While Highland Park, Texas is moving forward with fire sprinkler requirements in new homes, South Carolina is having trouble passing sprinkler mandates.
This article from The Post and Courier; Charleston.net explains that There are two separate bills being proposed. A House bill is being proposed that will provide tax incentive of 80% of the cost of the sprinkler system up to $50,000.00. The Senate is proposing a bill that will provide 50% of the cost of the sprinkler system; 25% from the state the other 25% from local property tax relief. The States portion would only be made available if the local governments offered a property tax credit.
Obviously there are proponents and opponents to this system. One opponent, Governor Mark Sanford, argues that;
‘Although the property-owners who install fire sprinklers under this legislation will be the primary beneficiaries of increased fire safety, the taxpayers will shoulder nearly all of the costs.’”
I’m not a tax expert and don’t claim to know the ins and outs of our tax system. Having said that, it makes sense to me that the “taxpayers” would shoulder some burden for business getting tax breaks because it’s money not going into the system to pay for infrastructure. On the other hand, the sprinkler systems, once they’re installed and working, will save citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars if a fire ever breaks out in one of the formerly unsprinklered buildings. So yeah, it definitely is an investment but the investment will pay itself back 10 fold if even one fire breaks out.
City officials in Grapevine, Texas are being recognized for their proactive approach in protecting historic buildings with fire sprinklers in their downtown district. According to the article the city set up low interest loans to offset the cost of installation of the systems and connections to city mains. [star-telegram.com; Fortworth, Texas]
There’s a big, yet subtle, change to this site. If you look to the side bar in the widget labeled “E-MAIL” you’ll notice that I’ve listed my personal e-mail address. I mean the other e-mail was my personal account as well the big difference is, is that the old e-mail didn’t contain my name . . . this one does. The “at” in parentheses is just to keep the “spammers” from filling my in-box with every adulterous, raunch and pathetic information they think I want, or need to see.
I’ve decided how could I possibly have any credibility if I’m not totally transparent? Furthermore, how could I expect anyone to leave their e-mail when commenting (even though commenter’s e-mail addresses are, and always will be kept invisible, inaccessible and confidential to other readers. Unless someone chooses to leave a link to their e-mail address in their comment) if I don’t “take the mask off,” so to speak? I always felt kind of unaccredited being anonymous with my e-mail address anyway.
So, the “Under New Management” masthead is not totally superficial. I have a different take on the way this site should be run. So let’s roll with it. I hope this new change will invite more people into a discussion. And that’s ultimately why I started this in the first place.
An article by Dawn Blunt in the Metrowest Newspaper Online Edition out of Brighton, Colorado compares the costs of the war in Iraq with the annual cost of fires in the United States. Dawn, the public safety educator for the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District, does a great job of comparing the very real and publicized costs of the war in Iraq against the very real and not-so-publicized cost of fire.
Try not to pick apart the politics and concentrate mostly on the point of the article. A few snippets;
Fires cost lives and huge sums of money for our country every day. Just because you don’t hear about all the costly fires and the deaths on the evening news doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Fire is costing Americans more each year than what Saudi Arabia makes on oil.
Between the start of the Iraq war and Dec. 10, 2007, America spent $150 billion per year on the war. The cost of the war on a family of four is estimated to be about $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The estimated cost of fire is $22,720 for that same family of four for six years. The number of soldiers killed in Iraq is now about 3,886, which is roughly the same number of fire deaths in America every year.
An article in the Charlotte Observer from Tuesday explains the “North Carolina State Building Code Council (NCSBCC) declined to consider a request that sprinkler systems be required in large or multi-story family homes.”
As an outsider, two things came to me glaringly while reading the article:
Number 1 is the notion by the NCSBCC Chairman that it’s an unworthy notion to consider a sprinkler requirement in homes that exceed predetermined square footages or heights. In the commercial realm square footage, frontage, and height allowances are based (not solely) but in a big part, on whether a building is sprinklered or not. I agree that all homes should be sprinklered. Having said that it’s not an absurd notion to say that the bigger (or taller) the house the harder it would be to evacuate in case of a fire.
Number 2 is a statement made at the very end of the article. I am going to quote the article word for word because the statement is so crazy I’m can’t believe that N.C. Home Builders would make such a claim;
In a statement, the North Carolina Home Builders Association praised the council’s decision, saying it, ’supports the development of an effective public fire-safety education program.’ The association argued current building requirements adequately provide for fire safety and that the costs of sprinkler systems exceed the potential property losses they might prevent.
The author of the article quotes the home builders as saying it [the NC Home Builders], “supports the development of an effective public fire-safety education program.” Then paraphrased, if you will, the builders association’s stance that current building codes are sufficient for fire safety AND (here’s the punchline), “the costs of the sprinkler systems exceed the potential property losses they might prevent.”
In my “I’m BAaaak” post a few days ago I begged the question whether or not it would be possible to spend even a Million dollars (the loss estimate of the house fire I referred to) on a sprinkler system over the life of a home. I say no way (under the current dollar value mind you). But, physical property will be the least concern in a catastrophic house fire.
Unbelievable. There’s not a day that has gone by that I didn’t, at least, think about this blog. Excuses aren’t worth much, but work and my family have kept me very busy. We’ll get back to daily updates (I hope?).
Over my hiatus I haven’t been able to pay close attention to much of anything but the above mentioned obligations. My last post over two months ago was in regard to a success story involving a single family home saved by a single residential sprinkler. The owners of that home, I would suspect, are happy with their investment. Their home was saved. The key word is H-O-M-E. Not just the timber, but the pictures, heirlooms, antiques and whatever they valued as priceless is still available to them to admire and cherish.
On the other hand, news [KMBC-TV-9] broke this week of a house fire in the “backyard” of Fire Sprinklers global HQ. The story reports a 1-Million dollar loss. No loss of life or injury, thank God. But the H-O-M-E is gone.
One thing stood out when I saw this story. The stance from the NAHB that fires only occur in old homes and that new homes are “safer” so we don’t need sprinkler systems is bogus. It is obvious to me that catastrophic fires do occur in newer homes.
Here’s a question, and this is not rhetorical; Is there anyway, over the life of a single family residential structure that you’d ever spend a Million dollars on the installation and maintenance of a fire sprinkler system? I say no way. What say you?
When debate goes on about residential “requirments” a story from Tahoe Daily Tribune in Lake Tahoe, California reinforces why home fire sprinkler systems can be crucial.
A fire in the garage of a three-story, custom Skyline Drive home that was ignited by stain-soaked rags was extinguished by a single sprinkler head with minimal water damage to the structure. And the incident serves example of value of installing fire sprinklers, officials said.
Firefighters from the Lake Valley Fire Protection District were called to the Skyline Drive home last Thursday at 10:15 p.m. for a report of a fire alarm. They found an extinguished fire in the garage. A single automatic sprinkler head mounted in the ceiling had activated and completely extinguished the blaze.”
WJZ-TV reports [story here] the Talbot County Council approved a bill requiring sprinklers in new, and significantly renovated homes. The sprinkler requirement in renovations will be phased.
Under the bill, sprinklers will be required as of March 1 in new one-and two-family homes. They’ll be required in existing homes undergoing construction or renovation of more than 65 percent of the home until July 2009. After that date it will be required for renovations of more than half of a home.”
The other two links are to articles where jurisdictions are considering a residential fire sprinkler requirement.
County Supervisor Henry Perea is proposing a new code to require sprinklers in all new construction in Fresno County including homes. Local firefighter officials claim the sprinklers save lives and would make a huge difference in rural areas where a fire response can take up to 20 minutes.
It’s hard to forget the tears of a grieving mother. In February Ana and Ruvi Escalante died in a house fire in the Fresno County area of Calwa. The tragedy affected the whole community.”
And finally, Hickory Hills in Southern Chicago is considering a sprinkler requirement in new and renovated homes. The story comes from Daily Southtown. Hickory Hills is doing their homework for sure;
Aldermen are discussing when it would be fair to make existing home owners, doing renovation or remodeling work, to install the devices.
‘If someone is gutting their house, tearing out all the dry wall, then I would have no problem having them install a sprinkling system,’ building commissioner Gordon Betcher said. ‘But not if a guy is just putting an extension on his house.’
‘We need to find a clear line of demarcation between a complete gutting and just an addition,’ Mayor Mike Howley said.
Ald. John Moirano (1st) said the city must establish a consistent policy and not leave the matter to the discretion of the building commissioner or future building commissioners.
‘We need a fair playing field,” Betcher said. ‘If new homes have to install sprinklers, then people totally rebuilding old houses have to do it, too.’
Some aldermen favor enforcing sprinkler installation if 50 percent or more square footage of a residence is being rebuilt. Others are considering measuring in dollars, making sprinklers mandatory if 25 percent or more in the reproduction cost of the house is spent in rebuilding. Both measures are being considered.”
Wow. I’ve been watching this for several weeks now and the vote was held tonight in Huntley, Illinois to keep, or not to keep, a requirement for sprinklers in single family dwellings. I read the news on the Huntley Neighbors forum. I would have loved to have been there watching this unfold, but alas, I am in Kansas City and have responsibilities here that prevented me from traveling.
A couple of thoughts . . .
There was a builder on the board of trustees. Even though his vote was not the deciding factor (the vote was 4 to 2) he should have taken himself out of not only the vote but all debate on this issue. His title is Trustee for crying out loud. By definition he should be looking out for the interests of the citizens of his community not his own. I don’t know the man personally, nor do I intend to bash his character I just think that his profession as a builder and his duty to vote in the best interest of the people is a huge conflict of interest. In his defense, the man I’m sure truly believes he voted for the best interest of those who have put their trust in him. We are on polar sides of this issue. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
CORRECTION: My apologies. Turns out that the trustee in question did remove himself from the vote. And, this article indicates he will install sprinklers in his houses no matter how the vote ended up. [Daily Herald]
‘There’s no conflict of interest for me,’ Kanakaris said. ‘I will spend the $60,000 to put the sprinklers in the six homes regardless of the decision tonight.’”
Huntley ran. Pardon the pun, but when the fire got too hot the board of trustees (not all, but collectively) ran on this issue. Sure there are going to be growing pains with such a requirement. But Huntley, like many other progressive communities across the country could have worked all the kinks out of this before a requirement is mandated in the IRC. Think about it. What Huntley has been through most others will go through also at some time in the future. Some cities and towns will go through their growing pains before a mandatory requirement in the code, some will have to catch up after. It’s the difference between being proactive and reactive.
Anything to add? Hit the comments or e-mail me. I’ll continue to keep my eye on this very hot issue not only in Huntley but across the nation.
UPDATE: I defer to the Huntley Blog for commentary from someone directly affected by the reversal. Check it out. There’s a great pic of the supporters and a nice post of the proceedings.
I found another thread on the Huntley Neighbors forum that confirms the vote is tonight (Thursday) at 7:00PM CST. I wish I could travel up there and cover this on my own. I would love to have some pictures/video to post here. Just observing the forums and other discussions on line it sounds like there may be a lot of people at this meeting. If pics/video are allowed and there’s anyone willing to share I’d love to post some of it here at Fire Sprinklers.
Besides the Neighborhood Forum you can find more information regarding the vote at the Huntley Blog.
Here are the meeting minutes from the July Village Board meeting where, I believe, this issue was first brought up.
I’ll be keeping a close eye on this tonight and will post any news I hear as soon as I get it.
Blogging is definitely NOT like riding a bicycle. It takes effort, and most of all time, to put some of this stuff together. I am back on track and will continue to post when time allows. I’ve been run ragged over the last couple of weeks and it’s only bound to get worse as my wife and I are expecting any day now. Please be patient.
One of the topics I’ve been paying really close attention to is Huntley, Illinois. The village board is considering rescinding a two year old requirement for sprinklers in single family dwellings. I’m pretty sure the vote by the village board is Thursday night. I know the vote is planned for early September. I’m just not sure if is this week or next. We’ll know by Friday morning if it’s this week.
Huntley Neighbors is a forum where residents are able to post comments, opinions and discuss neighborhood issues. The sprinkler requirement has been one such topic debated in the forum. This thread even has a poll of residents revealing where residents stand regarding the requirement.
I’m following this story closely because I believe it could have wider implications across the nation for those jurisdictions whom have also set sprinkler requirements for single family homes and more importantly for those cities considering such a requirement.
I haven’t given up on the cyber world . . . I’ve just been extremely busy. E-mail is chalk full. When I get my head above water I will start weeding through all the google alerts and bring the latest and not-so-latest. Until then . . .
Since early 1985 the Pleasantview, Illinois Fire Protection District has been tracking [link to article] sprinkler saves in a unique way. With the help of a local sprinkler contractor they’ve built what they call a “sprinkler tree” that is displayed outside of the fire protection bureau’s office (pictured: Fire Marshal Dan Tholotowsky (front) and Deputy Fire Marshal Art D’Andrea (back) of the Pleasantview Fire Protection District (IL) and Rich Ray (center) of Cybor Fire Protection. [PRNewsFoto/Northern Illinois Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board]). The tree includes the fire sprinkler that saved the property, photo plaques of the buildings and a short description of the fire.
The celebrated 50th addition to the sprinkler tree occurred at Best-Way Refinishing in Hodgkins. Sprinklers controlled a fire that began in paint spray booth filters during process work.”
A strip mall in Salt Lake City, Utah was saved from the ravages of fire by a fire sprinkler. The report states that the fire, caused by, “some sort of electrical malfunction” left minimal damage. [KSL.com]
