50+ Housing e-Source - 06/29/2007 (Plain Text Version)Robert Tippets View Graphical Version | Subscribe
to NAHB Publications | Email our
Editor... In this issue: NAHB News: Bill to Require Fire Sprinklers Defeated at Code HearingsDuring final hearings in Rochester, N.Y. last week for proposed changes to the International Residential Code, affordable housing advocates pushed back an effort to include requirements for fire sprinklers. Proponents of mandating fire sprinklers for one- and two-family homes were unable to muster the two-thirds majority vote they needed. The May 22 vote was 476 to 375. Contained in the code’s appendix, fire sprinkler requirements will remain a local jurisdictional choice, which is exactly as it should be according to representatives from NAHB state and local home builders associations who spoke at the code hearings. Building officials, nevertheless, are finding the arguments of fire-sprinkler advocates increasingly persuasive, putting the onus on home builders to continue to emphasize the effectiveness of the safety measures being incorporated into today’s homes and the importance of working smoke alarms and fire safety education to prevent fires. In California, “more than 95% of fire fatalities were in homes built 20 years ago. That’s a tragedy,” said Bob Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association, before a packed hearing room. “But the fact is, the code changes we have made over the past 20 years are working,” making homes safer than ever, he said. “The cost of sprinklers is $10,000 to $15,000 in my community,” said a representative from Utah. “How many of you could afford to buy your house again where you live, and then add on the price of a sprinkler system? We need to have a balance.” Lee Schwartz, executive vice president for government relations for the Michigan Association of Home Builders, testified that Habitat for Humanity officials in his state voted unanimously to oppose moving fire sprinkler requirements from the appendix to the main body of the code because of affordability and maintenance issues. “Many of our affiliates find they need to conduct several sessions of maintenance classes for some of our home owners to understand even basic home upkeep, such as changing filters on furnaces and cleaning out gutters, to say nothing of the original cost [of fire sprinklers] to the family,” Habitat for Humanity of Michigan President and CEO Kenneth W. Bensen said in a letter to code officials. “By raising the cost of the home and setting forth another barrier in the way of those in the greatest need to afford a home, this requirement would harm our mission of increasing the capacity to building simple, decent homes in Michigan,” Bensen said. Once it was demonstrated that smoke alarm system technology worked reliably, home builder association members in his state threw their support behind measures to require the alarms in all existing homes, Schwartz added. Home builders and code officials opposed to mandating residential fire sprinklers have too many unanswered questions about their reliability, installation requirements, maintenance, inspection procedures and long-term functionality to be able to support them, speakers said at the hearing. Having installed fire sprinklers in a 17-home development, Don Pratt, a Michigan builder and code official, said that “fire suppression systems are not ready to be installed in single-family dwellings” because of the lack of appropriate technology. “I plead with you; we need more time to figure out the best system.” Other speakers said that emphasizing safety in existing homes is what’s needed to combat fire fatalities. “Making the house safer for middle- and upper-income people [who can afford new homes] is not going to help low-income people” in substandard housing or who don’t understand the importance of working smoke alarms, said a Shreveport, La. building official. “We need to solve the problem where the fire is. We haven’t had a fire death in a year and a half because we have a fire chief who supports public education” on fire safety, he said. NAHB members also emphasized that the association does not oppose fire sprinklers and that it has asked the International Code Council to convene an ad hoc committee to develop lower-cost alternatives to the systems that are currently available. NAHB also supports efforts to increase the effectiveness of smoke alarms. “We request that ICC join NAHB in a joint working group to propose solutions that both our organizations could embrace and pursue to end this needless loss of life, perhaps as part of the ICC Foundation efforts to promote building safety,” said Eric S. Borsting, NAHB Construction, Codes & Standards Committee chair, in an April 6 letter to ICC President Wally Bailey. Association leaders who worked to get the home builders’ pro-smoke alarm message heard said they were pleased with the results of the vote. “Reasonable minds have spoken,” said Borsting, who attended the hearings in Rochester. “When our members talk to their local building officials, it becomes very clear that there are still too many unanswered questions on metering, plumbing, backflow — many, many issues. “The recurring theme I heard was that building officials want a choice, and keeping residential fire sprinklers optional maintains that choice,” Borsting said. “The hearing showed that home builders and code officials, working together, are a powerful voice on behalf of new home buyers, who overwhelmingly choose not to install fire sprinklers. We will continue to emphasize our message of safety and affordability and the importance of maintaining that balance." For more information, e-mail Calli Schmidt at NAHB, or call her at 800-368-5242 x8132. For more information or to contact us directly, please visit www.NAHB.org | ©2005, National Association of Home Builders |