with you on this point.  The issue has gotten exponentially more attention since it came out of the appendix, and while adoption rates are very poor, they are still better than they had been.  There is also benefit in code officials taking the time to learn about and debate the provisions, which wasn't happening before.  As misconceptions are dissolved, code officials will begin to feel more comfortable running with the political football.



> Keeping this whole issue in perspective is always a challange and perhaps if every home in America had sprinklers there may be no deaths. I don't believe that will ever come into being.


One thing is for sure.  You can't finish a race you never start.



> I will suggest that if we took the money spent on residential fire sprinklers and used it to address public health issues and other causes of loss of life that we would save more lives.


The same could be said of any code provision, but such issues are outside the scope of the IRC where code officials do not have influence.


----------



## conarb (Apr 7, 2011)

Note that the article being cited as some kind of authority was written by "*John Waters is co-chairman of the Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition.".*

​
View attachment 425


View attachment 425


/monthly_2011_04/waters.jpg.39cae74aba7e8b06b254f5e249ba29e9.jpg


----------



## mark handler (Apr 7, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Note that the article being cited as some kind of authority was written by "*John Waters is co-chairman of the Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition.".*


*AYPWB - And Your Point Would Be?*

*I did not **"... cited as some kind of authority".*

*I posted it without comment*

*And the fact that he is the co-chair was clearly posted.*

*Are you trying to present something new or presenting what you think this is a revalation?*


----------



## conarb (Apr 7, 2011)

Mark:

What are his qualifications?  Degrees?


----------



## mark handler (Apr 7, 2011)

John R. Waters

chief fire marshal  Upper Merion Township

jwaters@umtownship.org

+1 610 205-8513

175 West Valley Forge Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

John R. Waters is the Chief Fire Marshal and Director of Safety & Codes Enforcement for Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania. Previously, he was fire protection specialist for the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia and a career firefighter for the Lower Merion Fire Department, where he served as driver/operator. He is an instructor emeritus at the Pennsylvania Fire Academy and formerly served as adjunct instructor at the Delaware County Community College. He is a contact instructor at the National Fire Academy. He has a* Bachelor’s Degree in Fire Science from the University of Maryland, College Park a Master’s Degree in Leadership from Grand Canyon University and is currently working towards a Master’s Degree *in Homeland Security at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. John is a graduate of the Executive Fire Officer Program at the National Fire Academy. He is a Certified Fire Protection Specialist and a member of ICC, the IAFC, and the NFPA.

Time to stop digging that hole....


----------



## conarb (Apr 7, 2011)

Mark:

His credentials are better than I would have thought, you make your credibility assessments and the rest of us will all make ours from his credentials and his picture.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 7, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Mark:".... credibility assessments ...make ours from ... his picture.


You base your credibility assessments partially based on his *picture.*

That says a lot about you and your comments.

Time to taKe a PILL....


----------



## conarb (Apr 7, 2011)

Mark said:
			
		

> You base your credibility assessments partially based on his *picture.*


Yes, and it also explains why the major cause of death in fire departments is heat attacks, dietary/exercise programs would save infinitely more lives than RFS installations, it appears that he will soon be pulling into the disabled slots as he goes into Wal Mart.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 7, 2011)

OK folks, I think this has drifted far enough OT from RFS adoptions. Bring it back to subject, start your own thread.


----------



## High Desert (Apr 7, 2011)

The proponents of residential sprinklers can stack the ICC vote, but until they get the public buy in, it will go nowhere.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 7, 2011)

I believe that is what we are finding out. It will be interesting on 1/1/2013 how many Colorado jurisdictions actually will start enforcing RFS's as planned.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 7, 2011)

Sorry for the Hijack!

Permitguy you have been around this issue from the start as I as well. I don't disagree and yes one has to start a race in order to finish it. I still feel it should have been left in the appendix.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 7, 2011)

Sure, leave me out RJJ, I was in MN also........sheesh. JK


----------



## NH09 (Apr 7, 2011)

To answer your original question fatboy, NH has just passed a law banning local officials, fire departments and local land use boards from requiring RFS. This is unprecedented since in the past all amendments to the state building code would go through the state building code review board, not the legislature. To my knowledge this the first law in this state to specifically ban a safety device. Also, anyone violating this law could be subject to fines and possible misdemeanor charge.


----------



## steveray (Apr 7, 2011)

NH09 said:
			
		

> To answer your original question fatboy, NH has just passed a law banning local officials, fire departments and local land use boards from requiring RFS. This is unprecedented since in the past all amendments to the state building code would go through the state building code review board, not the legislature. To my knowledge this the first law in this state to specifically ban a safety device. Also, anyone violating this law could be subject to fines and possible misdemeanor CT has introduced some similar legislation that may have some unintended results......it seems to indicate...as written...that no local ordinance can be more strict than the building code....it might just do away with most zoning....


----------



## RJJ (Apr 7, 2011)

Fatboy: I know you were there! MN & Baltimore!  It has been a great topic from both sides! I would have to say I have learned a great deal form all of the position over the last few years. As inspectors we need to learn from these debates and deal with the out come. This sprinkler issue is not over and as permitguy  stated it is a race. I tend to agree.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Apr 7, 2011)

"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."

Whoopee!  My homeowners insurance costs about $500 per year.  A 10% discount would save about $50 per year (if the discount is for 10% of the entire policy,and not just 10% of the fire coverage portion).  My house is about 2500 SF in area.  If sprinklers could actually be installed for $2 per SF they would cost $5000.  It would only take a century for a 10% insurance discount to pay for sprinklers.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 7, 2011)

He wasn't speaking to use of insurance discounts to pay for sprinklers.  He was speaking to the effect that sprinkler installation would have on a mortgage payment if the cost were directly added to the sales price.  Using your numbers, over the course of a 30 year loan, those sprinklers would cost you less than $30 a month (at 6% interest).  After your $4.17 insurance savings each month, you're around $25 a month.

Granted, whether someone thinks that $25 a month is "insignificant" will vary wildly depending on their circumstances.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 7, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Granted, whether someone thinks that $25 a month is "insignificant" will vary wildly depending on their circumstances.


The circumstance upon which it varies is very simple.

If it's someone else's money, $25 is nothing.

It's a much bigger deal when it is your money.

But for $25 I will agree with you.

I take paypal.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 7, 2011)

Precisely why you work so hard to avoid enforcing any of the requirements, I presume.


----------



## incognito (Apr 8, 2011)

To declare that $25.00 is basically an insignificant sum is either ignorance or arrogance--probably more than your share of both. Obviously some folks are out of touch with lending institutions policies and the housing market meltdown that we are currently in. Locally, we are currently experiencing the lowest number of new housing starts in decades with absolutely no positive signs in the forseeable future. Lenders have become very particular about buyers not exceeding debt limitations and the first time homebuyer trying to get into an entry level home is finding it increasingly difficult to qualify for a mortgage. There just is no "fat" to cut out on these homes. Not only is $25.00 a big deal, $5.00 is a big deal.

Call it a fight or race or whatever, RFS's are being turned back in state after state. And not only are they being amended out but more than a few have taken an unprecedented stance on not even allowing local jurisdictions the option of amending them back in. In the future I fully expect states to refuse to adopt the most current code published by ICC unless RFS's are eliminated. We will then see if ICC and its membership can sustain a financially viable organization with declining revenue from the sales of their codes.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm afraid your insults are misplaced.  I did not call the amount insignificant.  I very clearly stated that it depends on your perspective.  In terms of the average mortgage payment in this country (which varies wildly depending on the source you use), $25 would tend to be a small percentage.  That may not be the case wherever you are.  It is where I am.  Perspective.  See?



> We will then see if ICC and its membership can sustain a financially viable organization with declining revenue from the sales of their codes.


That we shall.  I, for one, hope they pull it out.  The USFBC is not something I would look forward to.


----------



## NH09 (Apr 8, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> The proponents of residential sprinklers can stack the ICC vote, but until they get the public buy in, it will go nowhere.


Exactly, we can bash heads with the Home Builders and politicians all we like - but until the public feels that sprinklers are as necessary as smoke alarms and co detectors this will be an uphill battle. If more people can be educated on how RFS save lives we may start to see people freely choose to have RFS installed in their homes, rather than having to require them.


----------

