Public Statement on Building Code/Sprinkler Systems

April 5, 2011

I have heard the arguments both for and against implementing Sprinkler systems into new single family home construction. I appreciate the discussions on phasing-in the implementation, and/or tailoring based upon community or individual water sources. Builders cited associated expenses being burdensome. Some citizens have cited the ordinance being simply another greater governmental intrusion into the privacy and property rights of individuals.

However, this section of the updated building code is about life and property. This topic is where we identify our priorities: we either support, or not the life & safety of our fire-fighters; support, or not the life and safety of residents; and support, or not quick extinguishing of fires to reduce property damage. These sprinkler systems save lives. They reduce property damage caused by fire or from excessive amounts of water needed if the fire spreads.

To those who construct homes, I have a brief story. In 2004, I moved into a newly constructed home which was the first one on my street. This was during the time when the sales agent told us each subsequent home was being sold with a minimum price increase of 1%.

Upon moving-in, a fire fighter friend of mine commented about how relieved he was to see that the floor joists were made of “solid” wood and not the cheaper manufactured floor joists. He said those manufactured joists were a nightmare during a fire when the glue quickly melts and the floor gives away.

As subsequent homes were being constructed on my street, I observed the introduction of those manufactured “cheaper” floor joists into those homes (whose prices were increasing). Did the builder increase their profits from using cheaper material and raising the price of the home? Yes.

Did the builder include or offer the sprinkler systems for those more expensive less fire-safe homes? No. Builders tell us they recommend having more time to incorporate the sprinklers into their home construction plans. I say no.

To suggest builders need time to gather cost and scheduling data is less than acceptable. These builders also build homes in other counties who already have a sprinkler ordinance. I say, tell them to gather those blueprints and use them here. Builders expressed concerns that implementing this ordinance would raise the price of new home construction. If they are so concerned, they could minimize that expense on the new homeowner by not doing a “mark-up” of those systems.

Lastly, to suggest using sprinklers only where there is public water is not supported by this commissioner. These sprinklers are needed in the very homes that are in most need – those which are rather remote and have only their private wells as the primary source of water.

To wait until 2013, I ask what will you say if the loss of one life occurs in a fire that could have otherwise be saved? I support Option 2 which calls for immediate implementation, but modified to except those who have already begun the permit application process.