Senate will address bill in April
By Eric Boehm PA Independent
A costly mandate requiring sprinkler systems to be installed in all new residential homes in Pennsylvania was repealed Monday by the state House of Representatives.
The chamber voted 154-39 in favor of repealing the sprinkler mandate. The mandate will remain on the books until the state Senate and Gov. Tom Corbett also approve the repeal.
As of Jan. 1, Pennsylvania’s Uniform Construction Code (UCC) requires all new single- and double-family homes to have sprinkler systems installed. Those in favor of the new mandate say sprinkler systems save lives while the Pennsylvania Builders Association claims the mandate increases costs by up to $15,000 per new home, hurting the state’s struggling construction industry.
State Rep. Ron Miller, R-York, chair of the House Labor and Industry Committee, said the sprinkler mandate was a major concern for builders in the state.
“It’s too much of a drag on our economy,” said Miller. “The amount of safety factor improvements doesn’t merit the extra cost and the systems themselves are fraught with problems. We can’t do anything to harm the economic recovery.”
The state Senate Labor and Industry Committee plans to move on the sprinkler mandate repeal in April. Mr. Corbett is also expected to approve the repeal of the mandate.
Firefighters’ associations led the movement in support of the sprinkler requirement, arguing sprinklers greatly improve the safety of first responders.
In response to those concerns, the bill was amended last week to include a requirement for additional fireproofing material on the underside of floorboards in homes where sprinklers are not installed. Another amendment requires home builders to offer potential buyers the option of having sprinklers installed and to inform them of the safety benefits from the sprinklers.
State Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-Bucks, said the average cost of installing a sprinkler system in a new home is about $4,000, considerably less than the Builders’ Association estimate. He said the cost was worth the safety provided by the systems.
“More than 3,000 lives are still lost each year in home fires,” said Santarsiero. “While smoke alarms are good for alerting occupants, fire sprinklers provide the minimum time to allow people to escape including the elderly, young, impaired and disabled.”
For state Rep. Dave Reed, R-Indiana, the issue was about government regulation rather than the cost of the new construction.
“The sprinkler mandate is over-regulating jobs,” said Mr. Reed said. “It is equivalent to tying an anchor around the foot of the housing market while it’s still struggling to keep its head above water.”
The state established the UCC in 2004 when the General Assembly directed the Department of Labor and Industry to establish a statewide building code. The department adopted the International Code Council’s triennial building code.
When the ICC updated the code to include the sprinkler mandate, Pennsylvania adopted the new rule without any legislative action.
Supporters of the mandate maintain it is important to keep the building code independent from legislative action, which can turn matters of safety into political issues.
Miller, however, said the Legislature already has altered the building code on five occasions since it was adopted in 2004.
I am in total support of repealing the sprinkler mandate in new homes. If this repeal is not approved, I will not be building a new home this year like I had planned. I find nothing wrong with a builder to offer a sprinkler system to their customers, but to make it mandated is ridiculous. Mr. Corbett, please repeal this unnecessary law.
This mandate hits several of my pet peves. First, the government has no right telling me how safe I should live my life. Second, the housing market, as well as the rest of this countries financial status is already going down the crapper. And third, insurance co. have been making billions of a long time insuring structures that arn’t up to out current bull shit building code.
Respectfully, A conservative American who wants the government out of his live.
Thank God our House of Representatives is finally standing up and trying to do something about this! My fiance and I are planning on building this year, and if this law is not repealed, we will most likely NOT be building. The government needs to stay out of our business. Who are they to tell me how I have to live my life? It’s my property and my money. This law, if not repealed, will do nothing but harm the economy even more. This nonsense needs to stop!! I just pray our new governor still has his common sense intact, unlike the majority of our state representatives!
This is the first of many finacial and freedom crushing laws that need repealed. We have enough laws…too many…the people in office need to wake up and get back in touch with reality and the struggle normal citizens face from thier laws and costly requirements.
Obviously you guys are very ignorant. Bottom line the sprinklers save lives. You should check out videos that compare houses that have and the houses that don’t have them. Theres a big difference. But i guess its okay that the government puts a price on our safety…..Right? Who knows one day your house or a loved ones house could catch fire and you could loose a family member. I know its a sad thought but it proves a very valid point that sprinklers save lives. Having sprinklers is a small detriment to pay for our safety.
When you come home and your house all your valuables and belongings that can’t be replaced are reduced to rubble and ashes, you’ll wish you had a sprinkler system. Its true, they save lives and protect property. Don’t be cheap.
Homeowners insurance will also be much lower with a sprinkler system. Over a 30 year mortgage the system will pay for itself.
If a fire occurs you have on average 3 minutes to evacuate because new building materials burn much faster than what was previously used in construction.
Also no one has ever died in a fully sprinklered building
As a firefighter and a new home owner, I bought I house when I did because the cost benefit of having and maintaining a sprinkler system is cost prohibitive. There are many more things that can be done to safeguard property and lives that doesn’t rise to the level of the government requiring you to have something. Hardwired smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, changes in the way modern structures are built with more fire resitive coatings is much easier and far less expensive.
I know I have never gotten a rebate check from any of my insurance companies for safety or security issues they have. Do you really think these companies are going to fall all over themselves to save the consumer money? Most fires in new home construction I have been at are rapidly contained because of fire alarm systems. The alarm threshold of these systems are far more sensitive that an fusiable link in a sprinkler. Alarms saves lives and sprinklers save property. This mandate for single and two family homes is just unreasonable the fire loading is not high enough to meet this requirement. I have been to many sprinkler activations that were bumped, knocked into or off and dealt with a lot of water damage why don’t you call your insurance agent and see how they handle water damage. I know what mine said it would be better if you had a fire because then its covered! Should people be aware of it…yes, should it be an option…yes, but this is a little far reaching.
You car goes over 55 mph maybe we should reduce all cars to only going 35 because it will save lives. We badly need the housing market to recover and help build the economy not ramming something down peoples throats.
Insurance coverage for water damage is covered under the same plan that would cover water damage from plumbing fixtures.
Repair costs average $2500.00 for a sprinklered home compared to $45,000.00 for a home that isn’t sprinklered.
Smoke alarms increase survival rates by 50% while sprinklers increase survival rates by 97%.
The national average to install a residential fire sprinkler system in a newly constructed home costs $1.61 per square foot.
For all of you who have not read the past 5 comments i think you should. $5000 for an average sprinkler system isnt that big of an expence. Money shouldnt sway your opinion for a sprinkler system when youre building a $500,000 house. take this into concideration. A fireman, who has to come to your house at 2 in the morning to extinguish a fire at your house and dies because of lightweight construction and the crap you have in that house, has a family and people who love them. Your insurance company will replace the $12,000 of damaged items caused by a sprinkler head, they will never replace a generation that firefighter is apart of.
And oh yeah, dont come and complain to the firemen that you lost everything includeing property pets and family just because you rather have a Uronga Gold Marble counter top than a sprinkler system.
I can see both sides of this argument. Sprinklers definitely make sense for most families, but they seem a little oversold. While I understand that a properly installed system won’t need maintenance for the first 40 years or so, even with current shoddy construction standards, the average new house should last much longer than that. As these systems do start to degrade, many homeowners will quietly disconnect them rather than spend the money to keep them working (“Fire? Why, I’ll never have a fire in MY house.”). So the protection they offer is real, but not totally permanent. My biggest fear about them is that builders will use them as an excuse to continue today’s horrendous building practices and the public will be left fighting fires in neighborhoods of shoddy, flammable houses whose sprinklers no longer work. On the other hand, the claims that the $4000 cost of these systems is an “unreasonable burden” for a $200,000 purchase seems ludicrous. How many of those complaining about “government interference” won’t be crying to the government when their tacky, mold-infested, vinyl-sided boxes of sticks and sawdust go up in flames? How many of the “I was going to build this year, but I won’t unless they repeal this law.” letters are even for real? At least, in rejecting this law but requiring protection for engineered structural elements, the legislature made some effort to bring building standards back up to what what was taken for granted 50 years ago.
I just spoke with my insurance company, Allstate, and they said that my insurance is going to go up to COVER this law in California by over $400 a year! This is rediculous. I hope that CA repeals it as well.