The URL can be used to link to this page

Economic Development Packet 2009 12-01-09 J u o United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road EST. 1536 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 .� �� Telephone: 630-553-4350 Loimiyfiaaf 0� Fax: 630-553-7575 1,E X AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room Minutes for Correction/Approval: November 3, 2009 Items Recommended by Plan Commission for Approval: None New Business 1. EDC 2009-53 Building Permit Report for October 2009 2. EDC 2009-54 Building Department Inspection Report Summary for October 2009 Old Business: 1. EDC 2009-44 Building Code Update Discussion Additional Business: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. November 3, 2009 ❑ Approved as Presented ❑ Approved with Corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2009-53 Building Permit Report for October 2009 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2009-54 Monthly Building Department Inspection Report Summary for October 2009 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2009-44 Building Code Update Discussion ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 5 JDRA FT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday,November 3, 2009, 7pm City Conference Room In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Gary Golinski Alderman Rose Spears Alderman Wally Werderich Alderman Robyn Sutcliff Other City Officials Mayor Valerie Burd Assistant City Administrator Bart Olson Community Development Director Travis Miller Building Code Official Paul Zabel Community Relations Officer Glory Spies (arr. 7:15pm) Other Guests Tony Phillips and Rick Cogswell / SAC Wireless for Verizon The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gary Golinski at 7:00pm. Minutes for Correction/Approval October 5, 2009 The minutes were approved as read. New Business 1. EDC 2009-48 Building Permit Report for September 2009 No discussion. 2. EDC 2009-49 Monthly Building Department Inspection Report Summery This report was done at the request of Alderman Spears. She also presented a form that she would like used to show the type of inspections being done, cost, will track time spent and include a fee report. It was noted that ICCI is still doing inspections since their contract is valid through November 9`j'. Travis said that the type of information being requested by Alderman Spears can be tracked through the MSI software, however, it has not been used so far. Mr. Zabel said he will prepare a detailed report in a spreadsheet format at the request of Spears and Werderich. Mr. Zabel said that going forward, all plumbing inspections will be contracted out. Travis clarified that plumbing inspections must be contracted since the City does not have a licensed plumber. Travis said that fire and electrical inspections will also be contracted. Ms. Spears asked that time be tracked and a fee report completed. Hours spent for inspections are typically not tracked according to Zabel because those contractors are paid "per inspection". Page 2 of 5 3. EDC 2009-50 Plan Commission Report for October 2009 It was noted there was only 1 item on this report and it will be discussed later in this meeting. 4. EDC 2009-51 Building Permit Fee Schedule– Update/Discussion Mr. Zabel presented the current permit fee schedule and while he said that it is adequate, he wants to simplify it to make it easier for residents and contractors to understand what is being charged. He modeled his format after that of Montgomery. He changed some of the fees and asked for the committees' input. New commercial will be outsourced. Mr. Zabel said some fees have been increased, while others were reduced. An optional proposed Contractor Licensing Fee, modeled after Montgomery, requires insurance, annual fee and proof of license. If 3 complaints are received on a specific contract, their license is not renewed to do work for Montgomery. He suggested a possible list of licensed contractors to do work in Yorkville. Paul noted that in Montgomery, fees are not required of plumbers and roofers since they are licensed through the State. Ms. Sutcliff noted that in Oswego, residents must use the approved City contractors. Since it would be difficult to track all the renewal dates, Mayor Burd suggested Yorkville should treat contractor licenses like liquor licenses—all renew at the same time each year. Alderman Spears asked if a contractor needed to be bonded to do work for the City. Currently, that is not required. Golinski asked what would happen if a City-licensed contractor had their insurance lapse or had an accident and they were not bonded. Alderman Werderich said each contractor and client would need to sign an indemnification. Bart Olson said this is a fairly common licensing procedure throughout local towns. Rose suggested more information should be obtained from other towns regarding liability, costs, etc. Mayor Burd said perhaps it should be called `registering'. Mr. Zabel reviewed the current fees vs. the proposed fees. He said he would like to use flat fees since it is easier to calculate and understand. Ms. Spears said she would not want huge increases since some communities are actually decreasing fees in an effort to encourage building. A significant decrease is proposed in commercial according to Zabel. He gave examples of costs using 2 recent new constructions and said he would again propose flat fees. Sewer and water connection fees would remain the same. Suggested building fee for buildings up to 5000 sq. ft. would be $1250. Larger buildings similar to Super Target were $38,000 for building fees at the time of construction. He is proposing a new flat fee of$5,000 with the thought of providing incentives to attract businesses. Alderman Sutcliff asked how this compared to other communities and it was noted that formerly 80% was paid to ICCI. The committee asked for a comparison from surrounding towns. Werderich commented that he like the flat fee structures. Paul hopes that Administrative Assistants can become more involved with the fees, processing applications, etc. 5. EDC 2009-52 Economic Development Committee Meeting Dates for 2010 After a brief discussion, it was decided that this meeting will start at 6pm beginning in January. A Public Notice will be required. Page 3 of 5 Items Recommended by Plan Commission for Approval 1. PC 2009-14 SAC Wireless Special Use Request for New Telecommunications Tower Travis gave a brief background of this request. Cell towers are governed by Chapter 15 of the Zoning Ordinance and require a Special Use for newly constructed towers. This tower would be located north of the tracks near F.E. Wheaton. This request is the Special Use only and it has been before Plan Commission. It also came before Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a variance for the height of the tower. ZBA recommended approval of the variance in a split vote 4-3. Tony Phillips, representative of SAC Wireless representing Verizon, gave a presentation of the proposed cell tower. He said the ordinance limits the height to 100 feet,but higher towers are needed to encourage co-location to reduce the number built. The tower height requested is 199 feet including a lightning rod. The project also incorporates a small shelter at the tower base that holds a generator. Mr. Phillips read a statement describing the project. The tower provides telephone service, wireless data and use by Blackberries. A new tower is needed for capacity and coverage. The various locations of other towers in the area were discussed and it was noted that most of the towers were over 100 feet. Golinski suggested that the ordinance needs to be updated. Alderman Sutcliff questioned if the tower could be used in conjunction with KenCom. Mr. Phillips replied that Verizon works closely with State and County Police especially for in-car data. All neighbors within 500 feet of the F.E. Wheaton site were notified of this tower. It was noted that Whispering Meadows is the nearest residential area. Mr. Phillips said his company spoke with ComEd about co-locating on their lines, however, they declined since only Com Ed personnel are allowed to work on the lines. It was noted the contractor who would construct the tower does have liability insurance and is bonded. They are also on a preferred contractor list. Alderman Spears asked if the ordinance requires a removal or maintenance bond. This is covered under Chapter 15. As the landowner, F. E. Wheaton would be responsible if the tower were to be abandoned. Permit fees were briefly discussed and it was noted that Chapter 15 allows for additional consult and review fees. Alderman Spears asked for a comparison of the average rate of fees and liability. She also suggested drafting a separate ordinance. Mr. Phillips said many communities have a separate one and there is also a$5,000 application fee. Many towns also require an escrow fee from which they deduct fees as work progresses. Some towns have a 5-year review, while others have 10-year reviews. Mr. Phillips recommended a one-time co-location fee to alleviate expending City time. Page 4of5 Ms. Spears requested the reports and memos of ZBA and Plan Commission pertaining to their discussions, prior to City Council. Golinski suggested that this item be moved forward, however, it was agreed that this committee would look at revising the ordinance. At 8:l Opm Chairman Golinski turned the meeting over to Ms. Spears. Old Business 1. PC 2009-44 Building Code Update Discussion —IBC 2006-IBC 2009 Paul Zabel provided an update from the previous EDC meeting regarding questions that were raised. 1) If the new 2009 International Residential Code is adopted, it would not become effective until 2011 and a specific section of that code would require residential sprinklers. ICC hearings were recently held in Baltimore and it was decided to retain this section. 2) The major changes in the code are, in part, energy code requirements, foundation requirements and automatic sprinklers. Many changes occurred between 2000 and 2006 and are more stringent. 3) Some communities have not adopted the 2009 codes due the fire sprinkler requirements. In an informal survey he conducted, Paul obtained 18 of 35 requested responses. More communities have adopted the 2009 codes than originally thought and Mr. Zabel will research the exact number. Mr. Zabel still recommends adoption of the 2009 codes, but the City can determine if they wish to omit parts of the code. The code is considered the industry-wide standard. He did note that the State mandated the energy code on May 31St. The City must start using these guidelines within a year of that date. Travis suggested inviting interested parties to the December EDC meeting such as the Fire Department, Homebuilder's Association and International Code Council reps to participate in this discussion. Ms. Spears also suggested inviting a representative from the Illinois Sprinkler Association. In conclusion, Mr. Zabel said small insurance discounts would be available for having sprinkler systems. 2. EDC 2009-07 "Shop Yorkville" Campaign — Update/Discussion Glory Spies received information regarding the program Elmhurst uses and she shared this with the committee. She also provided a memo with a potential mission statement and invited input from the committee. She said she feels the statement should inform and educate the citizens and be included on the Shop Yorkville Now website. Alderman Sutcliff said the statement should be more simple and user-friendly. Page 5 of 5 Alderman Werderich said he liked the specific facts presented in the Elmhurst program, such as the amount of money that returns to the community for each dollar spent. It was noted it might be difficult to obtain this type of information. He added that jobs are also provided by spending locally. It was determined that other benefits are: provide services, save gas, time and money, helps reduce real estate taxes, helps provide balanced tax base. Glory will revise the mission statement using the committee input and will email it. Alderman Werderich suggested using bullet points. Additional Business There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 8:37pm. Respectfully submitted by Marlys Young ♦��D Cl?- Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number J At .0 Legal ❑ B 411 EST. �i 1836 Finance F1� '--- Engineer ❑ City Administrator F-1 Tracking Number Consultant ❑ EDC 2009-53 CE ,,.♦� ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Building Permit Report for October 2009 Meeting and Date: EDC/December 1, 2009 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: BUILDING PERMIT REPORT United City of Yorkville Department of Building Safety and Zoning Provided by ICCI October 2009 T f Permits YP es o 2-Family Commercial Number of Permits Issued SFD (Beginning 2005, Multiple-Family (Beginning 2006,eategon,,includes Industrial Miscellaneous* Total Construction Cost 2 Permits=I Structure) Buildam) October 2009 39 11 0 0 1 0 27 $3,567,315.00 Calendar Year 2009 503 61 0 0 15 0 427 $22,351,179.00 Fiscal Year 2009 345 51 0 0 6 0 288 $15,512,369.00 October 2008 80 32 0 0 5 0 43 $7,104,298.00 Calendar Year 2008 794 143 6 0 35 0 610 $71,027,312.00 Fiscal Year 2008 510 98 4 0 18 0 390 $54,393,395.00 ............................. ... .................................. .... ............................ ............................ ................... .............. October 2007 141 47 0 4 9 0 81 $16,522,170.00 Calendar Year 20071 1160 385 10 6 49 0 710 $137,235,084.00 Fiscal Year 2007 796 239 6 6 32 0 513 $81,679,289.00 October 2006 141 69 14 5 1 0 52 $14,604,838.00 Calendar Year 2006 2 1440 700 58 10 33 0 639 $150,561,202.00 Fiscal Year 2006 900 379 38 7 19 0 457 $89,491,169.00 October 2005 105 36 0 0 0 0 69 $14,853,926.00 Calendar Year 2005 3 1073 383 5 0 36 0 644 $98,025,411.00 Fiscal Year 2005 756 257 0 0 20 0 479 $64,350,955.00 t Permit Numbers Y-07-0765 and Y-07-0766 issued in August 2007 were refunded/raided in September 2007,thus the total number ofpermits iv now actuaUY 1160 instead of 1161. 2 Permit Number Y-06-0626 issued in May 2006 was refunded/voided in September 2006,thus the total number ofpermits is now actually 1440 instead of 1441. ;Permit Number Y-05-0012 was voided,thus only 1073 of 1074 assigned permit numbers were actually used. *Miscellaneous includes additions,remodelling,garages,.sheds,swimming pools,decks,fire alarm/.sprinkler plan reviews,municipal projects,etc. Report prepared by: Barbara J.Dettmer,MCP,Department of Building Safety and Zoning,ICCI Reviewed By: 0 Agenda Item Number J Q '� Legal El g i� 1836 EST. Finance ❑ 6 11a �� Engineer ❑ City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number Ua` 0 Consultant ❑ "w EDC 2009-54 4k E Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Monthly Building Department Inspection Report Summary Meeting and Date: EDC /December 1, 2009 Synopsis: Review and discussion of"Inspection Report Summary" Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Paul Zabel Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Monthly Inspection Report Summary for October is attached. ICCI inspections, MSI Report CI T. o United City of Yorkville .1` 800 Game Farm Road ESL .=� _ 1836 Yorkville, Illinois! 60560 o L„� Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 MONTHLY REPORT - BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT "OCTOBER 2009" Inspections performed by ICCI 1. Insulation 12 16. Sprinklers 6 2. Rough Frame 16 17. Electric Service 6 3. Rough Electric 13 18, Basement Floor 6 4. Rough Mechanical 11 19. Garage Floor 6 5. Rough Plumbing 12 20. Stoops 3 6. Fire Stop 8 21, Roofs 5 7. Footings 16 22. Re-Final Frame 4 8. Slabs 4 23. Re-Final Electric 3 9. Backfills 13 24. Re-Final Plumbing 8 10. Underground Plumbing 17 25. ReTinal Mechanical 1 H. Underground Electric 1 26. Fire Alarms 1 12. Final Frame 14 27, Pools 2 13, Final Electric 14 28. Decks 2 14. Final Mechanical 14 29, Fence 8 15. Final Plumbing 14 30. Patios 2 16, Shed 2 31. Radon Fan 1 DATE: 11/24/2009 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAG2- 1 TIME: 14:54:58 INSPECTION REPORT 1D: PT440000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10101/2009 TO 10i3l/2009 ISSUE INSPECTION SCH$D. COMP. PERMIT # DATE LOCATION TYPE FEE CODE EMP. DATE DATE RES. COMMENTS -. ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------_------------------------------------------- 20080169 01/03/2008 106 CONOVER CT. REM BLD FEL, DP 10/27/2009 10/28/2009 P BLD FFR DP 10./28/2009 10/28/2009 P BLD FPL JD 10/28/2009 10i28/2009 P 20080342 05/14/2008 807 W. JOHN ST. REM BLD PU JD 10/27/2009 10127/2009 P 20080829 12/02/2008 308 WALNUT ST. REM BLD ICS DP 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P 20080840 12/2312008 6332 BIRCHWOOD DR. BSM BLD MSC DP 1.0/30/2009 10/30/2009 P BASEMENT ELECTRIC 20090182 05/14/2009 310 E. COUNTRYSIDE PKWY. COM BPI WLK DP 10/29!2009 20090302 07/02/2009 931 CANYON TRAIL SHD BLD SHD DP 10/29/2009 10i29/2009 P FINAL, 20090310 07/08/2009 1462 CRIMSON LANE SFA ACT SPR JD 10/27/2009 10!27!2009 P THIRD INSPECTION 20090311 07/08/2009 1464 CRIMSON LANE SFA ACT FEL DP 10/28/2009 10/28!2009 P ACT FFR DP 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P ACT FMC DP 10/28/2009 10128/2009 P ACT FPL JD 10/28/2009 10/28!2009 P ACT SPR JD 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P 20090313 07/08/2009 1468 CRIMSON LANE SFA ACT FFR DP 10/2B/2009 10/2812009 P ACT FPI, JD 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P ACT SPR JD 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P 20090337 07/17/2009 2525 EMERALD LANE. SFD ACS FFR DP 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 P ACS FEL DP 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 P ACS FPL JD 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 P ACS FMC DP 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 P 20090346 07/22/2009 355 BERTRAM DRIVE SFD BB1 PU JD 10/30/2009 20090351 07/24/2009 1222 SPRING ST. SFD HEC RFR DP 10/30/2009 10i30/2009 F HEC REL DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 F HEC RPL JD 10130/2009 10/30/2009 F HEC RMC DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 F HEC FST DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 F HEC INS DP 10/28/2009 CANCELLED, NOT READY 20090357 07/27/2009 2368 FMF,RALD LANE SFD ACS FFR DP 10/30/2009 10130/2009 P ACS FEL DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P ACS FPL JD 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P ACS FMC JD 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P 20090406 08/19/2009 207 FAIRHAVEN DR. ADD BLD FEL DP 1013012009 10/30/2009 P BLD FFR DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P BLD FMC DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P BLD FPL JD 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P 20090427 09/02/2009 322 TWINLEAF TRAIL SFD WHI4 RFR DP 10130/2009 10/30/2009 F WHM REL DP I0/30/2009 10/3012009 P WHM RPI., JD 10130/2009 10/30/2009 p WIIM RMC DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 F WHM FST DP 10/30/2009 10!30/2009 P 20090432 09/08./2009 1152 TAUS CR_ SFD HEC RFR DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P NEC REI, DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 F HEC RPL JD 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P DATE: 11/24/2009 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2 TIME: 14:54:58 INSPECTION REPORT TO: PT440000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/0112009 TO 10/31/2009 ISSUE INSPECTION SCHED. COMP. PERMIT V DATE LOCATION TYPE, FEZ, CODE EMP, DATE DATE RES. COMMENTS -------------------`-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEC RMC DP 10/30!2009 10/30/2009 P HEC FST DP 10/3012009 10/30/2009 P 20090446 09/16/2009 410 E COUNTRYSIDF. PKWY. ADD BLD ELS DP 10/30/2009 20090477 10/07/2009 2292 EMERALD LANE. SFD ACS ELS DP 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P ACS STP DP 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 P 20090478 10/07i2009 2288 EMERALD LANE SFD ACS GAR DP 10/27/2009 CANCELLED RCS ELS DP 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P ACS BSM DP 10/27/2009 CANCELLED ACS PU JD 10/2812009 10/28/2009 P 2ND INSPECTION ACS BSM DP 10/2912009 10/29/2009 P ACS GAR DP 10/29/2009 10129/2009 P 20090479 10/07/2009 2282 EMERALD LANE SFD ACS BSM DP 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 P ACS GAR DP 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 P ACS ELS DP 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P ACS PU JD 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P 2ND INSPECTION 20090480 10/07/2009 2386 LAVENDER WAY SFD RCS PU JD 10/28/2009 ACS BSM OP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P ACS GAR DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P 20090481 10!07/2009 2366 LAVENDER WAY SFD ACS PU JD 10/28/2009 ACS BSM DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P ACS GAR DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P 20090482 10/07/2009 2356 LAVENDER WAY SFD ACS PU JD 10128/2009 20090483 10/07/2009 2346 LAVENDER WAY SFD ACS PU JD 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P 20090484 10/07/2009 1$81 CORAL DRIVE. SFD ACS PU JD 10/28/2009 10/28!2009 P ACS GAR DP 10/27/2009 CANCELLED Acs BSM DP 10/27/2009 CANCELLED 20090485 10/OA/2009 4542 HARRISON ST. SFD BB1 RFR DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P 981 RF.I, DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P BB1 RPL JD 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P BB1 RMC DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P 20090489 10/12/2009 955 ERICA LANE BDO BPI RFR DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P BPI RFR DP 10/30/2009 BPI RMC DP 10/30/2009 20090491. 10/13/2009 2278 EMERALD LANE SFD ACS PU JD 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 P ACS BSM DP 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 P ACS GAR DP 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 P ACS GAR DP 10/29/2009 20090493 10/14/2009 921 HAYDEN DR. SDW BLD PTO DP 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 F 20090494 10/14/2009 23.0 JOHNSON ST. ADD BLD RFR DP 10/28/2009 10128/2009 P 20090504 10/26/2009 1281 CLEARWATER DRIVE SFD HEC FTC; DP 10/30/2009 CANCELLED 20090505 10/26/2009 501 W. KENDALL DRIVE MSC BLD MSC JD 10/28/2009 RADON FAN -CANCELLED, RESCHEDULED FOR 10 /29/09 DATE: 11/24/2009 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3 TTME: 14:54:58 INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT440000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10!01/2009 TO 10/31/2009 ISSUE INSPECTION SCHED. COMP. PERMIT it DATE LOCATION TYPE FEE CODE EMP. DATE DATE RES. COMMENTS -------- ---------- - ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BLD MSC DP 10/29/2009 REINSPECTION FOR RADON FAN-CANCELLED RES CHEDULED FOR 10/30/09 @8:30 BLD MSC DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P RADON FAN 20090508 10/27/2009 486 HONEYSUCKLE L•N. FNC BLD FP DP 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 P 20090509 10/27/2009 105 SPRING ST. ELE BLD ELE DP 10128/2009 10/28/2009 P BOOSTER CABINET FOR ATT LIGHT SPEED PROJ ECT 20090512 10129/2009 415 E. SPRING ST. SHD 81,1) SHO DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P PRE POUR 20090515 10/29/2009 132 CLARF,MONT COURT FNC BLD FP DP 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 P DATE: 11/2412009 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PACF: 4 TIME: 14:54:58 INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT440000.T?iOw INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10;0112009 TO 10/3312009 ISSUE INSPECTIO14 SCHED. COMP. PERMIT # DATE LOCATION TYPE FEE CODE EMP. DATE. DATE RES. COMMENTS --------.__._. ._ ------------------------------ -------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------- PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 6 BDO BUILD OUT 3 SSM BASEMENT REMODEL 1 COM COMMERCIAL 1 ELE ELECTRICAL UPGRADE 1 FNC FENCE 2 MSC MISCELLANEOUS 3 REM REMODEL 5 SDw SIDEWALK 1 SFA SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 9 SFr; SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 57 SHD SHED 2 INSPECTION SUMMARY: FP FENCE POST HOLES 2 BSM BASEMENT 7 ELE ELECTRICAL 1 ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 4 FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 5 FFR FINAL FRAME 6 FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 4 FPL FINAL PLUMBING, 6 FST FIRE STOPPING 3 FTG FOOTING 1 GAR GARAGE 8 ICS ICE SHIELD 1 INS INSULATION 1 MSC MISCELLANEOUS 4 PTO PATIO 1 PU UNDERGROUND PLUMBING & RADON 10 REL ROUGH ELECTRIC 4 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 7 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAI, 5 RPL ROUGH PLUMBING 4 SHD SHED 2 SPR SPRINKLERS 3 STP STOOP 1 WLR. WALKS, PRIVATE 1 INSPECTOR SUMMARY: DP DENNIS PHELPS 56 JD JOHN DE JONGE 25 STATUS SUMMARY: C DP 12 C JD 5 E DF 3 E JD 2 DATE: 11/24/2009 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PArF: 5 TIME: 14:54:58 INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT440000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01%2009 TO 10/37 /2009 ISSUE INSPECTION SCHED. COMP. PERMIT I DATE LOCATION TYPE FEE CODE EMP. DATE DATE. RE,S, COMMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ r DP 48 I JD 13 T DP 3 T JD 5 REPORT SUMMARY: 9i YORKVILLE BUILDING DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS DATE: Wednesday 10-28-09 Page 1 of 1 Staff Out: A P PERMIT Y F E P 5 M M NUMBER TYPE OF INSPECTION P R L L P ADDRESS LOT 8 5U6 NAME TELEPHONE N M E M R BLDGXUNIT 1 9-311 FINAL W/SPRINK N DP DP JD JD 1464 CRIMSON LANE 151-2 AC TYLER 847-456-7198 2 9-478 Re Underground Plumb X X JD X 2288 Emerald Lane 42 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 3 9-479 Re Underground Plumb X X JD X 2282 Emerald Lane 43 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 4 9-491 Underground Plumbing X X JD X 2278 Emerald Lane 44 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 5 9-484 Underground Plumbing X X JD X 1581 Coral Dr. 163 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 6 9-480 Underground Plumbing X X JD X 2386 Lavender Way 92 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 7 9-481 Underground Plumbing X X JD X 2366 Lavender Way 94 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 8 9-482 Underground Plumbing X X JD X 2356 Lavender Way 95 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 9 9-483 Underground Plumbing X X JD X 2346 Lavender Way 96 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 10 9-477 Electric Service X DP X X 2292 Emerald Lane 41 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 11 9-478 Electric Service X DP X X 2288 Emerald Lane 42 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 12 9-479 Electric Service X DP X X 2501 Emerald Lane 120 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 13 9-313 Re Finals (no elect) DP X JD JD 1468 Crimson Lane 151-4 AC Tyler 847-456-7198 14 8-169 Final Remodel DP DP JD X 106 Conover Ct. Countrysid Rose 630-554-5137 15 9-351 Insulation DP X X X 1222 Spring St. 76 H. Cr. Jeff 815-757-1233 16 9-505 RADON FAN (CALL 1ST) JD / 501 W KENDALL-COUNTRYS APARTMENTS JUDY 630-553-5040 17 5-829 ROOF-ICE WATER DP / / / 308 WALNUT JOE 630-988-2171 18 9-509 ELEC—BOOSTER CABNT DP / j / 105 SPRING ST. ATT--LIGHT SPEED BETTY 708-877-1100 PROJECT 19 9-494 ROUGH FRAMING DP / / / 210 JOHNSON ST SUNROOM ART 258-8624 20 21 22 23 YORKVILLE BUILDING DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS DATE: Friday10-30-09 Page 1 of 1 Staff Out: A P PERMIT Y F E P S M M NUMBER TYPE OF INSPECTION ! R L L P N M E M R ADDRESS LOT&SUB NAME TELEPHONE BLDG#!UNIT 1 9-515 Fence Post Holes DP X X X 132 Claremont St. Chris 815-834-1200 2 8-840 Basement Electric X DP X X 632 Birchwood Dr. Hrtlnd Cr. Mendel 901-355-1604 3 L 9-427 All roughs DP DP JD X 322 Twinleaf Trail 72 Wh M Bob 847-875-7647 4 9-432 Complete Roughs DP DP JD X 1152 Taus Cr. 127 H. Cr. Tim 630-878-5291 5 9-446 Electric Service X DP X X 410 E. Countryside pkwy Funeral Hm Laurel 630-553-6535 6 9-406 Addition Final DP DP JD X 207 Fairhaven Dr. Brad 630-605-4830 7 9-512 Shed Pre Pour DP X X X 415 E.Spring Street Frank 630-744-9477 Willman 8 9-505 Radon Fan X DP X X 501 W. Kendall Dr, Judy 630-553-5040 9 9-480 BASEMENT& GARAGE DP / / / 2386 LAVENDER 92 AC NICOLE 851-0789 10 9-481 BASEMENT&GARAGE DP / / / 2366 LAVENDER 94 AC NICOLE 851-0789 11 9-484 BASEMENT&GARAGE DP / / / 1581 CORAL 163 AC NICOLE 851-0789 12 9359 FINAL N DP DP JD / 2368 EMERALD 30 AC TYLER 847 456-7198 13 9-357 PU / / JD / 355 BERTRAM DR 1119 BB HERITAGE 847-885-9800 14 9-489 ROUGH FRAME DP / / / 955 ERICA LANE ULTA TIM 317-281-7756 15 L 9-504 FOOTING DP / / / 1281 CLEARWATER 210 HC JOHN 546-8057 16 17 18 19 20 `Or%0 C/T` Reviewed By: J= �'� Legal ❑ Agenda Item Number ES Finance T. '�� \ i836 ❑ Engineer ❑ 0 }a City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number Consultant ❑ �� c�ry �� ❑ L E EDC 2009-44 A ��' City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Building Code Update Discussion Meeting and Date: EDC/December 1, 2009 Synopsis: Staff has invited guests to present information regarding the 2009 International Building Code. Discussion regarding new building codes/appropriate amendments. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Paul Zabel Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Attached -BIOS for the guest speakers United City of Yorkville EDC 12-01-09 Guest Speakers... -Bernie Arends After graduating from the University of Detroit, Arends served for two years in the Navy as an intelligence officer. Although he doubted the usefulness of subjects such as Chemistry,Physics, and Latin;which he took at Notre Dame, he said he used everything in the Navy. After he completed his service, he started working at the Glenview Fire Department in 1972 and served as a paramedic for 25 years. Bernie Arends is a past president of the Illinois Fire Inspectors Association and a former Glenview Fire Marshall. He will be speaking on behalf of Tom Lia and Bob Kleinheinz. -Steven Gregory Steven Gregory has over 30 years experience in the home building/development industry. Currently Chief Operating Officer of Hinsdale based James McNaughton Builders, Inc., a position he has held for over 12 years. James McNaughton Builders has built/developed residential properties extensively in the western suburbs, Plainfield,the City of Chicago and is familiar with the installation of residential fire suppression systems. Mr.Gregory is a past President of the Northern Illinois Homebuilder's Association, past President of the Attainable Housing Alliance;formerly a collaborative public advocacy effort of the Northern Illinois Homebuilder's Association, Homebuilder's Association of Greater Fox Valley and the Homebuilder's Association of Greater Chicago,a licensed Illinois Real Estate Broker, and current Plan Commission member. -Adam Dontz Mr.Adam Dontz is Vice President of Acquisition and Government Relations for Gladstone Builders and Developers,a North Aurora, Illinois based homebuilding and land development company. Adam takes the lead role in negotiating the purchase and disposition of all real estate and works with elected officials and planning agencies to gain zoning and annexation approval of Gladstone's land holdings. In 2007,Adam was appointed and currently serves as the only residential homebuilder on the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning(CMAP)committee on housing, Adam is also a member of Urban Land Institute (ULI). -Christopher Alan Krupp Christopher Alan Krupp,AIA, established Krupp Associates Architects in Denver,Colorado in May of 1983 after 12 years of practical on-the-job architectural and construction management experience. Mr. Krupp has over 25 years of total experience on projects that include custom residential,commercial, medical,and institutional clients. Six years were spent directly employed in the construction industry as a carpenter, as a project superintendent, and as the in-house architect for a Denver based general contractor. Mr. Krupp brings a unique hands-on insight of construction technique and technology to the architectural profession. The result is designs that are practical to construct,well designed,and within budget restrictions. Krupp Associate's is committed to maintaining a technological edge in order to always better serve the needs of their clients. Unconfirmed guests that may participate in the discussion... -Al Green? -Rich Garrard? -Cheryl Lee? National Fire Protection Association FrIFP i The authority on firer electrical,and building safety Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level Final Report June 2009 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 11. Purpose....................................................................................................................... 3 111. Approach.................................................................................................................... 3 IV. Overview of Enacted Sprinkler Requirements ........................................................... 7 V. Impact Analysis Based On Housing Data ................................................................... 8 VI. Construction Industry and Regulatory Analysis ....................................................... 18 VII. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix A - Communities Considered for the Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler.........................................................................21 Appendix B - Major Ordinances Impacting Housing Construction in Comparison Counties .............................................................................................................24 Table of Figures Figure 1: Map of Counties Studied in Maryland and Virginia.......................................... 1 Figure 2: Select Demographic Data of Comparison Counties......................................... 5 Figure 3: Attached Single-Family Housing Stock in 1990 and 2000................................9 Figure 4: Annual Single-Family Construction Permits Issued in Montgomery, Fairfax, Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties from 1980 to 2007 .......... 10 Figure 5: Comparison of Single-Family Construction Permits Issued in Montgomery and Fairfax Counties from 1980 to 2007 ............................................................ 12 Figure 6: Comparison of Single-Family Construction Permits Issued in Anne Arundel & Prince George's Counties from 1980 to 2007 ................................................. 12 Figure 7: Total Single-Family Detached Housing Units by Year Built........................... 14 Figure 8: Attached Percentage of Single-Family Housing Units by Year...................... 14 Figure 9: National Totals and Percentage with Sprinklers Installed by Type of Housing .............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 10: Percentage of Total Housing Units with Residential Sprinklers for Selected Areas as of 2007 ................................................................................. 17 Figure 11: Percentage of Housing Units with Sprinklers by Year Constructed.............. 18 Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level I Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level I. Executive Summary A study of select jurisdictions VILEST MARYLAND was conducted to determine the VIRGINIA F COUNTCI( cauNTY housing cost and supply impacts of HOWARD COUNTY residential sprinkler ordinances at MONTGOMERY the local level. After considering LOUDOUN COUNTY COUNTY ANN over 100 jurisdictions and ARUM WASH G COON surrounding areas, the Washington ARLINGTON C. D.C. suburban counties of Anne COUNTY IN CE FAIRFA ROE'S DC COUNTY ALEXA LINTY Arundel, Montgomery and Prince PRINCE WILLIAM George's Counties, Maryland, and COUNTY Fairfax County, Virginia were VIRGINIA CHARLES selected for a comparison study to STAFFORD COUNTY determine the market effects of fire COUNTY MARYLAND sprinkler system installation requirements. Montgomery County, Maryland a jurisdiction with Figure 1: Map of Counties Studied in Maryland and sprinkler requirements was paired Virginia Shown in Gold and Green with Fairfax County, Virginia, a jurisdiction without requirements. Prince George's County, Maryland, a county with sprinkler requirements dating back to 1987 was paired with Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Anne Arundel County had a state-imposed townhome requirement dating from 1990 but no single-family detached requirement until 20091. The selected counties (shown in Figure 1) were deemed the best demographic matches to compare the housing characteristics of jurisdictions with sprinklers to those without sprinklers. The selection allowed the comparison of municipalities that cover a 1 In 1989 the State of Maryland enacted House Bill 658,"Sprinkler Systems—Installation in New Construction", that required dormitories,hotels,lodging or rooming houses,multifamily residential dwellings and townhouses to be sprinklered. Therefore,since 1990,all townhouses in Maryland have been sprinklered. The comparison county, Prince George's County, implemented sprinklers in townhomes in 1989. Additionally,Anne Arundel County passed an ordinance January 5,2009 requiring residential sprinklers in all new single-family dwellings. The data analyzed in this report precedes the passage of this ordinance. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 1 relatively wide geographic area with a variety of housing stock and income levels. In terms of development, all four selected counties are relatively mature The study included collecting and analyzing single-family permit data available through the U.S. Census and published and unpublished data from the 1990 and 2000 decennial Census of Population and Housing, the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS), and the 2007 American Housing Survey (AHS). The data was supplemented with a review of the regulations that impacted housing in the selected areas from 1989 through 2009. Interviews were conducted with local government staff, housing industry professionals, and selected home builders to enhance the quantitative findings with qualitative analysis. Key Findings In the late 1980's, residential sprinkler ordinances began to be enacted in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties. After each update of these municipalities' sprinkler rules, there were no corresponding reductions in the number of single-family homes built in either county, relative to their neighboring counties in Maryland and Virginia. In each instance, these municipalities actually saw a larger relative increase in construction in the year after regulations became effective, compared to the adjacent counties without sprinkler ordinances. In the interviews conducted with builders and the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association (MNCBIA), there were repeated references to other regulations and building fees in all the counties studied. Interviewees felt that these other requirements dwarfed any cost effects from the sprinkler installation requirements. In summary, the following analysis did not reveal that the enactment of sprinkler ordinances caused any detrimental effects on housing supply and costs. The data reviewed indicates that sprinkler system requirements were a minor influence on regional housing costs compared to fees and other rules, population and job growth, and land availability. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 2 II. Purpose The purpose of this research was to investigate whether the imposition of sprinkler ordinances within a jurisdiction had a measureable impact on the housing construction or prices in that municipality relative to comparable nearby communities without such an ordinance. III. Approach After considering a wide range of potential communities that had enacted residential sprinkler ordinances (Appendix A), Newport paired together four jurisdictions to compare the impact of sprinkler requirements on the price and supply of housing: Montgomery County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia; and, Prince George's County, Maryland and Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Sprinkler ordinances were enacted in Montgomery and Prince George's County beginning in the late 1980's. The counties considered in this study are long-established suburban jurisdictions located near Washington DC. Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia, are particularly comparable in terms of population size and characteristics. The two counties are both among the top ten in the nation in terms of median household income. The median values for both income and house prices are slightly higher in Fairfax County, which also has a slightly larger population. In both counties, the share of people age 25 and over in 2000 with at least a college degree was 55 percent. Although some residents of Fairfax and Montgomery Counties work in the District of Columbia or commute to other area jurisdictions, most of the employed residents in each county also work within their county. Nearly as many workers commute into those counties as commute out. In 2000, the ratio of jobs to workers exceeded 90 percent in both counties. Although employment in both counties is heavily oriented toward management and professional activities, and the two counties often compete to attract the same businesses, there are some differences in industrial composition that may affect employment growth and construction activity. Fairfax has a greater concentration of employment related to telecommunications, defense, and computer software. Montgomery (home to the National Institutes of Health) has more employment related to life sciences. In both counties, over 13 percent of workers are employed by the federal government. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 3 Prince George's County is located on the eastern border of the District of Columbia. Anne Arundel County is further east, situated between Prince George's and the Chesapeake Bay. Households in Anne Arundel, on average, are a bit wealthier and more highly educated than those in Prince George's, but the two counties are generally similar. In Anne Arundel, 31 percent of the population age 25 and over in 2000 were college graduates, compared to 27 percent in Prince George's. Median Household Income in 1999 was $62,000 in Anne Arundel and $55,000 in Prince George's. Median owner-occupied home values in 2000 were $157,000 for Anne Arundel and $144,000 in Prince George's. In Prince George's County, 31 percent of all civilian workers in 2000 were government employees, including 18 percent who worked for the federal government. In Anne Arundel, 22 percent were government civilian employees, with 11 percent working for the federal government. In Anne Arundel, however, another 4.2 percent of the total labor force was in the military, compared to 1.6 percent in Prince George's. Anne Arundel County is actually classified as part of the Baltimore-Towson Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) rather than the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria MSA, although its ties to the Washington metropolitan area are quite strong. In fact, of workers commuting to jobs outside the county, the number working in the Washington metropolitan area exceeds the number working in other counties of the Baltimore metropolitan area. Prince George's County is somewhat more of a "bedroom" community, with a 2000 ratio of jobs to workers of 74 percent, compared to 88 percent in Anne Arundel. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 4 Figure 2: Select Demographic Data of Comparison Counties Anne Prince Montgomery Fairfax Arundel George's U.S. County, MD County, MD County, MD County,VA Population 1980 370,775 665,071 579,053 596,901 226,545,805 1990 427,239 729,268 757,027 818,584 248,709,873 2000 489,656 801,515 873,341 969,749 281,421,906 2007 510,507 825,318 941,491 1,004,151 301,290,332 Annual Growth Rate 1980-1990 1.43% 0.93% 2.72% 3.21% 0.94% 1990-2000 1.37% 0.95% 1.44% 1.71% 1.24% 2000-2007 0.58% 0.40% 1.04% 0.48% 0.95% Workers in 2000 Working in County 225,115 295,286 420,875 506,272 Living in County 255,858 397,403 455,331 527,464 Living and Working in 144,033 155,671 267,128 278,064 County Median Household Income 2000 Census data $61,768 $55,256 $71,551 $81,050 $41,994 2007 ACS data $80,402 $68,370 $91,835 $105,241 $50,740 Median Home Value 2000 Census data $156,500 $143,700 $210,600 $222,400 $111,800 2007 ACS data $384,200 $354,600 $524,700 $568,900 $194,300 Education(Age 25+in 2000) High School Grad 86.4% 84.9% 90.3% 90.7% 80.4% College Grad 30.6% 27.2% 54.6% 54.8% 24.4% Graduate or 11.5% 10.2% 27.5% 24.4% $.9% Professional Degree Sources: American Community Survey 2007, Census Bureau Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties (CO-EST2008-01-24), and Census of Population and Housing 1980, 1990, 2000. The selection of these four counties allowed the comparison of municipalities that cover a relatively wide geographic area with a variety of housing stock and income levels. In terms of development, all four selected counties are relatively mature. The primary sources used in this analysis were as follows: a. Annual single-family building permits Permit data are the most geographically-detailed, time-specific measure of new construction. Permit data are collected by the U.S. Census Bureau Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 5 from more than 20,000 local government agencies.2 Although it is possible for a permit to be issued without construction actually occurring, about 98 percent of single-family permits result in new construction, usually within a month of authorization. b. Surveys of Housing and Households The U.S. Census Bureau collects information about the housing stock from residents (or, for vacant units, from other informed sources) in connection with the decennial census and ongoing surveys. For this study, data were analyzed from the 1990 and 2000 decennial Census of Population and Housing, the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS), and the 2007 American Housing Survey (AHS). This provided information about the number of existing homes in each jurisdiction, when they were built, and other structural characteristics (particularly the number of detached and attached single-family homes). The 2007 AHS also provided data on the number of homes with fire sprinklers. Such information was not available previously, and only limited information has been published. This report includes analysis of the AHS sprinkler data at the national level as well as for the counties in the study. c. Contemporaneous documents and news reports A search and analysis of local documents before and after residential sprinkler requirements were imposed was conducted. In particular, twenty years of monthly newsletters from the local home building trade association were obtained, digitized, and analyzed. This provided a detailed record of responses to sprinkler proposals and requirements, as well as information about the plethora of other regulations and influences on building activity. d. Interviews with builders, trade association staff, and local government officials Discussions with key individuals involved in the process provided numerous insights into the adoption and implementation of sprinkler 2 Information about the Census Bureau's Building Permit Survey and the relationship to construction activity is available at http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html and http://www.census.gov/const/www/permitsindex.html Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 6 requirements as well as the other factors and events that influenced construction. The fact that requirements are fairly recent, but no longer actively debated in the counties with requirements now in place contributed to the clarity and objectivity of the information provided by those interviewed. Although every effort was made to document evidence of adverse effects from sprinkler requirements, none of the statistical or interview information demonstrated that the requirements led to reduced housing supply. Any increase in the cost of construction would logically mean higher costs for households, unless the full effect was absorbed in land values, but if there was an increase because of sprinkler requirements it was completely obscured by the effects of other changes. IV. Overview of Enacted Sprinkler Requirements Sprinkler requirements were implemented in several stages in each of the two test counties. This probably helped to cushion the impact and prevent disruptions. In particular, requirements were imposed on townhouses before they were applied to detached single-family houses. While townhouses and detached single-family homes were approached as separate tiers with the sprinkler requirements, the approach to applying sprinklers in both kinds of structures is essentially the same. Prince George's County mandated sprinklers through legislation initially enacted in 1987. Under that legislation, model homes had to include sprinklers, beginning on February 1, 1988. Multifamily units were required to have sprinklers beginning June 30, 1988, and townhouses were covered as of January 1, 1989. Single-family detached homes were covered beginning January 1, 1992. Sprinkler requirements for townhouses in Montgomery County became effective in November 1986. Beginning in July 1990 the county required that sprinklers be an option in single-family detached construction. This "mandatory option" required that at least one model home in a subdivision be equipped with sprinklers and that customers be offered an option to have sprinklers installed. A tax credit for retrofits of sprinklers in existing homes in Montgomery County, worth up to half of the property tax in the year of installation, became effective July 1, Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 7 2000. The Montgomery County Council passed further legislation in October 2003, to be effective January 1, 2004, extending sprinkler requirements to all new single-family detached homes. Two municipalities in the county, Rockville and Gaithersburg, adopted sprinkler requirements for all single-family homes a year earlier. V. Impact Analysis Based On Housing Data Household survey information and data on permits for new construction were analyzed as to whether the introduction of sprinkler requirements was associated with changes in the volume, type or costs of construction. In every instance, after requirements became effective, there were no corresponding reductions in the number of single-family homes built in either Montgomery or Prince George's County, relative to their neighboring jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia. The single-family new construction permit data available from the U.S. Census does not distinguish between detached homes and attached single-family (townhouse) structures. The breakdown on the data that would allow separation of detached and attached is not readily available and would have to be collected from the individual jurisdictions. For example, in Montgomery County, the data would have to be obtained from Montgomery County as well as the cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg, The jurisdictions in the study did not have the data compiled and could not provide it in a timely manner; therefore, we relied on the combined data available from the U.S. Census. In the areas studied, townhouses represent a large share of the single-family housing stock. Figure 3 shows the attached share of the single-family housing stock in 2000 for the U.S., for the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and for the counties considered in this study and other neighboring counties. In 2000, for the nation as a whole, 8.4 percent of the single-family housing stock consisted of attached units. In Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, the attached shares were 25.9 percent and 23.0 percent, respectively. For Fairfax and Prince William Counties in Virginia, and for Howard County in Maryland, the attached shares were even higher, while in Frederick and Anne Arundel Counties in Maryland the attached shares were slightly lower. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 8 Figure 3: Attached Single-Family Housing Stock in 1990 and 2000 1990 2000 Single- Single- Single-Family Family Family (Attached & Single- Total (Attached & Total Family Attached as Detached) as Housing Detached) ° ° g of Total Housing Attached as Units* as%of Total �O of Single- Units* �° %of Single- Housing Family Housing Family Units Units Units Units United States 102,263,678 64.3% 8.2% 115,904,641 65.8% 8.4% District of 278,489 38.0% 67.5% 274,845 39.7% 66.7% Columbia Maryland 1,891,917 70.4% 29.8% 2,145,283 72.2% 29.1% Anne 157,194 80.9% 18.4% 186,937 81.3% 21.3% Arundel Co. Frederick 54,872 79.7% 18.3% 73,017 82.8% 21.5% Co. Howard Co. 72,583 72.3% 28.0% 92,818 74.7% 28.0% Montgomery 295,723 68.9% 24.8% 334,632 69.1% 25.9% Co. Prince George's 270, 090 61.4% 20.7% 302,378 65.2% 23.0% Co. Virginia 2,496,334 70.1% 12.5% 2,904,192 72.0% 13.4% Arlington 84,847 42.0% 24.2% 90,426 40.8% 25.0% Co. Fairfax Co. 307,966 73.9% 29.3% 359,411 73.3% 31.4% Prince 74,759 80.1% 30.4% 98,052 80.7% 33.2% William Co. *Total Housing Units includes single-family attached, single-family detached, multi-family housing, and manufactured housing. Source: U. S. Census 1990 and 2000 Figure 4 shows the annual single-family permit numbers (single family attached and detached) for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and for the neighboring counties of Anne Arundel and Fairfax that are the controls in this study. In 1987, the first full year in which Montgomery County required sprinklers in townhouses, the total number of permits issued for the construction of single-family units increased in Montgomery County, while there were declines in the number of permits issued in Fairfax, Prince William, and Anne Arundel Counties. In 1989, when sprinklers were first required in townhouses in Prince George's County, although the county saw a decline in the number of single-family permits Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 9 issued, the percentage decline was smaller than in Montgomery or any of the neighboring control counties, which had no new requirements that year. The decline in activity throughout the region reflected broader national factors, including increases in mortgage rates and the savings and loan crisis. There were also no relative declines in the issuance of single-family construction permits in either Prince George's County in 1992 when sprinkler requirements were imposed on detached homes, or in Montgomery County when detached homes were covered in 2004. In fact, in both instances, the issuance of single-family construction permits surged, in absolute terms and relative to neighboring counties. Although it is unlikely that the sprinkler ordinances actually stimulated construction activity, there is absolutely no indication from the permit data that the sprinkler requirements retarded single-family housing construction. Figure 4: Annual Single-Family Construction Permits Issued in Montgomery, Fairfax, Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties from 1980 to 2007 Montgomery County Fairfax County Prince George's Anne Arundel County County % Change % Change % Change % Number from Number from Number from Number Change Year of of of of from previous Permits previous Permits previous previous Permits Permits year year year p year 1980 3,892 6,393 1,693 2,293 1981 3,245 -16.62% 5,003 -21.74% 1,655 -2.24% 1,630 -28.9% 1982 5,146 58.58% 4,843 -3.20% 1,751 5.80% 1,928 18.3% 1983 8,321 61.70% 9,989 106.26% 3,030 73.04% 4,690 143.3% 1984 7,563 -9.11% 10,123 1.34% 3,184 5.08% 3,119 -33.5% 1985 9,007 19.09% 9,533 -5.83% 3,520 10.55% 3,472 11.3% 1986 6,507 -27.76% 9,137 -4.15% 4,838 37.44% 3,687 6.2% 1987 6,622 1.77% 8,557 -6.35% 4,318 -10.75% 3,160 -14.3% 1988 4,922 -25.67% 7,314 -14.53% 5,051 16.98% 3,032 -4.1% 1989 3,848 -21.82% 4,455 -39.09% 4,427 -12.35% 2,089 -31.1% 1990 2,494 -35.19% 2,746 -38.36% 4,273 -3.48% 2,160 3.4% Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 10 Montgomery County Fairfax County Prince George's Anne Arundel County County % Change % Change % Change from from from Number Number Number Number Change Year of of of of from previous previous previous Permits year Permits year Permits year Permits previous year 1991 2,081 -16.56% 3,430 24.91% 2,882 -32.55% 2,292 6.1% 1992 2,889 38.83% 4,791 39.68% 4,248 47.40% 3,435 49.9% 1993 2,707 -6.30% 6,047 26.22% 4,655 9.58% 3,309 -3.7% 1994 2,976 9.94% 5,688 -5.94% 3,800 -18.37% 2,913 -12.0% 1995 2,833 -4.81% 4,446 -21.84% 3,474 -8.58% 2,512 -13.8% 1996 2,616 -7.66% 4,436 -0.22% 3,072 -11.57% 2,429 -3.3% 1997 2,333 -10.82% 4,586 3.38% 2,775 -9.67% 2,093 -13.8% 1998 3,548 52.08% 4,436 -3.27% 3,622 30.52% 1,674 -20.0% 1999 3,467 -2.28% 4,220 -4.87% 1,959 -45.91% 2,727 62.9% 2000 2,931 -15.46% 3,818 -9.53% 3,179 62.28% 2,470 -9.4% 2001 3,191 8.87% 3,498 -8.38% 3,049 -4.09% 2,013 -18.5% 2002 2,909 -8.84% 2,982 -14.75% 2,485 -18.50% 2,026 0.6% 2003 2,339 -19.59% 3,138 5.23% 2,808 13.00% 2,164 6.8% 2004 2,376 1.58% 2,964 -5.54% 1,875 -33.23% 1,769 -18.3% 2005 1,700 -28.45% 2,276 -23.21% 3,255 73.60% 1,565 -11.5% 2006 1,237 -27.24% 1,423 -37.48% 2,918 -10.35% 1,108 -29.2% 2007 1,408 13.82% 11268 -10.89% 1,462 -49.90% 1,041 -6.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Figures 5 and 6 show permit activity in the counties paired for comparison. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 11 Figure 5: Comparison of Single-Family Construction Permits Issued in Montgomery and Fairfax Counties from 1980 to 2007 12,000 10,000 8,000 5,000 Montgomery County 4 000 Fairfax County 2,000 0 o N r w 0 N �t Lo W 0 N cr LD op o4 fb o0 07 Gn cSl Gl � � C7 C': O C7 Ol CSl fat CS1 6l f35 Cfl CS1 6l 6t C3 C7 C7 C7 N N r-I r-1 N N r-I r-1 r-1 v—I N N N N Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Figure 6: Comparison of Single-Family Construction Permits Issued in Anne Arundel & Prince George's Counties from 1980 to 2007 5,000 5,000 4,000 IVA\., Vf-\\ A f". 3,000 Anne Arundel County 2,000 Prince George's County 1,000 0 0 N ct L..4 00 C7 N �t LO 00 Q N .t 1S0 40 DU DO DU Ob (31 61 61 f31 (31 O O C7 p Cfl Gn Cfl Cfl Cfl f31 f31 61 61 C31 O d C7 d r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I N N N N Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 12 Figures 7 and 8 show tabulations of the number of homes by year built and the percentage of single family attached (townhomes) by year, prepared from the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) for the States of Maryland and Virginia and for the counties reviewed in this study. The ACS surveyed nearly 45,000 housing units in the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia Combined Statistical Area, with a sampling rate of 1.34 percent. The ACS data indicate that for single-family homes built in the 1980s, Montgomery County's attached share of single-family housing was very high, 48.1 percent. Unfortunately, the ACS questionnaire only asks whether the house was built for ranges of years, with 1980-1989 as the relevant category for that period, so no details are available for units built before and after November 1986, when the sprinkler requirements for townhouses went into effect in Montgomery County. The percentage of attached single-family units in Montgomery County was higher during the 1990-1999 and 2000-2004 periods, when most single-family detached homes were not subject to sprinkler requirements, than during the period beginning 2005 when both attached and detached homes were required to have sprinklers. That pattern is the opposite of what would be expected if the sprinkler requirements discouraged townhouse construction during the period when most single-family detached homes did not have a sprinkler requirement. In the 1990s, and again from 2000 to 2004, when Prince George's County was the only county with a requirement for sprinklers in all single-family detached homes, there was an increase in the County's share of single-family detached homes built in the region. The brackets of years used by the ACS do not easily delineate the three-year time period between 1989 and 1992 when sprinklers were required in townhouses but not detached homes. Because that coincided with a recession and a low rate of construction in all areas, the totals for the 1990s primarily reflect the period when sprinklers were required for all single-family homes (both attached and detached) built Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 13 in the county, but none of the other jurisdictions required sprinklers in detached homes (except some model homes). Figure 7: Total Single-Family Detached Housing Units by Year Built Total 2005 Detached 2000 to 1990 to 1980 to 1970 to 1960 to 1950 to 1940 to 1939 or Housing later 2004 1999 1989 1979 1969 1959 1949 earlier Units Maryland 1,197,504 34,826 99,443 164,222 171,009 166,586 167,367 170,117 80,006 143,928 Anne 126,129 3,324 7,863 18,771 21,440 18,757 19,301 19,927 8,273 8,473 Arundel Montgomery 184,409 2,916 10,445 19,711 30,135 23,997 31,699 33,803 14,954 16,749 Prince 164,521 4,846 12,890 16,907 21,555 21,629 37,341 25,449 13,446 10,458 George's Virginia 2,066,971 65,311 175,643 303,438 303,956 323,512 265,573 273,325 132,851 223,362 Arlington 30,923 183 644 749 1,600 1,053 2,634 7,880 8,445 7,735 Fairfax 203,632 3,739 11,619 23,073 44,668 38,313 35,507 35,776 6,707 4,230 Prince 85,537 7,869 15,862 12,050 14,778 17,496 9,655 5,624 1,668 535 William Source: 2007 American Community Survey Figure 8: Attached Percentage of Single-Family Housing Units by Year Total 2005 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 Attached 1939 or Housing or to to to to to to to earlier Units later 2004 1999 1989 1979 1969 1959 1949 Maryland 29.5% 25.9% 26.8% 32.2% 35.7% 25.3% 13.6% 27.4% 29.2% 40.9% Anne 23.1% 23.5% 39.9% 36.8% 25.7% 27.7% 7.5% 11.4% 10.4% 11.8% Arundel Montgomery 26.47% 30.1% 33.5% 35.8% 48.1% 38.7% 9.8% 5.5% 1.1% 0.7% Prince 22.6% 14.4% 20.9% 45.1% 40.1% 18.5% 7.8% 16.1% 9.0% 10.9% George's Virginia 13.7% 22.6% 19.5% 18.2% 21.8% 16.0% 6.2% 4.6% 6.3% 5.2% Arlington 25.3% 36.0% 18.3% 59.8% 62.8% 57.0% 18.2% 7.7% 27.5% 6.8% Fairfax 31.3% 38.7% 40.9% 45.3% 39.6% 38.2% 14.0% 6.8% 18.2% 9.9% Prince 31.9% 34.0% 29.2% 45.0% 42.3% 23.2% 18.6% 15.7% 10.5% 0.0% William Source: 2007 American Community Survey Unique information about the presence of sprinklers, as well as about attached and detached single-family housing is available from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing Survey (AHS), which collects detailed information about homes and their occupants. In addition to a national survey conducted every two years with a Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 14 sampling rate of about 1 in 2,000, the AHS conducts surveys of selected metropolitan areas on a rotating basis with higher sampling rates, as well as greater geographic detail. Fortunately, the AHS questionnaire was changed in 2007 to include a question about the presence of fire sprinklers, and both Washington and Baltimore were among the seven metropolitan areas surveyed that year. As in all surveys, there are some inaccuracies due to random sampling error, as well as misreporting and other non-sampling errors. Even with the higher sampling rate used in the metropolitan area surveys, only about 2,700 homes are included in each area, resulting in a sampling rate of about 0.13 percent for the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and about 0.25 percent for the Baltimore MSA. Because of this, it is hazardous to draw conclusions from sparsely-populated cell categories. With regard to the information on the year homes were built, moreover, the data generally reflects completion and occupation dates, rather than the date permitted or started, and may be incorrectly reported. Figure 9 shows data from the National AHS. Except for mobile homes, the incidence of sprinklers is clearly higher for newer homes than for older ones. Multifamily units are more likely to have sprinklers than townhouses or other attached single-family units, which in turn are more likely to have sprinklers installed than detached single-family homes. The overall share of housing units for which sprinklers were installed was 4.3 percent, with townhouses having 5.8 percent, but among single-family detached homes the share with sprinklers was only 1.5 percent. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 15 Figure 9: National Totals and Percentage with Sprinklers Installed by Type of Housing All Types Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multifamily Mobile Homes Year Built Units Sprinklers Units Sprinklers Units Sprinklers Units Sprinklers Units Sprinklers 2004-2007 6,565,446 13.5% 4,559,926 5.2% 652,625 19.2% 965,589 54.4% 387,306 0.0% 2000-2003 7,451,843 12.5% 4,815,523 3.5% 538,207 19.1% 1,318,459 49.2% 779,654 1.1% 1995-1999 8,784,020 8.7% 5,187,160 3.0% 489,732 11.0% 1,439,392 37.1% 1,667,735 1.2% 1990-1994 7,011,075 6.2% 4,378,513 1.9% 457,045 8.2% 1,093,528 28.4% 1,081,990 0.3% 1980-1989 16,269,327 5.2% 8,182,271 1.9% 1,355,164 3.8% 4,903,128 12.5% 1,828,764 1.3% 1970-1979 25,349,724 2.9% 13,509,634 0.9% 1,281,923 1.1% 8,442,834 7.2% 2,115,333 0.3% 1950-1969 28,244,469 1.5% 20,777,625 0.8% 784,084 1.6% 5,981,472 4.3% 701,288 0.5% 1949 or 28,336,156 1.6% 18,879,153 0.8% 1,568,590 1.0% 7,775,986 3.6% 112,428 0.0% earlier All Years 128,012,060 1 4.3% 1 80,289,805 1 1.5% 1 7,127,370 1 5.8% 1 31,920,388 1 11.8% 8,674,498 0.8% Source: 2007 American Housing Survey - Tabulated by Newport Partners from AHS microdata. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 16 When comparing the Washington MSA (shown in Figure 10) to national numbers for all years (Figure 9), it is clear that the Washington MSA has a higher incidence of sprinklers than the rest of the Nation, with 11.9 percent of all homes having sprinklers, including 13.7 percent of the townhouses and 5.1 percent of the detached single-family homes, as shown in Figure 10. The Baltimore MSA also had a higher overall incidence of sprinkler installation than the Nation, although the share among detached homes with sprinklers, at 1.7 percent, was only slightly above the national average of 1.5%. Figure 10: Percentage of Total Housing Units with Residential Sprinklers for Selected Areas as of 2007 Single-Family Single-Family All Structure Detached Attached Homes Types Homes 'Washington MSA 5.1% 13.7% 11.9% -Montgomery County, MD 5.4% 25.8% 15.7% -Prince George's County, MD 16.1% 38.4% 16.6% -Fairfax County, VA 1.3% 4.9% 7.8% Baltimore MSA 1.7% 12.6% 9.1% -Anne Arundel & (queen 2.1% 32.0% 11.2% Anne's Counties, MD Source: 2007 American Housing Survey National and Metropolitan Area Data Although the AHS data shown in Figure 11 indicates that some homes in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties were built without sprinklers after such requirements went into effect (probably because the year built was misreported), the effects of the requirements are obvious from the data. It is also noteworthy that the percentage of homes with sprinklers in the Washington, DC suburban counties is also above the national average before sprinklers were required. Perhaps that was due to retrofits encouraged by the requirements for sprinklers in new homes, or to the property tax credit offered by Montgomery County for retrofitting sprinklers beginning in 2000. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 17 Alternatively, the sprinklers could have been included when those houses were originally built, rather than added later. Figure 11: Percentage of Housing Units with Sprinklers by Year Constructed Single-Family Detached Homes Single-Family Attached Homes Before 1970- 1990- 2000- Total Before 1970- 1990- 2000- Total 1970 1989 1999 2007 1970 1989 1999 2007 National Averages 0.8% 1.3% 2.5% 4.5% 1.5% 1.2% 2.5% 9.6% 20.9% 5.8% Washington MSA 13%0 1.9% 10.1% 20.4% 5.1% 2.7% 5.7% 30.6% 35.9%u 13.7% -Montgomery 1,3°l0 2.0% 14.5% 44.4% 5.4% 10.8% 9.2% 63.0% 80.0% 25.8% County, MD -Prince George's 1 0% 9.4% 51.0% 100.0% 16.1% 12.9% 21.9% 75.4% 100.0% 38.4% County; MD -Fairfax County, 2.2% 0.0% o.o%p 5.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%m 6.6% 28.6% 4.9% VA Baltimore MSA 0.6% 0.6% 2.9% 11.3% 1.7% 0.0% 5.1% 52.3% 81.9% 12.6% -Anne Arundel & Queen Anne's 0.0% 1.0%° 7.C% 13.1% 2.1% 0.0%° 0.0% 66.2°x6 88.0% 32.0% Counties, MID Source: 2007 American Housing Survey National and Metropolitan Area Data The AHS data do not answer the question about whether sprinkler requirements affected the volume, price, or character of new construction, but they do show the greater role of townhouse construction in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties and in the surrounding area than is typical in other parts of the U.S., as well as providing unique information about the overall occurrence of sprinkler systems. VI. Construction Industry and Regulatory Analysis Interviews were conducted with builders and with the staff of the Maryland- National Capital Building Industry Association (MNCBIA) to determine whether the sprinkler requirements created any impacts that were not reflected in the data for construction permits and the other statistics discussed above. All of those interviewed indicated that there were not any significant effects on the volume, character or price of Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 18 new construction. They also suggested that any consequences of the sprinkler requirements were overwhelmed by other more significant regulatory and cost factors, which are discussed below. In Prince George's County, those additional factors included the introduction of public safety and school impact fees that currently amount to over $20,000 per house, and regulations requiring more expensive exterior materials, landscaping, and set- backs. In Montgomery County, the expansion of the Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit requirement, mandating that a share of the homes in each subdivision be sold at reduced prices to moderate-income households, was cited a major cost factor. In addition, impact fees in Montgomery County were increased from about $4,000 per unit to about $36,000 during this period. A list of the major changes is provided in the Appendix B. To further analyze the sprinkler regulation chronology and the other influences, the authors scanned and digitized the legislative and regulatory newsletters prepared by MNCBIA from 1989 to 2008. Reviews and searches of those documents showed the extent and diversity of changes in regulations and fees. It was notable, moreover, that most references to sprinklers in those newsletters concerned efforts by MNCBIA in cooperation with local officials to provide education and technical support during implementation of the requirements. This may have been a factor in the lack of disruption caused by the sprinkler requirements. The Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association (MNCBIA)is a regional organization of more than 700 member firms representing the interests of more than 18,000 individuals in the building and development industry operating in Calvert, Charles, Montgomery, Prince George's and St. Mary's counties in Maryland and in the city of Washington DC. VII. Conclusion The analysis of construction permit and survey data, interviews with builders, building industry trade groups, and local officials consistently indicated an absence of Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 19 adverse impacts on housing supply and costs from the implementation of residential sprinkler requirements. Indeed, the data generally suggest that there were increases in housing supply that coincided with the times that requirements became effective, although that probably reflects the broader finding from this analysis—that sprinkler requirements were insignificant alongside much stronger influences, including other regulations and fees, growth in jobs and population, and the cost and availability of land, financing, materials, and labor. Although the purpose of the study was to determine whether there were effects from sprinkler requirements rather than to determine the best way to implement requirements, the research suggested several factors that helped to smooth the process, and which other jurisdictions may want to consider. Despite resistance to sprinkler requirements from the home building industry, once the requirements were adopted by the local government, with a period of time before the requirements went into effect, the industry association and local officials worked together to provide information and education to the builders and subcontractors. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 20 Appendix A - Communities Considered for the Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler City State La Habra Heights CA Ketchikan AK Lakeside CA Chandler AZ Larkspar CA Fountain Hills AZ Livermore CA Peoria AZ Loma Linda CA Scottsdale AZ Mill Valley CA Tucson AZ Millbrae CA Alhambra CA Milpitas CA Anaheim CA Montclair CA Aptos CA Montebello CA Arcadia CA Monterey CA Auburn CA Napa CA Bakersfield CA Newark CA Beverly Hills CA Norco CA Brownsville CA Novato CA Burbank CA Oxnard CA Cambria CA Pacific Grove CA Carmel CA Palm Springs CA Carpinteria CA Petaluma CA Castroville CA Phelan CA Cloverdale CA Pismo Beach CA Corte Medera CA Rancho Cucamonga CA Culver City CA Rancho Santa Fe CA Daly City CA Redlands CA El Cerrito CA Redondo Beach CA El Monte CA Rialto CA Foster City CA Richmond CA Fresno CA Riverside CA Gilroy CA Salinas CA Glendale CA San Bernardino CA Hayward CA San Gabriel CA Healdsburg CA San Luis Obispo CA Hemet CA San Rafael CA Kentfield CA Santa Cruz CA Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 21 Santa Monica CA Des Plaines IL Santee CA Flossmoor IL Saratoga CA Glen Ellyn IL Sausalito CA Glenwood IL Sonoma CA Hoffman Estates IL Spring Valley CA Huntley IL Sunnyvale CA Justice IL Tahoe City CA LaGrange Park IL Tiburon CA Libertyville IL Union City CA Lincolnwood IL Vacaville CA Long Grove IL Vallejo CA Matteson IL Ventura CA Mount Prospect IL West Covina CA Mundelein IL Woodacre CA Oak Forest IL Woodland CA Oakbrook Terrace IL Woodside CA Palos Hills IL Aspen CO Park Ridge IL Brighton CO River Forest IL Carbondale CO Round Lake IL Fruita CO Skokie IL Boca Raton FL St. Charles IL Casselberry FL Streamwood IL Flagler Beach FL Vernon Hills IL Jacksonville Beach FL Villa Park IL Longboat Key FL West Dundee IL Marianna FL Wheeling IL Orlando FL Leawood KS Oviedo FL Aberdeen MD Palm Beach FL Emmitsburg MD Tampa FL Frederick MD Honolulu Hl Gaithersburg MD Iowa City, IA Havre de Grace MD Ketchum ID Laurel MD Barrington IL Mt. Airy MD Bedford Park IL Pikesville MD Berkeley IL Rockville MD Bridgeview IL Salisbury MD Clarendon Hills IL Upper Marlboro MD Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 22 Westminster MD Warrington PA Berwick ME Wrightstown PA Orono ME York PA Plymouth MN Mt Pleasant Sc Barnhart MO Ashland City TN Camdenton MO Cheatham County TN Raymore MO Collierville TN Sunrise Beach MO Nolensville TN Billings MT Pleasant View TN Wrightsville Beach NC Addison TX Brookline NH Carrollton TX Laconia NH Coppell TX Lebanon NH Houston TX Newark NY Houston TX Poughkeepsie NY Park City UT White Plains NY Provo UT Florence OR Prince George VA Broomall PA Montpelier VT Buckingham PA Auburn WA Canonsburg PA Dupont WA Carrol Valley PA Issaquah WA Conshohocken PA Olympia WA Exton PA Port Angeles WA Jamison PA Redmond WA Phoenixville PA Seattle WA Pottstown, PA Woodinville WA Upper Valley Township PA Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 23 Appendix B - Major Ordinances Impacting Housing Construction in Comparison Counties 1989 — May 2009 This list was developed by reviewing Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association's monthly Regulatory Report. Special thanks goes to the MNCBIA staff for providing access to hard copies of reports not yet available online. STATE OF MARYLAND ISSUES 1991: Forestation regulations enacted have had a big impact and in 1993 the Maryland Builders Association was trying to repeal these legislations. No quantifiable data was given on the impact, but it was a major issue. 1997: The state passed a series of smart growth bills, including the Rural Legacy Program in an effort to preserve 15,000 acres. Other bills created priority spending areas and density requirements. May 2001: Governor Glendening announced he will invoke a 1974 state law to intercede in local planning issues to stop or reduce sprawl. He subsequently used this effort to stall big developments across the state. MONTGOMERY ISSUES November 1997: Passed Bill 34-97 "pay and go" and reduced fee payment to 10% at time of subdivision approval and 90% at building permit to limit the upfront or carrying costs a builder has. Other pro-building changes were included in this bill. Law sunsets in four years. Note: Amended to exclude residential units early 1998 on the belief it caused to much growth. Note: Set fees for residential impact fees to come into effect early February 1998 (see table below). Moratoria Impact Fee Single Family $4,500 Detached Single Family Attached $3,500 Multifamily $2,500 Non Moratoria (Avoids local area review) Single Family $3,000 Detached Single Family Attached $2,250 Multifamily $1,500 Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 24 April 1999: Increased impact fees in Germantown and Eastern Montgomery Early 2000: MOU applicants are now required to post a bond and fee for improvements that were once granted by WSSC at no charged. September 2000: A one-time property tax credit against general county tax for installing fire sprinklers in any detached single-family dwelling unit and any attached dwelling unit, or multi-family building that didn't require them by law. 2001: The state created the Office of Smart Growth to promote and coordinate smart growth developments over sprawl. 2001: Clarksburg in Montgomery County changed impact fee to $2,752 for single family, $1,981 multi- family and $573 for multi-family senior housing. Bill No 4-01. January 2002: Gaithersburg voted for moratorium on building for a year while city develops a comprehensive master plan. A few big subdivision projects were caught in the moratorium. March 2002: Passed Bill 47-01 for a new impact tax of$2,100 for single-family, $1,100 for multi-family, and $325 senior multi-family, incentives granted for affordable developments. Tax was phased in over 18 months. October 2002: Effective September 24, all new homes, issued a building permit on or after September 24, in Rockville will need fire sprinklers. February 2003: Montgomery County's permitting offices have seen increases in permitting and building activity leading to an increase in processing time. February 2003: Gaithersburg requires sprinklers in new single-family homes. Proximity of homes to other homes was a leading concern for the ordinance. October 2003: Montgomery County passes an ordinance requiring all new residential construction to have sprinkler systems, starting Jan 1, 2004. November 2003: Effective March 01, 2004, the highest impact in the state will go in effect in Montgomery, MD. The tax has a minimum of$13,500 for single-family detached in most areas and in Clarksburg a minimum of$16,250 was set. Also included was a square footage excise tax of a $1 per square foot for homes over 4,500 square feet. The capacity of the home's school system could also add additional fees, up to$12,500 if the school district is over 105% capacity. March 2004: A Transportation Impact Tax for single-family detached is set at$5,500 in county and $8,250 in Clarksburg. Along with a School Facility Tax for single-family detached is set at$8,000 and multi-family is set at$1,600. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 25 July 2004: Since 2003, TRDS have increased from $9,000 to $35,000 in the County. This is believed to be due to the inability to meet demand for TDRs in Clarksburg. County might release some of the 1,800+ TDRs they have. September 2005: Town of Chevy Chase enacted a 6-month moratorium August 10, with some exceptions for additions and remodels but none for new homes. October 2005: A long discussion over building heights has been going on. 197 building permits applications were put on hold during this many-month debate. Issues include terrace and porch heights among other things. Note: November 2005 reports and additional 150 permits are in limbo as well, because of this purported incorrect interpretation of height restrictions. February 2006: Review times and the issuance of building permits have slowed to a trickle with some permit applications in process for more than 90 days. General short-staffing have lead to backlogs for developments since mid-2005. March 2006: Increased building inspection fees by 25%to $1,100 minimum, effective March 1. Additional reviews and the still-to-be-approved final Use & Occupancy permit requirement can tack on an additional $1,000. March 2006: P&P will go to a 100% fee-driven funding strategy. In April P&P projected a 700% increase in fees, so they went back to drawing board. Effective April 27— New fees are set, department used to receive$1.39 million in fees now set to get over$4 million in fees. August 2006: Set December 1, 2006 as the effective date for subdivisions in metro station zones over 40 units to set aside 10% of the dwellings for 80-120% area median income, workforce housing units. November 2006: Approved 2003 edition of the NFPA and Life Safety Code 101, with a carbon monoxide detector amendment. December 2006: New well and septic requirements are enacted to meet adequate water supply for fire demands, based on NFPA 1 2003 (18.3.1 and 18.3.2). December 2007: New school capacity thresholds set for January 2008. The increase was around 70% to 125% depending on location and building type. Additionally, the large home excise tax was increased from a $1 square foot to $2 per square foot over for homes over 4,500 square feet. PRINCE GEORGE ISSUES Jan 1, 1992: All new single family residential construction must be sprinkled. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 26 July 1995: School Facilities Surcharge set at$1,500 for new SFD and $800 on townhomes, and $400 multifamily units, effect July 1, 1996. Mid 1997: Increased school surcharge from $1,500 to $2,500 for single-family, $800 to $1,200 for townhomes, and $400 to $700 for multifamily. No grandfather clause on increase. 1997: Passed CB-3 which limited building in areas where school system is over capacity. Note: This issue was raised for many years with the over capacity percentage fluctuating from 95% to 115% of capacity. June 1999: Passed CB-15 which had many components; including adjusting the school capacity formula resulting in 33 schools becoming over-crowded (used to be 12)and reducing time limits for construction to begin on grandfathered developments. July 2000: Increased school fee from $2,500 to $5,000. Fall 2001: Passed CB-40-2001, which limits building in schools overcapacity, mostly impacts large develops. July 2003: Increased school impact fee from $5,000 to $12,000 (or$7,000) depending on location of development. December 2004: CB-89 adjusted APF requirements, leading to a fear that the amount of area available for development will be reduced. February 2005: CB-89 stops 16 construction projects, for failing to pass response times for police and rescue. July 2005: Added a $2,000 public safety surcharge to homes in Developed Tier and $6,000 to homes in the Developing and Rural Tiers for building permits on or after July 1, 2005. July 2005: Adjusted the CB-89 fire/EMS/police time requirements to open up development. July 2005—CR-45-2005 increased the school tax to $7,412 if in developed Tier and $12,706 if outside developed tier in county. August 2005: No new building permits may be issued in Clarksburg Town Center development unit all a review of site plans is done. December 2005: Set mitigating fees for developments outside the response times, in response to CB-89. Fees are $3,780 if dwelling is outside police response time and $1,320 if outside fire response time. If both dwelling fails the response time tests for both police and fire the fee is$5,100. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 27 July 2006: Set the School Facilities Surcharge at$13,151 for buildings in Developing and Rural Tiers and $7,671 for Developed Tier. The Public Safety Surcharge is $6,210 in the Developing and Rural Tiers and $2,070 in the Developed Tier. August 2007: Increased the School Facilities Surcharge to $13,493 in the Developing and Rural Tiers and $7,870 for Developed Tier. The Public Safety Surcharge increased to $6,371 in the Developing and Rural Tiers and $2,124 in the Developed Tier. October 2008: Base fees for four plan applications (pre-application, preliminary plan, project plan, site plan)were increased by$1,000 and record plat fees increased from $1,835 to $2,200. WASHINGTON, DC June 2005: Single-family dwelling require fire sprinklers, code was based on Montgomery County's ordinance. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level 28 Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Final Report Prepared by: Newport Partners ©September 2008 Fire Protection Research Foundation THE FIRE PROTECTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION J ■ �7 �71�7 ==W . W �T�.7 THE FIRE PROTECTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION ONE BATTERYMARCH PARK QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A. 02169 E-MAIL: FoundationLaNFPA.org WEB: www.nfpa.org/Foundation FOREWORD Residential fire sprinkler ordinances have been adopted by several hundred U.S. communities for use in single-family dwellings. Such systems have been shown to provide significant life safety benefits, however the installed cost of these systems remains as a point of uncertainty and a potential barrier to broader adoption. Informal estimates of typical installation costs can vary widely, and influence decision makers' views on the viability of sprinkler systems in new homes. In order to provide information on this topic, and to understand the factors that may influence the costs and hence impede the widespread use of residential fire sprinklers, the Foundation undertook this study to provide a national perspective on the cost of home fire sprinklers by developing data on installation costs and cost savings for ten communities distributed throughout the United States. The study also explores the range of insurance premium discounts which are available to home owners with sprinkler systems in their houses. The Research Foundation expresses gratitude to the National Fire Protection Association for its sponsorship of the project, and to the project technical panelists listed on the following page. The content, opinions and conclusions contained in this report are solely those of the authors. Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Research Project Technical Panel David Butry, National Institute of Standards & Technology Mike Chapman, Chapman Homes Keith Covington, Third Coast Design Studio, LLC Paul Emrath, National Association of Home Builders Jeff Feid, State Farm Insurance Tony Fleming, Metropolitan Fire Protection J. Dennis Gentzel, Office of the State Fire Marshal (MD) Michael Kebles, Las Vegas Valley Water District Ron Murray, UA Local 290, Portland, OR Peg Paul, Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition James Tidwell, International Code Council Paul Valentine, Mt. Prospect (IL) Fire Department Keith Zaccard, Hanover Park (IL) Fire Department Gary Keith, NFPA liaison Principal Sponsor National Fire Protection Association �. +oy + 4V • �I F IL W � at v , 4 ` Ar l THE FIRE PROTECTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION Research in support of the NFPR mission r Prepared Newport Partners Davidsonville, MD Fire Protection Research Foundation Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Final Report September 10, 2008 i Acknowledgements This research project was performed for the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) under the direction of Kathleen Almand, by Newport Partners LLC of Davidsonville, MD. While these two groups oversaw and conducted the research, respectively, many of the project's findings were made possible only through the cooperation of homebuilders, sprinkler contractors, local fire bureaus, and city officials. The design of this work called for a great deal of information gathering on the state of fire sprinklers in residential construction, and these groups helped to provide that information in the form of extensive documentation and responding to many requests for additional data. The authors of this report wish to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of dozens of individuals for their assistance. This project was also guided by the FPRF's technical review panel, which provided valuable direction and feedback throughout the course of the project. The project authors wish to recognize this group and thank them for their participation and input: David Butry, National Institute of Standards and Technology Mike Chapman, Chapman Homes Keith Covington, Third Coast Design Studio Paul Emrath, National Association of Home Builders Jeff Feid, State Farm Insurance Tony Fleming, Metropolitan Fire Protection Dennis Gentzel, Maryland State Fire Marshal's Office Michael Kebles, Las Vegas Valley Water District Ron Murray, UA Local 290 James Tidwell, International Code Council Paul Valentine, Mt. Prospect Fire Department Kenneth Zaccard, Hanover Park Fire Dept, Representing IAFC Liaison Peg Paul, Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition Gary Keith, National Fire Protection Association ii Executive Summary Residential fire sprinkler ordinances have been adopted by several hundred United States communities for use in single-family dwellings. Such systems have been shown to provide significant life safety benefits, however the installed cost of these systems remains as a point of uncertainty and a potential barrier to broader adoption. Informal estimates of typical installation costs can vary widely and influence decision makers' views on the viability of sprinkler systems in new homes. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to provide a national perspective on the cost of home fire sprinklers by developing data on installation costs and cost savings for ten communities distributed throughout the United States. The study also explores the range of insurance premium discounts which are available to homeowners with sprinkler systems in their houses. To obtain information on the cost of installing residential sprinkler systems, ten case study communities were selected: nine in the United States, and one in Canada. The ten communities offer diversity in terms of sprinkler ordinance status, geographic location, housing style, and sprinkler system variables such as the type of piping material and the water supply source (municipal or on-site). For each of these communities, three building plans were collected from builders and sprinkler installers, along with sprinkler system cost data and other related cost and system information. The term "sprinklered square feet" (sprinklered SF) reflects the total area of sprinklered spaces, including basements, garages, and attics when applicable. This term is used to better characterize the cost of sprinklers per unit of space which is covered by the system, especially since many of the homes have sprinklers in spaces beyond the normal living space, such as a garage. In terms of absolute costs, the total sprinkler system costs to the homebuilder ranged from $2,386 to $16,061 for the 30 houses. The cost of sprinkler systems to the homebuilder, in dollars per sprinklered SF, ranged from $0.38 to $3.66. This range represents the 30 different house plans, with the average cost being $1.61 per sprinklered SF. The low end of this range iii ($0.38/sprinklered SF) represents a California house in a community with a long- standing ordinance, sprinklers in the attic and the garage (in addition to the living space), and some potential pricing benefits from a volume relationship with the sprinkler contractor. The high end of this cost range ($3.66/sprinklered SF) represents a Colorado house on well water and a system constructed with copper piping which utilized anti-freeze for freeze protection during the winter. These costs include all costs to the builder associated with the sprinkler system including design, installation, and other costs such as permits, additional equipment, and increased tap and water meter fees — to the extent that they apply. When accounting for any available credits given for the use of residential sprinklers (as was the case in Wilsonville, OR), the total sprinkler system costs to the builder averaged $1.49 per sprinklered SF. Variables associated with higher cost systems included extensive use of copper piping (instead of CPVC or PEX), an on-site water supply (instead of municipal water), local requirements to sprinkler additional areas like garages or attics, and higher local sprinkler permit fees. The cost data also support the concept that communities with sprinkler ordinances in effect for more than five years tend to experience market acceptance and increased competition leading to lower system costs. Credits or "trade-offs," which could include incentives like greater fire hydrant spacing in a community with sprinklers, were also investigated in each of the ten communities. While trade-offs may be used in communities as part of the zoning approval process for specific developments, just one of the ten communities had a credit or trade-off that applied to the houses which were analyzed. Wilsonville, OR, offers a credit of $1 .21 per square foot of living space in an effort to partially offset the costs of sprinklers. As complementary data to the cost analysis, a survey of available insurance premium discounts for homeowners with sprinkler systems was conducted. For each of the ten communities where sprinkler cost data was analyzed, the average insurance premium discount (as a percentage) was obtained from five insurers with significant market share iv in the state. Discount savings percentages ranged from 0 to 10% among all companies and agencies surveyed, with an average premium discount of 7%. Related issues such as limits on the overall discount allowed for protective devices, sprinkler system requirements, and any potential insurance penalties for sprinklers were also explored. There were no instances discovered of insurance penalties or extra fees associated with the use of residential sprinkler systems due to concerns such as system leakage. Insurance quotes for a theoretical prototype house were also obtained for the nine United States communities and one Canadian community. Quotes were obtained with and without a sprinkler system in an effort to estimate the discount that may result from having a sprinkler system. Annual discount savings averaged $22, or 3.42% of the annual premium. The difference in this discount compared to the average percentage discount found in the survey is likely due to the disconnect between generally quoted ranges and the real discounts allowed on real policies. As sprinkler systems become more common in given areas and this discount becomes a more common topic in the consumer-insurance agent dialogue, it is anticipated that actual discounts would more closely track with general ranges. v Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 II. Cost Analysis of Residential Sprinkler Systems ......................................................... 2 A. Criteria for Community Selection ........................................................................... 2 B. Community Overview............................................................................................. 3 C. Selection of House Plans and Obtaining Cost Data................................................ 4 D. Sprinkler System Costs.......................................................................................... 5 E. Sprinkler System Variables................................................................................... 9 F. Individual Community Analysis............................................................................. 13 G. Credits and Trade-Offs ........................................................................................ 26 III. Insurance Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems.......................................... 28 A. Methodology for Estimating Insurance Premium Reductions................................ 28 B. Insurance Premium Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems ........................ 29 C. Related Issues Affecting the Magnitude and Availability of Discounts ................. 34 D. Home Insurance Quotes for a Sample Home........................................................ 34 Appendix A- Sprinkler System Costs by Community................................................... 36 vi I. Introduction In 1975 the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) introduced Standard 13D: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes.' Since that time there have been approximately ten updates to the standard to reflect practical experience and to accommodate such things as nonmetallic piping and multipurpose systems. NFPA Standard 13D and related standard NFPA 13R2 have evolved and been balanced to optimize system costs and fire safety for specific types of residential occupancy buildings. Although residential sprinklers have been adopted by many communities, only 2% of all existing one- and two-family homes included a sprinkler system as of 2003.3 Although the life safety benefit of home fire sprinklers is well validated, installed cost remains a major barrier to their acceptance by homebuilders and local regulators. In 1986, the City of Scottsdale commissioned an independent study of the cost to install an NFPA 13D compliant system in an average single-family residence in that city. The study reviewed installation and related costs associated with sprinklers, as well as where sprinklers would result in cost savings. In September 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a cost benefit analysis that concluded the multipurpose residential sprinkler systems are economical across three housing types: townhouse, colonial style two-story, and a ranch design. Multipurpose systems (a system integrated with the home plumbing system) are allowed in some locations but were not used as the basis of the Scottsdale study, as it was completed prior to the updates in the 13D standard which permitted multipurpose systems. Since 1986, the number of communities in the United States with sprinkler ordinances has increased, resulting in increased efficiencies in design, manufacturing and installation, as well as greater regulatory, insurance and builder acceptance. Further, the more widespread installation of these "Mobile Homes"was replaced with "Manufactured Homes" in the 1994 edition. 2 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height, NFPA 13R. 3 www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nrfsi-03report.pdf September 10, 2008 1 systems provides the opportunity to take a broader look at the costs and cost savings associated with home fire sprinklers in today's housing industry. A broader range of cost data will be of value to local communities considering sprinkler ordinances, homebuilders and homeowners considering the installation of sprinklers, and other industry stakeholders. The purpose of this study is to provide a national perspective on the cost of home fire sprinklers by developing data on installation costs and cost savings for ten communities, distributed throughout the United States. II. Cost Analysis of Residential Sprinkler Systems A. Criteria for Community Selection To obtain information on the cost of installing residential sprinkler systems, ten case study communities were selected. The selection of the communities was based on the status of a local sprinkler ordinance, geography, availability of data, and other factors. In an effort to obtain a cross- section of jurisdictions with varied experiences, the communities selected include five that have had an ordinance in effect for more than five years, two that have had an ordinance in effect for five years or less, two that have never had an ordinance, and one that had an ordinance which has subsequently been repealed. The basis for these criteria was to capture potential cost differences that exist between regions with high rates of sprinkler regulation and those with lower rates of regulation (and presumably lower frequency of installations). The broad geographic spread of the case study communities, as seen in the following section, provides variation which reflects different local circumstances. Such differences may include the type of installer, materials used, and specific system requirements — which all contribute to the cost of the system. The geographic spread also allowed for a variety of housing types to be analyzed. For example, while basement foundations are typical in the Northeast, slab foundations are more typical in places like California. September 10, 2008 2 While the status of the local sprinkler ordinance and the geographic location of communities were the primary selection criteria, several other factors were evaluated with the intent of gaining a diverse set of data. For instance, communities which allow the use of multipurpose systems were sought to be included in the sample. And in fact, two communities that commonly install multipurpose systems were included in the cost analysis. Likewise, the selected communities cover a range of sprinkler piping materials, with CPVC (most common), copper, and PEX. An effort was also made to select communities which would provide a mix of housing types in terms of the number of stories and foundation system. These housing features can significantly impact the extent and cost of a sprinkler system. The selection process also took into consideration the typical sprinkler installer in a community (sprinkler contractor or plumber), in an effort to include communities with both models. As a result of the varied technical requirements between sprinkler systems installed in areas with and without a municipal water supply, building plans connected to non-municipal (on-site) water supplies were also captured in the selection. The study includes two communities where the building plans analyzed were on well water systems, allowing the characterization of the associated costs. B. Community Overview The ten communities selected for the cost analysis are shown below: Pitt MEadaows,BC Plumley,LL wokonv il1e, --— OR Matheson,IL 'North Andaver,MA FMt e r - GarFoIlGounty,MD Princ* eage"s Son y ' County,MD {.lease nte,CA_ Pleasa nt View,TN September 10, 2008 3 The selection of communities satisfies the various criteria and overall provides a diverse mix of sprinkler systems in terms of type of system, house, piping material, installer, water supply, etc. A Canadian community with a well established ordinance was also included to add more diversity to the community mix. C. Selection of House Plans and Obtaining Cost Data Within each case study community, the selection of house plans for obtaining cost data was typically based on builder or sprinkler contractor recommendations from local fire departments or local homebuilder associations. Nearly all builder and contractor participants were generally quite willing to share house plans and cost data documentation on sprinkler systems, as well as responding to a wide range of related questions. All of the house plans and associated cost data obtained for this study were for homes that have been built since 2005, allowing for the analysis of recent cost figures. Three house plans were requested from each builder in an effort to obtain a broader sample. Actual house plans were obtained from the builder or sprinkler contractor with sprinkler system information, installation costs to the builder, and any additional costs to the builder not included in the installation cost. In cases where the builder could not provide additional cost information, local government offices were consulted on items such as permit fees or increased tap fee charges. Overall, the thirty house plans reflect a cross-section of housing types nationwide, including one- and two-story homes; basement, slab, and crawl space foundations; and custom, semi-custom, and production homes. House sizes, measured in terms of "sprinklered square feet", averaged 4,118 sprinklered SF, ranging from 1,913 to 6,542 sprinklered SF. Throughout this report, the term "sprinklered SF" is frequently used, and reflects the total area of sprinklered spaces, including basements, garages, and attics when applicable. This term is used to better characterize the cost of sprinklers per unit of space, especially since many of the homes have sprinklers in spaces beyond the normal living space, such as a garage. For the sake of comparison, the thirty houses averaged 3,660 square feet living space, ranging from 1,723 to 6,360 sf. For the houses with basement September 10, 2008 4 foundations, the area of the basement (unfinished or finished) was included in calculating the house's living space square footage. House Size for 30-Home Sample (Square feet) Sprinklered Living Area* Area** Mean 4,118 3,660 Median 4,124 3,441 Minimum 1,913 1,723 Maximum 6,542 6,360 * Sprinklered SF includes all spaces with sprinkler coverage **Living area SF includes all livings spaces including basements (unfinished or finished) D. Sprinkler System Costs The cost of sprinkler systems to the homebuilder, in dollars per sprinklered SF, ranged from $0.38 to $3.66. This range represents the thirty different house plans, with the average cost being $1.61 per sprinklered SF. This figure includes all costs associated with the sprinkler system including design, installation, and other costs such as permits, additional equipment, increased tap and water meter fees — to the extent they apply. When accounting for any additional costs and any available credits (Wilsonville, OR), the total sprinkler system costs to the builder averaged $1.49 per sprinklered SF. Sprinkler system costs to the homebuilder are shown in the graph and table below, with more detailed cost data included in Appendix A. September 10, 2008 5 Sprinlder Sy+st+?m Costs to the Ht}mebriilder($/Spr-iiil<ler-ed SF) $4.00 Ordinance>5 Years Ordinances Ho Ordinance Ordinance 5 Years Repealed $3.50 I $3.00 Dotted line denoteslocal r I credit $2.50 $2.00 T I $1.50 , o $1.00 i $0.50 $0.00 CIO 1G 44 O �,P O t t \- ea Sprinkler System Costs to the Homebuilder Cost Cost Cost With Available Cost with Available ($/sprinklered SF) ($/living space SF) Credits Credits ($/sprinklered SF) ($/living space SF) Mean $1.61 $1.72 $1.49 $1.60 Median $1.42 $1.49 $1.23 $1.38 Minimum $0.38 $0.74 $0.38 $0.74 Maximum $3.66 $3.66 $3.66 $3.66 The data above reflects the sprinkler system bid price plus all associated costs for the system which were not included in the bid (e.g. permit fee, increase in water service line, increase in tap fee). In several of the case study communities, these additional costs were already included in the contractor's bid price (like a permit fee) or these cost impacts did not apply (like an increased tap fee). One case study community, Wilsonville, OR, offers a $1.21 per square foot credit in an effort to partially offset the costs of sprinklers. When accounting for this credit across the entire 30-home sample, the total sprinkler system costs to the builder averaged $1.49 per sprinklered SF. September 10, 2008 6 In addition to the cost of sprinklers per unit of space, the total cost per house is also an important metric. The following graph relates the total cost of the sprinkler system to the builder for all thirty house plans, with price-influencing variables noted for each community. September 10, 2008 7 Total Installation Cost $13,000 0 rdinance}5Years Ordinance- No0rdinance Orclinance 5 Years i Repealed $16,000 i r i � r i r r i $14,000 $12,000 r r � r i r r i i r i $10,000 r r i i r i $8,000 r — r r i r i $6,000 r � � r i � $4,000 - i r i i r r $2,000 M M r r r i r i r i i r r $0 r 00 l' ' c .14k ' a J, Ca i Well water community "High"Permitllnspection Fees Sprinklers in Garage andlorAttic opperSystem September 10, 2008 8 It should be noted that the variables identified in the graph above, such as the use of copper piping, were identified as significant factors in the overall price of the sprinkler system through discussions with the builder or contractor, and more detailed cost data in some cases. However, given the small size of the data set and other limitations, this research did not attempt to specifically quantify the pricing influence of variables like copper piping or well water systems for use on a broader basis. Several system variables, including those identified on the graph, are discussed and summarized below. Many of these factors are discussed further in the Individual Community Analysis section of this report. E. Sprinkler System Variables Sprinkler System Requirements and Extent of Coverage Sprinkler systems provisions which go beyond NFPA 13D minimum requirements are sometimes found in local ordinances. Such modifications may require additional types of spaces to be sprinklered, such as garages. In the ten communities analyzed, local modifications include requiring all bathrooms (regardless of size) to have fire sprinklers (Matteson, IL); requiring fire sprinklers in garages (Huntley, IL, North Andover, MA, Pleasant View, TN, and San Clemente, CA); and requiring fire sprinklers in attics (San Clemente, CA). Since adding sprinkler coverage to spaces like garages necessitates additional piping, sprinkler heads, and in some cases systems which can be used in areas reaching freezing temperatures, this factor is significant to note when assessing system costs. Type of Pipe Used Systems in the study used a mix of metallic (copper) and nonmetallic (CPVC or PEX) pipe. In communities using solely nonmetallic pipe, installation costs averaged $1.18 per sprinklered square foot. Several communities used CPVC piping in unexposed areas and copper in exposed areas like unfinished basements. In such cases, installation costs averaged $1.56 per sprinklered square foot. The houses analyzed in Fort Collins, CO, used exclusively copper piping, with an average installation cost of $3.19 per sprinklered square foot. This suggests that the type of piping used in systems can substantially impact the overall job cost. September 10, 2008 9 Sprinkler System Costs by Type of Pipe CPVC CPVC/ Copper CPVC CPVC/ Copper Copper Copper $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.18 $1.56 $3.19 $1.30 $1.65 $3.19 Median $1.10 $1.56 $3.37 $1.24 $1.56 $3.37 Minimum $0.38 $0.95 $2.53 $0.74 $0.95 $2.53 Maximum $2.40 $2.21 $3.66 $2.40 $2.49 $3.66 Water Source While most of the houses assessed rely on municipal water sources, two of the communities (Carroll County, MD, and Fort Collins, CO) included homes reliant on well water. Sprinkler systems of this type require a booster pump, which according to estimates from sprinkler contractors, can add roughly $2,000 to $3,600 to the overall system cost. Installation costs in dollars per sprinklered square foot for these two communities ranged from $2.09 to $3.66. This results in an average of $2.73 per sprinklered square foot, compared to the $1.18 average for houses in those communities with a municipal water supply. Consequently, it is evident that a home's water supply source can be a significant factor in increasing price. Sprinkler System Costs by Water Source Municipal Non- Municipal Non- Municipal Municipal $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.18 $2.73 $1.31 $2.73 Median $1.10 $2.47 $1.24 $2.47 Minimum $0.38 $2.09 $0.74 $2.09 Maximum $2.21 $3.66 $2.49 $3.66 Permit and Inspection Fees Communities often have a combined permit and inspection fee for the installation of sprinkler systems. While two of the case study communities do not have any fee for sprinkler permit and September 10, 2008 10 inspection (Pleasant View, TN, and San Clemente, CA), the other eight communities do have such fees. In these communities, those permit and inspection fees which were identified ranged from $50 to just under $800, although in some of the case studies the permit fees were layered into the overall system bid and were not identifiable as single line item costs. While some of the ten communities have a flat fee, others calculate permit and inspection fees based on the size of the house or valuation of the construction. In determining which communities should be classified as having "high" permit and inspection fees, a threshold amount of $350 was set as a "high" based on the limited data available on the range of fees. System Design Type Multipurpose systems combine plumbing and sprinklers into one system and piping network, resulting in continuous flow of water circulating in the system. Conversely, a standalone sprinkler system uses dedicated sprinkler piping supply, with water flowing only when a sprinkler is activated. In analyzing the system type used, data was obtained for multipurpose systems (six homes) and standalone sprinkler systems (twenty-four homes). In communities where multipurpose systems are used, installation costs in dollars per sprinklered square foot averaged $1.04. In communities where standalone systems were used, installation costs averaged $1 .61 per sprinklered SF. Sprinkler System Costs by Design Type Multipurpose Standalone Multipurpose Standalone 6 Homes) (24 Homes) (6 Homes) (24 Homes $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.04 $1.61 $1.04 $1.73 Median $1.02 $1.39 $1.02 $1.49 Minimum $0.81 $0.38 $0.81 $0.74 Maximum $1.32 $3.66 $1.32 $3.66 Type of Foundation House foundation types in the study varied depending on geographic location. While basement foundations were the prevalent foundation type in the eastern communities, slab or crawl space September 10, 2008 11 foundations were more common in the western communities of the study. The following table depicts house foundation types by region, based on U.S. Census Bureau data: 2007 Foundation Type Market Shares Nationwide (U.S.) Northeast Midwest South West Full/Partial Basement 27.7% 73.6% 73.7% 10.6% 18.6% Crawl Space 18.4% 10.5% 6.2% 19.2% 27.3% Slab 52.7% 14.0% 19.7% 68.7% 53.5% Other 0.6% 0.7% 0.1% 0.9% 0.4% Not Reported 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% For houses in the study with basement foundations, sprinkler system costs averaged $1.81 per sprinklered square foot. System costs for houses with slab foundations averaged $0.81 per sprinklered square foot, while houses with crawl spaces had an average cost of $0.92 per sprinklered square foot. Sprinkler System Costs by Foundation Type Basement Slab Crawl Space Basement Slab Crawl Space 20 homes 6 homes 4 homes 20 homes 6 homes 4 homes $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.81 $0.81 $0.92 $1.90 $0.99 $1.00 Median $1.68 $0.78 $0.88 $1.68 $0.97 $0.88 Minimum $0.95 $0.38 $0.81 $0.95 $0.74 $0.81 Maximum $3.66 $1.12 $1.10 $3.66 $1.32 $1.44 It should be noted that these costs, when presented in terms of dollars per sprinklered square foot, reflect the cost impacts of the foundation system but simultaneously incorporate the impacts of installing sprinklers in garages and attics in some cases. In other words, the limited data set and number of variables involved with each particular data point do not allow a more thorough analysis of this issue within this research. September 10, 2008 12 F. Individual Community Analysis The following table summarizes the communities, research houses, and sprinkler systems analyzed within each of the ten communities, followed by more detailed summaries of each jurisdiction. Note that for information such as pipe type, system type, and several other categories, the data in the table refers specifically to the 30 homes analyzed in the study, not community requirements. Community Sprinkler Year of Local System Pipe Type Sprinkler Water Foundation Ordinance Ordinance Modifications Type Head Type Supply Type Information Adopted to 13D Fort Collins, 13D>5 1986 None standalone Copper concealed; Well Basement CO years semi- water recessed in exposed areas Pitt 13D >5 1998 None multipurpose CPVC semi- Municipal Slab Meadows, years recessed BC Pleasant 13D>5 2002 Sprinklers or a standalone CPVC concealed Municipal 2 Basement View,TN years 1-hour rated 1 Crawl assembly Space required in garage Prince 13D >5 1992 None standalone CPVC; concealed; Municipal Basement George's years copper in semi- County, MD basements recessed in exposed areas San 13D>5 1980 Sprinklers standalone CPVC concealed Municipal Slab Clemente, years required in CA garages and attics Carroll 13D <5 2006 None standalone CPVC concealed; Well Basement County, MD years semi- water recessed in exposed areas Matteson, IL 13D<5 2004 All bathrooms standalone CPVC; concealed; Municipal Basement years must have copper in semi- sprinklers, basements recessed in regardless of exposed size areas North no ordinance N/A Sprinklers in standalone CPVC concealed Municipal Basement Andover, MA garages Wilsonville, no ordinance N/A None multipurpose PEX semi- Municipal Crawl OR recessed Space Huntley, IL 13D 2005 2 Sprinkler standalone CPVC; concealed; Municipal Basement repealed heads copper in semi- required in basements recessed in garages exposed areas September 10, 2008 13 Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins, Colorado has mandated NFPA 13D since 1986. The community is served by the Poudre Fire Authority. Residential sprinkler systems are typically installed by sprinkler contractors, but the installation I ' I I may also be done by a plumber. Both standalone and multipurpose systems have been installed in homes in Fort Collins, and pipe type is typically plastic (CPVC or PEX), but may also be metallic (copper). The housing styles in Fort Collins range from manufactured housing to custom homes larger than 5,000 square feet, typically with basement foundations. In the case study of Fort Collins, three house floor plans were obtained from a local sprinkler contractor. All three homes were built on a basement foundation, thus requiring sprinkler heads in the basement in addition to the main living areas per NFPA 13D. Including the basement area, the three homes had living space ranging from 2,797 to 6,360 square feet. In sprinklered square footage, the three homes ranged from 2,797 to 6,360 square feet (sprinklered area = living space area). The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $10,250 to $16,061 . The cost of the systems ranged from $2.53 to $3.66 per sprinklered SF. Fort Collins — Sprinkler System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $14,745 4,373 $3.37 4,373 $3.37 House 2 $16,061 6,360 $2.53 6,360 $2.53 House 3 $10,250 2,797 $3.66 2,797 $3.66 In each home, the sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using copper piping.4 Concealed sprinkler heads were used in the main living area, while semi-recessed sprinkler heads 4 The sprinkler contractor has traditionally used only copper for sprinkler systems, believing it to be superior to plastic both in performance and longevity. The contractor is considering switching to plastic on their larger projects to remain competitive in the local market. September 10, 2008 14 were used in areas where piping is exposed. Design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee were included in the sprinkler contractor's installation price. It is important to note, however, that the permit fee varies depending on the valuation of the individual home. Thus, permit fees for the three case study homes ranged from $510.46 to $799.83. The contractor's installation price also included an anti-freeze system, a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. Because all three homes rely on well water, a booster pump and tank was required for the sprinkler system, which was also included in the contractor's installation price. A supplemental bid for the sprinkler system installations in Fort Collins may help to characterize the relatively high system costs which were obtained for the homes. A second residential sprinkler contractor in the Fort Collins area quoted the system installations on the same three homes with a range of $8,000 to $12,500. This difference from the actual contractor bid range ($10,250 to $16,061) may be heavily influenced by the type of pipe used for the systems. PEX was used in the supplemental system bid design, while copper was used in the actual plans. PEX pipe is flexible tubing that is significantly less expensive than copper. Pitt Meadows, British Columbia Pitt Meadows, British Columbia has mandated NFPA 13D since 1998. The community is served by the Pitt Meadows Fire Department. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. Residential sprinkler systems are typically installed by sprinkler contractors. Both standalone and multipurpose systems have been installed in homes in Pitt Meadows, and pipe is typically CPVC. Typical housing type in Pitt Meadows is two-story, 2,500 square feet in living space, with a crawl space or slab foundation. In the case study of Pitt Meadows, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. All three homes were built on a slab foundation. The three homes had living space (and sprinkler square footage space) ranging from 2,109 to 2,342 square feet. The cost of the systems to the September 10, 2008 15 builder ranged from $2,560 to $3,090.5 When considered in terms of dollars per unit of space, the cost of the systems ranged from $1.15 to $1.32 per sprinklered SF (U.S. dollars). Pitt Meadows — System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $3,090 2,342 $1.32 2,342 $1.32 House 2 $2,690 2,336 $1.15 2,336 $1.15 House 3 $2,560 2,109 $1.21 2,109 $1.21 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping and standard white semi- recessed sprinkler heads were used. Design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee were included in the sprinkler contractor's installation price. It is important to note, however, that the permit fee is calculated as 0.95% of the sprinkler system construction value. Thus, permit fees for the three case study homes ranged from $24.32 to $29.35. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. Pleasant View, Tennessee Pleasant View, Tennessee has mandated NFPA 13D since 2002. The community is served by the Pleasant View Volunteer Fire Department. In addition to the requirements of NFPA 13D, Pleasant View requires sprinkler coverage in the garage of homes. Standalone systems are the more common system used in Pleasant View, with CPVC pipe typically used. Typical housing type in Pleasant View ranges from 1,200 to 4,000 square feet of living space, both one- and two-story homes, with differing foundation types. 5 The original prices were in Canadian dollars (CAN). Amounts were converted to USD (U.S. dollars) based on currency exchange rates of$1.00 CAN to $1.0099 USD as of March 2008 (when the costs were incurred). September 10, 2008 16 In the case study of Pleasant View, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. Two of the homes were built with a basement foundation; the other home had a crawl space. The three homes had living space ranging from 1,723 to 3,326 square feet. In addition to sprinkler coverage in the living space, sprinklers were also installed in the garages. Thus, total sprinklered space in the three homes ranged from 2,612 to 3,826 sprinklered SF. The total cost of the sprinkler systems to the builder ranged from $2,489 to $4,208. When considered in terms of dollars per unit space, the cost of the system for each of the three homes was $1 .10 per sprinklered SF. Pleasant View— System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $2,872 2,612 $1.10 2,112 $1.36 House 2 $2,489 2,273 $1.10 1,723 $1.44 House 3 $4,208 3,826 $1.10 3,326 $1.27 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping and concealed sprinkler heads. The design fee for the sprinkler system was included in the sprinkler contractor's installation price. Pleasant View does not charge an inspection fee or permit fee for residential sprinkler systems. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increased water service line size is needed in Pleasant View to allow for the potential increase in water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increase from 3/4" to 1" does not result in an increase in price for the sprinkler system installation, as all building lots now come with this increased line size. Increases in water meter size or water tap fee were not required or incurred. September 10, 2008 17 Prince George's County, Maryland Prince George's County, Maryland phased in the requirement of NFPA 13D beginning in 1987, when county council approved the mandate of residential sprinklers. On January 1, 1992, the final stage of the law went into effect stating that from that point on all residential structures, including single-family homes, must be fully protected by a NFPA Approved 13-D residential sprinkler.6 The county is served by the Prince George's County Fire Department. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. Residential sprinkler systems are typically installed by sprinkler contractors. Standalone systems are the common system used in Prince George's County, and pipe type is typically CPVC. Typical housing type in Prince George's County is two-story, roughly 3,000 square feet in living space, with a basement foundation. In the case study of Prince George's County, three house floor plans were obtained from a regional production builder. All three homes were built on basement foundations. Including the basement area, the three homes had living space ranging from 3,903 to 6,170 square feet. The amount of sprinklered square footage ranged from 3,903 to 6,170 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $4,100 to $5,886. When considered as dollars per square foot of sprinkler coverage, the cost of the system ranged from $0.95 to $1.05 per square foot. 6 Ronald Jon Siarnicki, "Residential Sprinklers: One Community's Experience Twelve Years after Mandatory Implementation," January 2001. September 10, 2008 18 Prince George's County— System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $4,100 3,903 $1.05 3,903 $1.05 House 2 $4,332 4,345 $1.00 4,345 $1.00 House 3 $5,886 6,170 $0.95 6,170 $0.95 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping, using both concealed and standard white semi-recessed sprinkler heads. Design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee were included in the sprinkler contractor's installation price. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. San Clemente, California { _ San Clemente, California has mandated NFPA 13D since 1980. The community is served by the Orange County Fire Authority. In addition to the requirements for residential sprinkler systems stated by NFPA 13D, the community also requires sprinkler coverage in the garage and attic space of homes. Standalone systems are the common system used in San Clemente, with CPVC pipe typically used. y_ Typical housing type in San Clemente ranges from 2,500 to 5,000 square feet with slab foundations. In the case study of San Clemente, three house floor plans were obtained from a production builder. All of the homes were built on slab foundations with living space ranging from 3,214 to 3,482 square feet. With garage and attic space considered, sprinklered space ranged from 6,329 to 6,542 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $2,386 to $2,655. When considered in terms of dollars per square foot of sprinkler coverage, the cost of the systems ranged from $0.38 to $0.41 per square foot. These low costs for the sprinkler system are likely the result of volume pricing September 10, 2008 19 (the builder indicated that the contractor does a large volume of work with them) and the competitive market as a result of the length of the ordinance's existence. San Clemente – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $2,565 6,542 $0.39 3,482 $0.74 House 2 $2,386 6,329 $0.38 3,214 $0.74 House 3 $2,655 6,448 $0.41 3,358 $0.79 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping and concealed sprinkler heads. The design fee and inspection fee for the sprinkler system was included in the sprinkler contractor's installation price. San Clemente does not charge a permit fee for residential sprinkler systems—the city promotes the use of residential sprinkler systems by eliminating such a fee. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. There is no need for an increased water service line size, water meter size, or tap fee as a result of the sprinkler system installation. Carroll County, Maryland Carroll County, Maryland has mandated NFPA 13D since 2006. The county is - , served by local paid and volunteer fire departments. There are no specific - - requirements for residential sprinkler systems above and beyond those of NFPA 13D. Standalone systems are the common system used in Carroll County, although multipurpose systems may also be used. CPVC pipe is typically used in finished areas of homes, with copper used in unfinished areas. Typical housing in Carroll County is about 1,800 square feet for one-story ranches, and 3,500 square feet for two-story homes, with basement foundations. September 10, 2008 20 In the case study of Carroll County, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including basement) ranging from 3,131 to 4,686 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $7,499 to $9,800. When considered in terms of dollars per square foot of sprinkler coverage, the cost of the systems ranged from $2.09 to $2.40 per sprinklered square foot. Carroll County— System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $7,499 3,131 $2.40 3,131 $2.40 House 2 $9,800 4,686 $2.09 4,686 $2.09 House 3 $8,750 3,772 $2.32 3,772 $2.32 Because all three homes rely on well water, a booster pump and tank was required for the sprinkler system, which was included in the contractor's installation price. The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas. The design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee for the systems were included in the sprinkler contractor's installation price. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. Matteson, Illinois Matteson, Illinois has mandated NFPA 13D since 2004. The community is served by the rf 0 Matteson Fire Department. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. Standalone systems are the more common system { } used in Matteson, with CPVC pipe typically used. Typical housing type in Matteson is about 3,000 square feet, both one- and two-story homes, usually with basement foundations. September 10, 2008 21 In the case study of Matteson, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including the basement area) and sprinklered space ranging from 4,562 to 5,478 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $7,407 to $8,329, or $1.52 to $1.80 per sprinklered square foot. Matteson — System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $8,198 4,562 $1.80 4,562 $1.80 House 2 $7,407 4,740 $1.56 4,740 $1.56 House 3 $8,329 5,478 $1.52 5,478 $1.52 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas. The design fee for the sprinkler system was $50, and the inspection fee and permit fee were a combined $150. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service line size is needed in Matteson to accommodate the potential increase in water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increased service line cost the builder an additional $700. Increase costs for a larger water meter or water tap fee were not incurred. North Andover, Massachusetts North Andover, Massachusetts does not require residential sprinklers by law, but instead has implemented NFPA 13D through local zoning. Sprinklers are a part of the zoning approval process, as discussed in a later section of the report. The community is served by the North Andover Fire Department. In addition to the requirements for residential September 10, 2008 22 sprinkler systems stated by NFPA 13D, the North Andover Fire Department requires sprinkler coverage in the garage. Standalone systems are the common system used in North Andover, with CPVC pipe typically used. Typical housing type in North Andover is about 2,000 to 3,500 square feet, both one- and two-story homes, usually with basement foundations. In the case study of North Andover, three house floor plans were obtained from a local developer in the community. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including the basement area) ranging from 3,084 to 5,422 square feet. With garage square footage considered, the three homes ranged from 3,568 to 5,906 sprinklered square feet. The cost of the sprinkler systems to the builder ranged from $4,500 to $6,500, or $1.10 to $1.26 per sprinklered square foot. North Andover— System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $4,500 3,568 $1.26 3,084 $1.46 House 2 $5,800 4,632 $1.25 4,148 $1.40 House 3 $6,500 5,906 $1.10 5,422 $1.20 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas of the home. The design fee and inspection fee were included in the cost to the builder, while the permit fee was a separate cost at $50 per home. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service line size was needed to accommodate the potential increased water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increase cost the builder an additional $450. An increase in tap fee at a cost of $500 was also incurred. There was no additional cost incurred related to the water meter size. September 10, 2008 23 Wilsonville, Oregon Wilsonville, Oregon does not require residential sprinklers by law, but has required NFPA 13D in the planned community of Villebois. The community is served by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. There are no specific requirements - __ for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. System installations are typically done by a plumber; thus a multipurpose system is the most common system used in the area. Typical housing type in Wilsonville is between 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, often with a crawl space foundation. In the case study of Wilsonville, three house floor plans were obtained from a developer in the region. All three homes were on a crawl space, with living space (and sprinklered square footage) ranging from 1,913 to 2,917 square feet. The total cost of the systems to the builder (before any credit is applied) ranged from $4,014 to $5,892, or $2.02 to $2.10 per sprinklered square foot The City of Wilsonville offers a $1.21 per square foot of living space credit to the builder to offset the costs associated with sprinklers. This is a one-time credit, offered at the time of system installation. The credit cannot be any greater than the water meter system development charge for a 3/4" meter, which is currently $4,436 — regardless of the size of the home. In rare situations, a large home requiring a 1" water meter may receive a greater credit, but only if proof is shown that this increased water meter size is directly a result of water flow requirements for the sprinkler system. When accounting for the impact of this credit, the sprinkler system costs for the three Wilsonville homes range from $0.81 to $0.89 per sprinklered square foot, as shown in the table below. September 10, 2008 24 Wilsonville– System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size Credit($/SF) $/SF Size Credit($/SF) $/SF House 1 $4,178 2,005 $1.21 $0.87 2,005 $1.21 $0.87 House 2 $4,014 1,913 $1.21 $0.89 1,913 $1.21 $0.89 House 3 $5,892 2,917 $1.21 $0.81 2,917 $1.21 $0.81 The plumber installed a multipurpose system using PEX piping and standard white semi-recessed sprinkler heads. The design fee was included in the cost to the builder, while the inspection and permit fee was a separate cost to the builder, at $360 per home. The system did not feature a flow switch and alarm, but a required backflow preventer was included in the installation cost. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service meter size from 5/8" to 3/4" was needed to accommodate the increased water flow associated with the sprinkler system. Huntley, Illinois Huntley, Illinois mandated NFPA 13D in 2005, and the mandate was repealed by the Village of Huntley in 2007. Residential sprinkler systems are currently a "mandatory option" in the Village of Huntley—builders must offer homeowners the option to install a residential sprinkler system. While 13D is not required in the village itself, sprinkler systems are still required in the county portion of the fire district. When NFPA 13D was required, sprinkler coverage was also required in the garages of homes. System installations are typically done by a sprinkler contractor, using CPVC pipe. Typical housing in Huntley ranges from 2,000 to 4,500 square feet, usually with basement foundations. September 10, 2008 25 In the case study of Huntley, three house floor plans were obtained from a local sprinkler contractor. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including the basement area) ranging from 3,400 to 4,560 square feet. With garage areas considered, the three homes ranged from 3,835 to 5,045 sprinklered square feet. The cost of the sprinkler systems to the builder ranged from $8,476 to $10,406, or $1.93 to $2.21 per sprinklered square foot. Huntley— System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $8,476 3,835 $2.21 3,400 $2.49 House 2 $8,851 4,575 $1.93 4,030 $2.20 House 3 $10,406 5,045 $2.06 4,560 $2.28 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC pipe in all areas except the basement, where copper was used. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas. The design fee for the system was included in the sprinkler contractor's installation price, while the inspection fee and permit fee were a combined $300, an additional cost outside of the sprinkler contractor's installation price. The contractor's installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service line size from 1" to 1 '/2" was required to accommodate the increased water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increase in water line size cost the builder an additional $821 . G. Credits and Trade-Offs Trade-offs is a general term for allowances that can be made in the building construction or the development planning when sprinkler systems will be used in the houses. At the house level, a trade- September 10, 2008 26 off could be a waiver of using fire-rated drywall in attached garages when the garage will be sprinklered. At the development level, trade-offs can include greater spacing of fire hydrants, narrower road widths, reduced water main sizes, relaxed requirements for the number of neighborhood exits, and others. Potential trade-offs at the development level and the house level were investigated for all ten communities. Possible trade-offs were particularly - L scrutinized in North Andover, Massachusetts and Wilsonville, Oregon. AV Neither community has a mandated residential sprinkler ordinance, so incentives of some type could be reasonable tools to encourage the use of sprinklers. Arial View of North Andover Subdivision Illustrating Cluster Zoning North Andover has experienced tremendous growth in the past thirty-five years and has implemented cluster zoning as a way to preserve open space in the community. In subdivisions such as Hickory Hills, several additional building lots have been made available through cluster zoning, while still allowing for a large amount of open space in the development. Cluster zoning involves smaller lots and tighter setbacks, with larger parcels of dedicated open space nearby. The former North Andover Fire Chief viewed cluster zoning as a potentially greater fire risk (as homes are built closer together), resulting in a requirement for residential sprinklers for such developments as an additional safety measure. Additionally, because North Andover lacks the manpower for a new fire station, residential sprinkler systems can buy the fire department time in the event of an emergency. As a result, the town planning board created cluster-zoned subdivisions in North Andover as specially permitted lots, where developers and builders are required to install residential sprinkler systems in homes. Although the planning board does sometimes offer a decrease in the width of streets, increased spacing between fire hydrants, and the elimination of a turnaround for cluster developments, none of these trade-offs were offered in Hickory Hills. Wilsonville, OR provides a per-house credit intended to help cover the cost to install a residential sprinkler system. The credit is limited to the current water meter system development charge. Thus, the one-time credit changes as the system development charge changes. Beyond this credit offered September 10, 2008 27 by the City of Wilsonville, there were no documented development-level or house-level trade-offs in the ten communities. For communities where garages are sprinklered, there were no trade-offs identified related to drywall specifications. For each of the four communities in the study with sprinklered garages, the additional coverage is treated as an added safety measure, to be implemented in addition to the traditional fire- rated drywall required by building codes. In many cases, local jurisdictions will require sprinkler coverage in the garage when there are bedrooms and/or other living areas above the garage. Although evidence of trade-offs was not found in the case study communities, there is a general knowledge in the industry that trade-offs may be implemented on more of a case-by-case basis integrated with the zoning approval process for developments, rather than as a standard community policy. Negotiations are often made between a developer and the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). Such agreements may be made in order for a developer to avoid penalty for not installing sprinklers. III. Insurance Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems A. Methodology for Estimating Insurance Premium Reductions A 2007 study conducted by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) economics department showed that insurers do offer meaningful discounts for residential sprinkler systems, but that the discounts varied from state to state. For this study, an insurance survey was created to examine insurance companies and local agencies in the nine states where case study communities were located. This survey was both quantitative and qualitative, gathering not only average insurance premium discounts, but also information on insurance company categorization and/or requirements for discounts, and the familiarity of consumers with such discounts. This information is intended to help round out the case studies and provide meaningful data on actual insurance incentives and policies. September 10, 2008 28 For each community, the average insurance premium discount (as a percentage) was obtained from five insurance companies. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) 2007 Market Share Reports for Property/Casualty Insurance Groups and Companies were used to identify the top five insurance companies in each state. In cases where insurance discounts could not be obtained from a top-five company, discounts were obtained from subsequent companies from the NAIC report list. In cases where information could not be obtained directly from an insurance company, local insurance agencies were contacted. B. Insurance Premium Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems Discount savings percentages are derived from the whole annual homeowner's insurance premium (rather than just a portion of the premium). Discount savings percentages ranged from 0 to 10% among all companies and agencies surveyed, with an average discount savings percentage premium of 7%. In California, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Allstate, State Farm, Farmers, Auto Club Enterprises, and Nationwide. Discounts ranged from 0 to 10%. In Colorado, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from State Farm, Farmers, American Family, Allstate, and Travelers. Discounts ranged from 3 to 10%. In Illinois, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Allstate, State Farm, Country Financial, Farmers, and American Family. Discounts ranged from 5 to 10%. In Maryland, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Allstate, State Farm, Travelers, Nationwide, and Erie. Discounts ranged from 4 to 10%. In Massachusetts, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Commerce, Andover, Chubb & Son, Travelers, and Liberty Mutual. Discounts ranged from 5 to 10%. September 10, 2008 29 In Oregon, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, Country Financial, and American Family. Discounts ranged from 5 to 10%. In Tennessee, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from State Farm, Tennessee Farmers, Allstate, Travelers, and Nationwide. Discounts ranged from 0 to 10%. In British Columbia, annual homeowner's insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Aviva, Canadian Northern Shield, Economical Insurance, Dominion of Canada, and Gore Mutual. Discounts ranged from 0 to 12%. These findings are summarized in the table below. September 10, 2008 30 S VI c- Ins;:ranoe Company Marke-. Share in Percentage Uim*unt for S t-i t e.P rc v i-ce Residerdial Sprinklers . --% AI state I- .2 State Farrr 1^.5' 10% Travelers 1M NaboryvjJ--- Ere e--c-=_S=e State 25.54% 10% Tenne-ssee F2kTnc-r-- I S.Y-M AI state 1-1.43% Travelem 5.589 Nationvide 5249 D:.- Illi-JS S-.ate--amr- 32.[05% 1 M� ,4l state 1529 10% Country -is.,rance B.D9% 5'4. s:: Farmers 6.502% American Farni I y 5M% Massa�rusv'.M Commerce 1{1_f1 5:.. Ancaver Companies B.45% 5:,-': Chutrb SL-qcn Ino. 7.98% 1 D:: Travelers 7.fZ% U,ert e Muvia TIM S".ate=arrr 2322% Farmers 15.46% 51Y. Ameican--:arrily 1242% ir AI state 1025% 5::: Travelers 3:9o% :3a `Dmia Slate F arm 2.1023% 112:: Farmers 17.03% 1 Y: Al slate 13.339 Auto Club Fnwpdres 4.339 D:: Nationwide 3.589 fr.4 Oregon State Farm 2520% 10% Farmers I-P.D9% 514 Ala-late I D.06% 1(M A m Ed can Farni I y 4.17% 1 Ir.4 Cowt !s xarre 4-07% Y!'. Columbia Awhia 8-059 Canadian Nor',hL-n-Shied 10239 1 Eocnornca Insura7cc- B.10% Dcrninion DfGanaca 3-119 I Gore Mdual 1 1-96% 1 September 10, 2008 31 Categorization of Sprinkler Systems Many insurance companies classify the discount offered for residential sprinkler systems by the extent of sprinkler coverage in the home. While these exact categories and their specific requirements differ between companies, most insurers typically classify system types into "partial" or "full" systems. A partial system generally means sprinkler coverage in the main living area only. In a few instances, partial may be defined as sprinkler coverage in the utility room only. A full system often means sprinkler coverage in all areas of the home, including the basement or crawl space, all bathrooms, closets, and hallways. In some instances, a full system classification may also require sprinkler coverage in garages. Furthermore, several companies required the sprinkler system to be monitored with an alarm. For the purposes of this insurance survey, the discount percentage offered by an insurer that most closely aligned with the fire sprinkler ordinance requirements for the particular case study community being assessed was used. Most insurance companies consider a residential sprinkler system to be a protective device. Other protective devices warranting homeowner's insurance discounts include a monitored fire alarm connected to the sprinkler system (which may range from a 3 to 5% discount based on limited feedback from insurance agents), smoke detector, fire extinguisher, security system, deadbolt locks, and home location in a gated community. The majority of insurance companies place a cap on the maximum discount percentage offered for all protective devices. This cap ranged from 10 to 20% in the survey, with an average protective device discount cap of 14%. Penalties/Fees as a result of System Leakage The presence of a residential sprinkler system can raise concern about the risk of accidental water leakage from the system. According to the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) standard "Homeowners 3—Special Form" policy provides for coverage due to damages from residential fire sprinkler system leakage provided that reasonable care has been taken to maintain heat in the building to prevent freezing of the residential fire sprinkler system. Essentially residential fire sprinkler piping is treated the same as regular household plumbing as far as coverage and pricing for ISO's September 10, 2008 32 standard Homeowners program. Thus, there is no extra charge for the coverage of the peril of fire sprinkler leakage.' This issue was probed in the insurance survey to see if the homeowner's insurance policy typically covers sprinkler system leakage. Insurers interviewed in the study echoed the preceding ISO recommendations. Insurance companies routinely treat sprinkler system piping the same as a plumbing system. Sprinkler system leakage is reported as a loss. Accidental sprinkler system leakage is most likely covered under the homeowner's insurance policy, whereas sprinkler system leakage as a result of a maintenance issue may not be covered by the policy. Claims adjusters determine whether or not sprinkler system leakage is covered under the homeowner's policy, often on a case by case basis. Document Requirements for Discounts For those insurance companies offering premium discounts for residential sprinkler systems, many require proof of the system's installation or existence. Methods of providing proof to insurance company underwriters vary among companies. However, the most common include an interior inspection of the home, a copy of the installation certificate and/or receipt, submitting pictures of the actual system, and providing the name of the sprinkler contractor. In some instances, one or more of these may be required by an insurer. In other cases, an insurer may not require any proof at all—the homeowner would simply be required to notify the insurer of the system installation upon application. It is important to note that misrepresentation in the application could put the homeowner in breach and possibly void parts or all of the policy. Homeowner Awareness of Discounts Homeowners are often informed of possible insurance savings for sprinklers by their insurance agent. An insurance agent typically gathers fact-finding information about the homeowner and the property in an initial or renewal appointment with the homeowner purchasing insurance. It is common for an insurance agent to ask the homeowner at this time if the property being insured has certain protective devices, including a residential sprinkler system. Fire Sprinkler System Leakage in ISO Homeowners Policy, Insurance Services Office, 2008. September 10, 2008 33 C. Related Issues Affecting the Magnitude and Availability of Discounts The level of insurance discount knowledge varied greatly, which was particularly evident in comparing a region where residential sprinkler systems are very common to a region where residential sprinkler systems are not common. This often resulted in varying levels of an agent's familiarity with residential sprinkler systems and the insurance premium discount offered by their insurance company. Insurance agents with modest familiarity with residential sprinkler systems typically referred to the insurance company manual to obtain insurance premium discount information. In obtaining information on possible penalties as a result of sprinkler system leakage, many agents were unsure of or unfamiliar with such penalties. Agents explained that insurance company underwriters deal with the claims process that would result if a sprinkler system were to accidentally leak. D. Home Insurance Quotes for a Sample Home As a separate part of the insurance study to complement the information obtained from the insurance survey, insurance policy quotes were obtained for the nine United States communities and one Canadian community using a theoretical prototype house. For the United States communities, the prototype house was a two-story 2,500 square foot colonial with an unfinished basement and one-car attached garage. Quotes were obtained with and without a sprinkler system in an effort to estimate the discount that may result from having a sprinkler system. Discount savings in dollars ranged from $5 in Huntley, IL to $53 in North Andover, MA, with an average savings of $22. As a percentage from the quoted price without a sprinkler system, savings ranged from 1 .14% to 6.68%, with an average of 3.42%. For the Canadian community, the prototype house was a two-story 2,300 square foot home with crawl space, located in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. Similar to the United States communities, quotes were obtained with and without a sprinkler system. Discount savings in dollars was $55, and the percentage discount from the quoted price without a sprinkler system was 4.83%. September 10, 2008 34 Premium Actual Quoted Premium with Discount Residence Residence without Sprinklers Discount Savings Community Value Value Sprinklers (all areas) Savings($) PG County (Bowie), MD $244,836 $245,000 $970 $919 $51 5.26% Pleasant View, TN $223,612 $224,000 $600 $588 $12 2.00% Matteson, IL $294,414 $294,000 $455 $443 $12 2.64% Huntley, IL $282,051 $282,000 $438 $433 $5 1.14% San Clemente, CA $316,172 $316,000 $674 $661 $13 1.93% Fort Collins, CO $228,639 $229,000 $411 $404 $7 1.70% Carroll Count Finksbur , MD $243,361 $243,000 $519 $485 $34 6.55% Wilsonville, OR $274,138 $274,000 $342 $332 $10 2.92% North Andover, MA $285,162 $285,000 $794 $741 $53 6.68% Pitt Meadows, BC -- 1 $305,000 $1,139 $1,084 $55 4.83% As noted in the above table, the average discount in all the communities when using a prototype home to get actual bids was less than the percentage range found in the insurance survey. This shows that there is variance in the discount percentage offered which can be best attributed to competitive market pricing. September 10, 2008 35 Appendix A - Sprinkler System Costs by Community Community and House Plan Area of Living TOTAL Local Net Cost(contractor+additional+ Net Cost(contractor+ Sprinklered Space COST Sprinkler credits) in $/SF of Sprinklered SF additional +credit) in $/SF Spaces(SF) (SF) Credit of Living Space Fort Collins,CO-House 1 4,373 4,373 $14,745 0 $3.37 $3.37 Fort Collins,CO-House 2 6,360 6,360 $16,060 0 $2.53 $2.53 Fort Collins,CO-House 3 2,797 2,797 $10,250 0 $3.66 $3.66 Pitt Meadows,BC-House 1 2,342 2,342 $3,090 0 $1.32 $1.32 Pitt Meadows,BC-House 2 2,336 2,336 $2,690 0 $1.15 $1.15 Pitt Meadows,BC-House 3 2,109 2,109 $2,5600 0 $1.21 $1.21 Pleasant View,TN-House 1 2,612 2,112 $2,872 0 $1.10 $1.36 Pleasant View,TN-House 2 2,273 1,723 $2,489 0 $1.10 $1.44 Pleasant View,TN-House 3 3,826 3,326 $4,208 0 $1.10 $1.27 Prince George's County,MD- 3,903 3,903 $4,100 0 $1.05 $1.05 House 1 Prince George's County,MD- 4,345 4,345 $4,332 0 $1.00 $1.00 House 2 Prince George's County,MD- 6,170 6,170 $5,886 0 $0.95 $0.95 House 3 San Clemente,CA-House 1 6,542 3,482 $2,565 0 $0.39 $0.74 San Clemente,CA-House 2 6,329 3,214 $2,386 0 $0.38 $0.74 San Clemente,CA-House 3 6448 3,358 $2,655 0 $0.41 $0.79 Carroll County,MD-House 1 3,131 3,131 $7,499 0 $2.40 $2.40 Carroll County,MD-House 2 4,686 4,686 $9,800 0 $2.09 $2.09 Carroll County,MD-House 3 3,772 3,772 $8,750 0 $2.32 $2.32 Matteson,IL-House 1 4,562 4,562 $8,198 0 $1.80 $1.80 Matteson,IL-House 2 4,740 4,740 1 $7,407 0 $1.56 $1.56 Matteson,IL-House 3 5,478 5,478 $8,329 0 $1.52 $1.52 North Andover,MA-House 1 3,568 3,084 $4,500 0 $1.26 $1.46 North Andover,MA-House 2 4,632 4,148 $5,800 0 $1.25 $1.40 North Andover,MA-House 3 5,906 5,422 $6,500 0 $1.10 $1.20 Wilsonville,OR-House 1 2,005 2,005 $4,178 ($1.21) $0.87 $0.87 Wilsonville,OR-House 2 1,913 1,913 $4,014 $1.21 $0.89 $0.89 Wilsonville,OR-House 3 2,917 2,917 $5,892 ($1.21) $0.81 $0.81 Huntley,IL-House 1 3,835 3,400 $8,476 0 $2.21 $2.49 Huntley,IL-House 2 4,575 4,030 $8,851 0 $1.93 $2.20 Huntley,IL-House 3 5,045 4,560 $10,406 0 $2.06 $2.28 September 10, 2008 36 -1- America Burning, Recommissioned: Principal Findings and Recommendations Introduction To a great extent, the fire problem in America remains as severe as it was 30 years ago. If progress is measured in terms of loss of life, then the progress in addressing the problem, which began with the first America Burning report in 1973, has come to a virtual standstill. The"indifference with which Americans confront the subject," which the 1973 Commission found so striking continues today. Yet today's fire departments, rescue squads, emergency service organizations and other first responders face expanded responsibilities and broader assignments than traditional structural fire response and suppression. To address this dilemma,the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency recommissioned America Burning in late 1999. Since its formation,the Commission conducted four meetings and in addition to its deliberations, heard testimony and received input from approximately 30 individuals and groups,received written submissions from over 50 parties and established a website on which 191 responses were filed. The Commission reached two major conclusions: 1. The frequency and severity of fires in America do not result from a lack of knowledge of the causes, means of prevention or methods of suppression. We have a fire "problem"because our nation has failed to adequately apply and fund known loss reduction strategies. Had past recommendations of America Burning and subsequent reports been implemented there would have been no need for this Commission. Unless those recommendations and the ones that follow are funded and implemented,the Commission's efforts will have been an exercise in futility. The primary responsibility for fire prevention and suppression and action with respect to other hazards dealt with by the fire services properly rests with the states and local governments. Nevertheless, a substantial role exists for the federal government in funding and technical support. 2. The responsibilities of today's fire departments extend well beyond the traditional fire hazard. The fire service is the primary responder to almost all local hazards,protecting a community's commercial as well as human assets and firehouses are the closest connection government has to disaster-threatened neighborhoods. Firefighters,who too frequently expose themselves to unnecessary risk, and the communities they serve,would all benefit if there was the same dedication to the avoidance of loss from fires and other hazards that exists in the conduct of fire suppression and rescue operations. A reasonably disaster-resistant America will not be achieved until there is greater acknowledgment of the importance of the fire service and a willingness at all levels of government to adequately fund the needs and responsibilities of the fire service. The lack of public understanding about the fire hazard is reflected in the continued rate of loss of life and property. The efforts of local fire departments to educate children and others must intensify. Without the integrated efforts of all segments of the community, including city and county managers, mayors, architects, engineers, -2- researchers, academics, materials producers and the insurance industry, as well as the fire service, there is little reason to expect that a proper appreciation of the critical role played by the fire service will materialize, in which case the necessary funding will continue to be lacking. These conclusions underlie the findings and recommendations that follow. Finding#1 - Implementation of Loss Prevention Stmt 'es The strategies and techniques to address fine risks in structures are known. When implemented,these means have proven effective in the reduction of losses. The tragic reality, however, is that existing and effective strategies have not been funded adequately by the Congress or state and local governments, nor have they been aggressively advocated by the United States Fire Administration(USFA) and other fire service constituencies. As a consequence, America today has the highest fire losses in terms of both frequency and total losses of any modern technological society. Losses from fire at the high rate experienced in America are avoidable and should be as unacceptable as deaths and losses caused by drunk driving or deaths of children accidentally killed playing with guns. Comprehensive proposals to address structural fire risks were contained in the recommendations of the 1973 America Banning report. The wisdom of these recommendations was acknowledged by the Congress and the Administration in the enactment of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974(the"1974 Act"). However, FEMA and the USFA have not pursued many of the preventive measures authorized by that statute;the Congress has not appropriated the funds necessary to carry them out;they have not been adequately advocated by USFA; and if implementation is the test,they have not been widely accepted by the fire service-at-large. Since 1974, successful approaches for implementing nutigation measures have been developed,but have not been incorporated in comprehensive programs to reduce structural fire loss. In addition, FEMA has not applied to the fire problem those lessons which it learned with respect to other natural hazards, including earthquake, flood, and hurricane and has failed to exercise all of its powers under the 1974 Act. Recommendation The Congress should increase its involvement in fire loss prevention in America, and exercise more fully its oversight responsibilities under the 1974 Act. The Congress should also appropriate for the fire problem appropriate resources commensurate with those it provides to community policing or highway safety. FEMA should exercise its full authority under the 1974 Act and should apply to the fire hazard the same prevention emphases and strategies that it has applied to other natural hazar e Agency's objective being an all risk,multi hazard loss prevention program. Finding 42-The Application and Use of Sprinkler Technology The most effective fire loss prevention and reduction measure with respect to both life and property is the installation and maintenance of fire sprinklers. If the focus is limited to prevention and reduction of the loss of life,smoke alarms are also extremely effective. However,the use of sprinklers and smoke detectors has not been sufficiently comprehensive. -3- Recommendation FEMA/USFA should develop a long-term implementation strategy for fire sprinklers and smoke alarms. The plan should include the following implementation aspects: • The approach should be community based; • No tactic or strategy should detract from the requirement for sprinklers. Smoke alarms (or other measures) should always be the locality's second option as a loss reduction measure; • Exploration of the technical, economic and practical aspects of utilizing alarm and sprinkler systems that provide automatic notification to a firehouse. These systems should be professionally maintained and monitored; • Confirmation of the accuracy of the belief that the appropriateness of the emplacement of sprinklers and alarms may be based on rural and urban distinctions, and whether other distinctions such as residential construction,commercial construction and critical facilities may also be appropriate; • The plan should distinguish between requirements for new construction and existing construction. • The plan should articulate actions that will result in: 1. improved use of financial incentives; 2. Government leadership in including fire safety measures in its own buildings, and in those that it helps construct or for which it provides any form of financial assistance or guarantee; 3. Prioritization standards in the retrofit of existing buildings based on risk to the public; 4. A national public awareness and education campaign; 5. Participation of the private and academic sectors; 6. Improvement of technologies and lowering of costs; 7. Inclusion and enhancement of fire safety requirements in model building code and standards; and • The plan should complement communities' actions to address all their hazards. For example, the ability of a community to address fire hazards should not be compromised by an earthquake event that ruptures sprinkler systems. -4- Finding#3 - Loss Prevention Education for the Public The most effective way to reduce the loss of life from natural and man-made disasters is through a multi-hazard mitigation process that addresses all the hazards a community faces. Currently, FEMA has begun a community-based, all-risk program entitled, Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities. The National Fire Protection Association(NFPA)has also begun a program entitled Risk Watch, which includes many of the approaches of Project Impact. Too many fires are caused by carelessness and ignorance of principles thought to be obvious. Education about the fire hazard should reach children who are responsible for so many accidental fires. It has been the experience of the fire services that schools are one of the best venues for firefighters in providing safety information to children and young adults. Thus,the fire services can play an important role in developing mitigation and prevention awareness programs through and in neighborhood schools. Our youngest citizens would then have the opportunity to appreciate,convey to parents and even implement life saving initiatives. A unified fire prevention curriculum should be written,tested and validated by education specialists, to provide a complete package for citizens. Recommendation These mitigation programs should be combined in a unified all-hazard learning curriculum and implemented nationally by community and neighborhood fire services in all levels of the local school systems. Fire departments should be encouraged to spend even more time in reaching out to children in schools and other venues. By providing a community-based and complete package to educators, fire service representatives can work from the same baseline of information to ensure that a consistent message is sent nationwide. In addition,effective public service commercials,demonstrating the risks and avoidance techniques for fire and other hazards should be pursued. The success of such federal initiatives as seat belt use hold great promise for public education on the issues of fire. Further findings and recommendation with respect to the issues of public education and awareness will be presented in#7 below. Finding#4-The Acquisition and Analysis of Data Collection and analysis of meaningful data is critical in order to address the fire problem with respect to civilian and firefighter casualties. Analysis of data provides a basis for direction and prioritization to initiatives discussed herein. A large quantity of data exists. However, the strategic quality and significance of much of these data are not apparent or have been questioned. The Commission is unaware that the data collected are effective for advancing or achieving the prevention goals of the fire prevention and services community. In addition,there is no central center or focus for the analysis of data that are collected. It is not clear whether the current the National Fire Incident Reporting System has cost inefficiencies with respect to data overlap or is providing corroborating data, whether there is under-utilization for data analysis -5- purposes, or whether there is national applicability of data that are present. The fire and emergency services community needs a central,national data center on which to rely for the collection and analysis of data The analysis of data should underlie funding and public policy decisions that address problems or issues identified in the data. For such a center to be effective in this role, all regions and states should participate in and contribute to the collection of relevant data.. Data that are collected by any institution or organization should have utility, in both form and substance,with the data that are collected by other entities. The data received by the center should be available to outside sources. This compatibility of data is critical and reflects the fact that there are and will continue to be many entities collecting relevant and useful data. In the future,the mutual reliance of these differing participants should become emphasized,to the point that their work has shared objectives, goals and activities. Complete and encyclopedic data are not a pragmatic requirement in the achievement of all fire goals and objectives. The fire and emergency services community should be able to rely on state-of-the-art statistical sampling techniques to define community problems,jurisdictional challenges and the issues confronting the nation. This will provide a more efficient method of defining risk reduction efforts and formulating public policy. As a practical and political matter, adequate financial resources will not always be provided by the Congress. However there are strategies that can be implemented to both supplement federal resources and leverage additional resources into the data collection and analysis category. Recommendation FEMA/USFA should develop a plan to effect appropriate data collection and analysis. The plan should include a reconciliation of existing FEMA data systems,as well as identifying adequate levels of funding needed to revive data collection, and the analysis and use of the data. Resources to achieve the plan should also be identified and pursued. The plan should include the following actions and aspects: • FEMA and USFA should facilitate or initiate working partnerships that further efforts to institutionalize the compatibility of data on the part of allied organizations and agencies. The all hazards aspect can also be reflected by including organizations such as the insurance Services Office(ISO), the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms(ATF),the U.S. Geological Survey,the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and others. • FEMA/USFA should also have state government partners in the collection of data. To this end, FEMA/USFA should encourage state collection of data by providing financial incentives through the grant process. • There should be a one-time examination of the practicality of developing a statistical sampling model that can be utilized by the various regions, states and local communities as appropriate. -6- • For the national data center to be effective and efficient and to be adequately funded,there should be a transparent process for the setting of the agenda for the center so that problem-focused analyses can be prioritized and shared with its partners. In some instances, it may also be feasible for such partners to perform needed analyses on their own initiative. • After-action data, which is not currently collated should be collected and analyzed by the center. Such data should identify the pre-event activities, (e.g.,preventive actions, codes or standards, training) and response activities(including equipment, techniques,etc.)proved most effective. Finding#5 - Improvements through Research Research on the science of fire, fire behavior,the suppression and extinguishing of fire, and fire service operations is inadequate. Valuable investigation is currently being conducted in Federal Agencies,such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). However,this research is not coordinated,prioritized or focused on identified problems. Valuable research is also ongoing at many of the Nation's colleges and universities and there is also a private sector component of research into fire and emergency services issues that may contribute to a national agenda The transfer of research results into practice can also be improved. First,technology transfer is not facilitated by the Federal sector in any efficient manner. The private sector has extensive relationships with most of the fire research community, and it is these(informal)relationships that seem to result in most of the technology transfer. Conversely,it is equally important that the end-user,the practicing fire and emergency services community,be able to communicate to the research community its problems and issues, and to directly influence research priorities. The Commission considered this latter aspect when it evaluated the lack of empirical research results to support changes to model codes and standards. Many such changes have been based on the "equivalency"concept,and assume that the building owner is making offsetting structural improvements that obviate or reduce the need for previous fire retardant code requirements. While certain fire loss prevention components of the construction may have been researched,there reportedly has not been research into the impact of these decisions on the safety of firefighters who,if a fire did occur,would have to enter the building to conduct manual fire suppression activities. Because of the all-hazard responsibilities of the fire services and emergency management community, the number of researchers involved grows significantly,the prioritization of needs compounds, and coordination and technology transfer becomes even more important The roots of the current lack of coordinated research effort may lie in the separation of certain functions between FEMA/JSFA and NIST, (then the National Bureau of Standards)when FEMA was formed in 1979. However, as indicated elsewhere in this report,the character of the fire and emergency services has changed dramatically since the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974. Therefore reverting to the earlier research arrangements contemplated in the Act would not be appropriate. -7- Recommendation FEMA/USFA should take a leadership role in setting agendas for research into fire and other risks for which the fire and emergency services community have responsibility. As a fast step, a reasonable set of priorities should be established for fire issues. Research agendas should be set with significant user input and influence. In addition,partnerships among NIST and other governmental,university, international and private research organizations can be utilized to develop research agendas that include issues connected with building codes and standards. The agendas should be followed by the development of an implementation plan that specifies the organization, institution, or private sector partner responsible for the completion of the research. Resource needs should also be identified and adequate funding should be pursued vigorously. FEMA/USFA should not allow the development of an agenda for"fire" to become a single-hazard issue, for two important reasons. First, as stated else where in the Commission's findings and recommendations,because of the all-hazard nature of their responsibilities, the fire services have clearly become the fire and emergency services. Secondly, FEMA conducts or participates in other hazards programs-- e.g., hazardous materials,terrorism, and earthquake and other natural hazards --that include research within the programs' activities. Within a reasonable time,the "competing" agendas of these programs should be coordinated and ultimately integrated- With respect to the critical subject of technology transfer,the Commission understands that FEMA/JSFA already does important work to make research results available,but believes that other initiatives can be pursued in order to make the process more efficient and expedient. Trade press columns,conferences or conventions,and partnerships with public and private sector organizations can be utilized to accomplish the goal. In addition, the new technologies and other results of relevant research should be incorporated into the courses and documents offered at the National Fire Academy. -8- Finding#6-Codes and Standards for Fire Loss Reduction in the Built Environment There should be an active and aggressive approach by FEMA/USFA in the utilization of building codes and standards for construction in order to prevent or reduce fire losses. To date, there has been success in the use of codes and standards. However,the success must be accelerated and intensified. The adoption and enforcement of those codes and standards for construction or rehabilitation that affect fire safety(as well as safety for all hazards)must be extended. The Commission's discussions focused on the need to address more of the residential losses, the potential losses in existing(or new)critical facilities, and the losses in structures that contain vulnerable populations(e.g., retirement homes). Changes to model codes and standards that reflect research that validates the revisions would thus provide the technical basis for local and state adoption and enforcement of measures that address local and state risk management priorities. The need for emphasis on residential construction is bom out by statistics. For the most recently compiled year, 1997,there were 552,000 structure fires in the United States. Almost three-quarters of structure fires occurred in residential properties including homes, hotels,motels,rooming houses and domutories. Fifty-five percent(55%) or 302,500 were in one- and two-family homes and seventeen percent(17%)or 93,000 occurred in apartments. The largest number of civilian deaths occurred in residential buildings. Eighty-three percent(83%)of the 4035 total civilian deaths occurred in home structure fires -with sixty-seven percent(67%)or 2700 in one-and two-family homes. There are major improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of the U.S. codes and standards system that would be realized from the joint efforts of appropriate organizations from the fire, emergency services, and building communities. The Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 gives USFA an important role and authority to effect this integration(from the fire services point of view)but that authority has not been exercised. The safety of new buildings, and the ongoing inspection and enforcement of those safety provisions in existing buildings,would be improved by this integration. Recommendation The USFA should review its authority under the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 in order to identify those activities it could support,but currently does not,with respect to building codes and standards. These activities would include: • The development and promulgation of a set of performance standards for buildings,with respect to fire hazards and risks, against which model codes and standards can be measured for equivalency. The participation and consensus processes used by FEMA to develop such standards for seismic vulnerability in buildings may serve as a useful paradigm; • The active involvement of the fire services community in the consensus process of model code promulgation give the drafters the benefit of real experience in the prevention and suppression of fire and to ensure that the current rend towards "equivalency" does not unintentionally put firefighters at additional risk; -9- • The development of training courses on the enforcement of building and fire codes in new and existing buildings at the National Fire Academy(NFA)that can be handed off to state and local governments. In addition, USFA should utilize its present and emerging academic partnerships with colleges and universities that have architectural and engineering programs to ensure that fire safety inspections and code enforcement are a part of the curriculum; and • The identification of improved or enhanced insurance incentives for community-based fire loss prevention measures and homeowner loss reduction implementation, especially fire sprinklers and alarrns. Finding#7-Public Education and Awareness There is wide acknowledgment and acceptance that public education programs on fire prevention are effective. The reduction of the number of fire deaths since the first America Burning report is due to a number of factors, including increased awareness that fire is not an inevitable tragedy. As with efforts to prevent or reduce losses from other hazards,such as earthquake,flood and hurricane,public education will not be totally effective on its own. Nevertheless, no prevention effort can succeed without a public education component. Social marketing techniques appear to have the greatest likelihood for success on fire issues since they seek to change the way people think and make decisions. A public education approach should be mindful of two essential elements: first,the public education must make the target audience aware of the hazards on both an intellectual and emotional level. Second, the target audience must receive and accept the message that the hazard or problem is within its control. Recommendation FEMA/USFA should develop and support a public awareness campaign strategy that includes the following features: • Measurable results, goals and objectives; • Targeting high-risk areas with concentrated efforts and appropriate messages on public education and fire prevention • Use of existing community resources(e.g.,schools,community groups and activities, houses of worship, and social, medical, and other education services),to deliver the message to audiences already in place; • The development and utilization of private sector partnerships with enterprises that have investments in the reduction of fire losses, such as insurance companies,both property casualty and life and health; • Though instituted at the national level,capable of being carried out at the local level; -10- • Training to prepare fire officers to deal with the media-for public information, education, and relations; and • A multi-hazard approach that advances prevention and safety messages for all of the risks which fire departments respond to and address and that educates about the multifaceted approaches involving code enforcement,construction standards, education, and enhanced technology usage such as sprinklers and smoke detectors. Finding#S -National Accrediting and Certification Fire training and education in the United States remains disparate and unequal. There are recognized standards, accreditation and certification processes,but the country still lacks a nationally recognized system envisioned by the 1973 Commission. Firefighters and officers trained in one state may have to repeat all of their hauling before they can serve as a firefighter in another state. Colleges and universities do not have a model cur iculurn upon which to base their degree programs. Recommendation FEMA/USFA/NFA should begin the process of establishing a system of training and education that is nationally recognized and reciprocal among the states. Participation in the system by state,local and college-based training systems should be voluntary,but USFA/NFA should provide incentives for participation. In order to enhance distribution of USFA/NFA training, state fire training systems should be authorized to deliver USFA/NFA campus-based programs,use USFA/NFA instructors, and issue USFA/NFA certificates to students. Courses should be delivered at times and places convenient to the state systems. Though independent,state-training systems should be considered extensions of the USFA/NFA delivery system. USFA/NFA should establish a peer-review process by which courses developed by state training systems are reviewed for endorsement by the USFA/NFA.These endorsed courses should be shared among state and local training systems. The endorsement process will increase the number of courses available to state training systems,provide local systems with courses on subjects that meet local needs, and begin the process of establishing a national system of training and education envisioned by the original America Bummg Commission. The process by which courses are "handed off' to state training systems should be re-engineered. The focus should be on getting USFA/NFA developed courses into state and local training systems more quickly and involving instructors in the course revision/edits process. The number of technology based courses should be increased. CD and Internet technologies should be utilized to reduce the amount of paper based materials currently printed,stored and shipped to State and local training systems. As an additional incentive to the establishment of the course development and reciprocity system, -11- performance-based training grants should be made to State systems to permit them to deliver USFAINFA residential and endorsed courses. Participation by colleges and universities in the national fire prevention efforts should be expanded and a group of colleges and universities should be convened to help design a model curriculum. Finding#9-Firefighter Health and Safety It is evident that a key element in the reduction or prevention of the loss of life and property at a fire emergency is a properly organized, stared and deployed fire deparment. A fire emergency is a time sensitive and labor intensive task. Many fire departments in the United States today do not have the capacity to provide all the requisite functions required for an initial first alarm response in a timely manner. Moreover, as noted elsewhere in the Commission's Findings and Recommendations, Firefighters respond to all hazardous incidents in a community not only fires. Firefighters respond to over a quarter of a million hazardous material incidents each year in the US. They are tasked with protecting the public during and after an incident involving weapons of mass destruction. They perfonn rescue operations in a multitude of circumstances ranging from natural disasters to voluntary endangerment by ultimate sports participants. Training for these operations is frequently substandard where it exists. Worse,it is usually absent in key areas such as safety for firefighters from hazards external to the incident-site(e.g.,high- speed traffic at the site of a highway accident) and responder health and safety with respect to the causative hazard(e.g.,appropriate equipment for response to a hazardous materials incident). Fire departments are also now called upon to provide emergency medical response at various levels from first responder to advanced life support and transport. Existing EMS response systems,including some under the fire service, often provide inconsistent emergency medical response coverage, are understaffed and under trained,and do not deploy and arrive at medical emergencies within medically accepted response times. Thousands of fire fighters and emergency medical personnel lack rudimentary medical evaluation and wellness/fitness programs that can dramatically work to ameliorate the negative effects of emergency response and toxic exposure. Too many fire fighters and paramedics suffer from cancer as the result of chronic exposure to toxic products of combustion and the numbers continue to increase. Additionally, each year more firefighters are exposed to infectious diseases during the provision of basic and advanced life support in uncontrolled, emergency environments. Protective clothing and equipment utilized by fire fighters and emergency medical personnel are not always properly selected, used, and maintained. Inferior products are still sold to and procured by fire departments. Recommendation Communities that fund professional fire departments to respond to fire emergencies within their jurisdiction should be frilly cognizant of the capacity of the department in terms of its deployment -12- capability, including structural fire response, special operations and hazardous materials response,and emergency medical response. Fire departments should be evaluated based on their effectiveness, efficiency and worker safety. The decision of the jurisdictions' level of service should be based on technically, scientifically and medically sound criteria for organization,staffing and deployment of such services. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel should be selected for the job based on consistent medical and performance standards. All fire departments should provide protective clothing and equipment as well as specific training for the prevention of occupational acquired infectious diseases, cancer,heart disease and other occupationally related diseases. Such clothing and equipment must provide continual protection during its use against the hazardous conditions encountered during fire fighting,emergency medical and special operation functions. FEMA/USFA should directly support or advocate the development of nationally applicable assessment and evaluation systems on the full range of operating capabilities and capacities of public fire departments. Such systems should be adopted, and if necessary promulgated by the appropriate federal agency. The evaluation system should be based on the minimum functions and tasks required for fire,medical or other emergencies, as well as the minimum response times required to deliver such services, and should measure the effectiveness and efficiency of public fire suppression, emergency medical services, and special operations delivery in protecting both the public and the occupational safety and health of fire department employees. FEMA/USFA and other appropriate federal agencies should encourage all fire departments to adopt a standard operating procedure addressing safe incident-site staffing that includes accountability and teams for fire fighter rescue. Fire departments should provide a wellness/fitness program to maintain the medical,physical and behavioral health of all personnel. The federal government should provide funding for fire department adoption of fire fighter wellness/fitness programs based on the Wellness-Fitness Initiative and the Candidate Physical Ability Test of the International Association of Fire Fighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs. The federal government should also provide funding for training,equipping and staffing of fire department special operations, including hazardous materials, technical rescue and terrorist/weapons of mass destruction response. The subject of problem-focused research activities,supported by the federal government,has been addressed elsewhere m these findings and recommendations. A critical component of such research should be the funding of additional research in fire fighter protective clothing and equipment Appropriate government agencies should also provide consistent certification,testing, field research and when necessary,product recall of all fire fighter protective clothing and equipment. Finding# 10-Emergency Medical Services As discussed earlier, today's fire services confront the Rill range of hazards and risks for America's -13- communities. Primary emergency medical response to incidents that require rescue operations has become a dominant role of the fire services. In the last ten years, Emergency Medical Services(EMS), ranging from primary response to advanced life support, have grown to occupy a particularly unique and prominent position—virtually the "gate-keepers"of the health and medical service when trauma or emergency are involved. Emergency Medical Technicians(EMTs)and Paramedics have a greater level of training than ever before and are as much a part of the health care environment as they are of the firefighter environment Not all fire departments and their employees have welcomed the larger role of EMS. Emergency medical response often requires significant financial resources for each emergency call, regardless of the number and nature of medical emergencies that necessitated the call. In addition,the personal and interpersonal skills needed for EMS often differ sharply from those needed to suppress a structural fire. This aspect has hindered the professional development of many in the fire services,both career and volunteer, with respect to their EMS responsibilities. The budgets in many fire departments favor fire suppression at the expense of EMS,particularly in the area of training. EMS systems often provide inconsistent response because of this insufficient training as well as insufficient suL ling. The result too often is a failure to deploy and arrive at a medical emergency within medically acceptable response times. Federal support currently provided to the fire services`EMS component is inadequate and EMS suffers from a lack of broad programmatic support and close working relationships with the health care and health insurance industries. -14- Recommendation Support for EMS should include advocacy, improved training and equipment, research and data improvements. Strategies should be implemented that improve the practical equality of EMS within the fire service. Simply put, EMS is should be adequately funded and staffed. Achieving this adequacy is the joint responsibility of government and the health care system. Emergency medical service delivery should be consistent with medically acceptable response times through the deployment of sufficient numbers of trained personnel. Fire departments should be accountable for activities conducted at the defined incident location as well as for other emergency location safety, including the provision of adequate personnel prior to the commencement of operations. Each fire department,volunteer and career alike, should assess the EMS training needs of its current staffing. Training programs that treat career and volunteer members differently should be eliminated. Training policies that allow senior members to avoid enhanced training when newer members must obtain it should also be eliminated. FEMA should review the collective support provided by the federal sector to the EMS activity of communities' fire departments and, based on a needs assessment, determine whether that support can be revised in order to enhance the EMS capability of these departments. FEMA should facilitate the development of a working partnership among the health care industry,the health insurance industry, and the fire services with the goal of enhancing the provision of emergency medical services to the public and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the health service industry. Finding,# 11 -Diversity Today's fire service has a diverse membership. Through the initiation of public policies intended to enhance the diversity of community fire departments,the face of the fire service in most metropolitan areas has changed significantly since the publication of America Burning in 1973. The fire service today is more inclusive of minorities and women. There has been a giant leap forward from the era in which minority representation was limited to certain stations in certain areas and there were no women firefighters. However, although the overall membership of the fire service has become more diverse, there are still a number of fire departments in which diversity does not exist or where there are barriers that limit either the upward or lateral mobility of minorities and women,irrespective of merit. There is still much to be done in building diversity into the service's organizational structure and the agenda of the emergency services. Surveys clearly show that the most trusted societal element of today's villages, towns,cities and counties are the members of the fire services. Fire service departments and organizations have the closest personal relationship with the neighborhoods in which they operate and should be extremely reflective of our communities. Much of the strength of the fire and emergency services derives from their acceptance by the communities and neighborhoods they serve. This strength is enhanced to the extent that the fire services reflect the make-up of the community they serve. -15- Recommendation In order to improve fairness and diversity within the fire services, there should be a commitment to alter traditional attitudes with respect to the activities that are most important to the fire services. There should be recognition for those leaders and departments that effectively put an end to those traditions that limit evolution toward a diverse fire and emergency services organization. Such leaders should establish policies and practices that improve the lateral and upward mobility of all, based on merit, and should enhance the connection of the firehouses to their neighborhoods. Both firefighters and their organizational management representatives should address the issues of fairness to all employees within their organizations. The conduct of activities and initiatives that are intended to diminish improper imbalances with respect to diversity within a fire department should also be directed outside of the department,toward the community and the neighborhood.. Fire plans and general response plans that are developed for the community should anticipate the additional concerns and challenges that occur in diverse communities, such as communication challenges, requirements for faith-related practices, societal habits and mores, and safety requirements. In addition,diversity should be considered in the conduct of prevention and preparedness activities, not only to anticipate the concerns that will arise in the response environment, but also to take advantage of the diversity achieved within the department and enhance the effectiveness of prevention and preparedness messages. Finding#12 - Burn Injuries and Care The trauma caused by bum injuries to civilians and firefighters is well understood within the medical community. Prompt treatment of a bum victim at a bum center as opposed to most hospitals usually is the difference between life and death Bum survival has improved significantly over the past thirty years. On a yearly basis,deaths,once the victim has been placed into the bum care system, have decreased from around 4000 to 1000. Today,over 100 centers provide burn care,with 25 of them being full service burn treatments research and rehabilitation. In comparison,only 12 facilities then were capable of offering a full spectrum of bum care treatment when the original America Burning report was issued. Unfortunately,the current trend in bum care treatment, research and rehabilitation services indicates the progress has stagnated and in many respects regressed in medical research and available treatments. The Commission heard testimony that economics are discouraging many hospitals from continuing their emphasis on bum treatment. The high cost to hospitals of bum treatment and limitations on reimbursement under many existing insurance policies is currently driving down the quality and quantity of bum treatment facilities. However shortsighted this approach may be, it still exists. Moreover,the United States has not given priority to either the broad distribution of information or the development of the technology to treat bum victims in a comprehensive manner. The federal government has actually decreased its financial investment in bum injury issues and fewer federal burn facilities exist today than did in 1973. Recommendation -16- Prompt and comprehensive care for the bum victim is essential,benefiting not only the victim,but society as a whole.This care should not be limited to the physical needs of the victim alone,but should be expanded to consider the mental and emotional needs of the victim and his or her family, friends, and often times, co-workers. FEMA and the United States Fire Administration should build partnerships that will support both the prevention and care giving and expand the capability to manage all aspects of bum-related issues. With regard to treatment,these partnerships: • should include advocating within the health industry the needs of victims.This advocacy should impress on insurers the benefits of immediate and comprehensive treatment as contrasted with the alternative costs of delays caused by inadequate insurance coverage; • should lead to the maintenance of training centers,the development of programs to recruit and retain bum physicians and nurses, and an increase in federal research such as that once provided by Brook Army Medical Center. BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS . Prince George's County 15-Year History with its Single-Family Residential Dwelling Fire Sprinkler Ordinance -ra? AmeAnmdel FOUNDED 1634 + I , ^ ada GISTR➢CT OF CaLIMBIA }1 Prepared by Steve Weatherby August 2009 Carly Ir Produced in cooperation with the Home Fire ,Q 0 Sprinkler Coalition, University of Maryland 3 University College, Prince George's County Fire Department and the Maryland State Fire Y ChM Marshal's Office. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY "r Home Fire Sprinkler Protect What You Value Most" HomeFireSprinklenorg BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the help of the following individuals: Maryland State Fire Marshal William Barnard Major Steven Hess, Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department Christine Barker, Information Management, Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department Chief Eugene )ones, Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department Chief (ret.) Ron Siarnicki, Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department Steve Carter, University of Maryland University College Rebecca Spicer-Himes, Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute Home Fire Sprinkler coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 2 BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................4 Demographics............................................................ 5 Prince George's County Residential Sprinkler Ordinance.............................. 6 Statistical Comparison ............................................... 7 Conclusion.................................................................9 References.................................................................9 Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 3 BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Executive Summary In 1992,Prince George's County in Maryland with an average of 900 fires per year.The County's enacted an ordinance mandating the installation total fire loss for single-family/townhouse of automatic fire sprinkler systems in new one- structures topped$134 million,averaging almost and two-family structures.Through a partnership $9 million per year.Prince George's County's data with the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition (HFSC),the indicates that more than 45,000 permits were Maryland State Fire Marshal's Office,the Prince issued for single-family/townhouse structures George's County Fire Department,and the from 1992 through 2007,with an average University of Maryland University College,a study issuance of 3,019 permits per year. was conducted to review Prince George's County's During the period studied,Prince George's experience with this ordinance over the 15-year County Fire Department(PGFD)recorded 245 period of 1992-2007. sprinkler activations in single-family and The most obvious benefit of the ordinance is the townhouse structure fires. In the 245 activation direct impact that home fire sprinkler systems incidents,PGFD recorded no lives lost and only six have made in saving lives and reducing fire- civilian injuries.PGFD reports 446 residents were related injuries. present in the structures during the time of From 1992-2007,there were 101 fire deaths and sprinkler activation. More than 80 of those 328 civilian injuries in single-family or townhouse residents were present when sprinklers activated fires that were not protected with fire sprinkler during the hours of 10:00 p.m.to 5:59 a.m.,which systems. No fire deaths occurred in sprinklered- is the most common time for fire deaths to occur, structure fires during the period studied,and according to NFPA fire data. In the 245 activation there were only six civilian injuries. incidents,the PGFD estimated the fire loss at Property protection is another important $1,352,820,compared to a total potential loss of benefit. Looking at the average loss per event in $42,578,420. a structure that did not have a residential The cost impact to developers/builders was sprinkler system installed,the damages determined by interviewing several Prince averaged$9,983 per incident, and$49,503 per George's County sprinkler contractors,who incident when there was a fatality.The average indicated that the per-square-foot cost to install loss for a single-family/townhouse structure a fire protection system in a single-family home protected by fire sprinklers was $4,883 per in the County has decreased over the years to event. Having sprinklers cut the property loss by under$2.00 per square foot.This is consistent almost one-half. with a recent NFPA study that found the average Prince George's County experienced 13,494 cost of installation nationally to be $1.61 per single-family or townhouse fires during the period, sprinklered square foot. ❖ Home Fire Sprinkler coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 4 BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Demographics Prince George's County, Maryland,is roughly YEAR POPULATION %CHANGE No.of Permits 500 square miles and is situated in close 1992 740,390 N/A 3680 proximity to Washington,DC.Prince George's 1993 743,156 1.00% 3858 County has a mixture of light industrial,retail, 1994 751,282 1.01% 2418 residential and institutional Structures that are 1995 757,795 1.00% 4344 protected by the county's fire department.Prince 1996 764,644 1.00% 3635 George's County is known for providing affordable 1997 769,840 1.00% 2920 living for many people who 1998 776,907 1.00% 2664 commute to work in the 1999 781,781 1.00% 2927 j Washington,DC area(1). 2000 803,291 1.02% 2506 Most of Prince George's 2001 815,203 1.01% 2467 +. County's population is 2002 824,365 1.01% 3068 concentrated in the 2003 830,513 1.00% 2088 WIWI northern two-thirds of the 2004 835,021 1.00% 2233 County(1).The southern 2005 838,156 1.00% 2782 ' part of the County is 2006 834,660 -1.00% 2233 predominantly rural(1)but 2007 828,770 -1.00% 1462 urban sprawl has pushed 11.05% 45,285 0 coal development into these Source:US Census Bureau Estimates Source:Prince George's County Planning areas,which are affected Deportment Estimates by Prince George's County's residential sprinkler code. PRINCE GEORGE'S According to Census COUNTI' figures(6),the average Since 1992,Prince George's County has issued population in the County more than 45,285 building permits for one-and from 1992-2006 was 846,000 residents.In 2007, two-family dwellings.The average yearly issuance it was 828,770.The overall population of Price of one-and two-family dwelling building permits George's County has grown 11 percent on average is 3,019. since the enactment of the residential sprinkler The Prince George's County Fire Department ordinance(6). has 44 stations with a career staff of more than The average median income in Prince George's 800 individuals and a volunteer force of 2,000 County in 2004 was$55,129.00(6).The members.There are 1,200 active emergency percentage of home ownership in Prince George's responders. In 2007,Prince George's County Fire County is 61.8 percent,which is almost 6 percent Department responded to nearly 127,000 calls for less than the average for the State of Maryland service(7). ❖ and in 2008 the median value of a single-family dwelling in Prince George's County is$145,600(6). Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 5 BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Prince George's County Residential Sprinkler Ordinance In 1987,Prince George's County signed a mandator fires sprinkler law for all residential Standard far the stem installation 4f y P Sprinkler Systems in structures.This law covered ever type of One and Two-Fa n ctumrey Dwellings y yP and Manufactured Homes residential dwelling from multi-family structures to townhomes to one-and two-family structures. GEORGES This law was to be phased in over the next five years with the final phase requiringI� c all newly constructed single-family a - z structures to be protected by an NFPA 13D fire sprinkler system(1). The ordinance was phased as follows:Wv�ARYLA, one-and two-family model homes were to feature residential fire sprinklers by February 1, 1988.All newly constructed multi-family structures were to have residential fire sprinklers installed by January 1, 1989. In the final phase, January 1, 1992,all newly constructed single- family homes were to be fully protected by an NFPA 13D residential sprinkler system (1). ❖ Home Fire Sprinkler coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 6 BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Statistical Comparisons This report consolidates the data collected from Fire Deaths and Fire-Related Injuries Prince George's County Fire Department.The fire department tracked each sprinkler activation by dispatching an on-duty Fire Marshal to the scene. The Fire Marshal was required to complete a 89% of Total Fire Deaths Sprinkler Activation Report,which included the pp,P Occurred , . type of structure,documentation of the number of sprinklers activated,the potential cause,the people , . type of sprinkler system,the rooms)involved, 101 and townhouse fires with no total dollar value of the property,the estimated fire sprinklers dollar loss,and the number of residents present in the structure during activation. civilian injuries in single- From the years 1992 to 2007,Prince George's 328 family and townhouse fires County recorded a total of 13,494 single family/ with no fire sprinklers townhouse fires and 245 of those were protected by fire Sprinkler systems. In those 245 incidents, ' " deaths homes no deaths were recorded and only six injuries were protected ' reported. In the 13,249 fires that occurred in homes that were not protected by sprinklers, 101 residents were killed and 328 were injured. Fire deaths in residential dwellings made up 89%of These findings clearly show the benefits of an the fire deaths in Prince George's County during automatic sprinkler system.The most compelling the years. data is that no deaths occurred in any fire where a Four hundred forty-six persons were present in fire sprinkler system was present.In a tragic the structures at the time of sprinkler activation. contrast, 101 people lost their lives to fires in According to the NFPA,the most vulnerable time nonsprinklered home fires during the same of day for home fire deaths is between the hours period.When one looks at the large number of of 10:00 p.m.and 6:00 a.m. Eighty-one occupants residents present during fires in sprinklered were present in their homes during this time homes,the protective value of home fire period. Another 294 residents were home at the Sprinklers is underestimated even more.These time of sprinkler activation between the hours residents would have been at a much higher risk 6:00 a.m.and 9:59 p.m.Seventy-one residents of death due to flame and smoke spread had their were home during activation at unrecorded times. residences not been sprinklered. During the study period,there were 45 recorded In some of the cases analyzed,residents were residential fire deaths between the hours of 6:00 impaired or asleep at the time of the fires and a.m.and 9:59 p.m., 38 recorded residential fire were awakened by fire crews. In these instances, deaths between 10:00 p.m.and 5:59 a.m.and the sprinkler system's ability to keep the fire 18 recorded residential fire deaths where the controlled with just one or two sprinklers allowed timeframe was not known in residences without responding fire crews to rescue the residents in a Sprinklers. Home Fire Sprinkler coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 7 BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Statistical Comparisons (continued) less hazardous environment. In 96 percent of the Average Property Loss Per Incident 245 reported fire-related sprinkler activations only one or two sprinklers operated. 50 Another important advantage of home fire sprinklers is property protection. From the years 40 1992 to 2007,Prince George's County Fire Department recorded fire loss for single-family homes and townhouses at$134,711,199. 30 Property loss from the 245 activated sprinkler events was$1,352,820.The average loss per event 20 in a structure that did not have a sprinkler system installed averaged$9,983 per incident.The average fire loss in a structure that was not 10 protected by a sprinkler system and resulted in a fatality came to$49,503.The average loss for a o sprinklered single-family/townhouse Structure $9,983 $49,503 $4,883 was$4,883 per event. (See chart.)This cut the property loss by almost one-half in single-family fires with no fires with no fire in homes sprinklers/ sprinklers/ protected with and townhouse residences and is at least 10 times no fatalities with fatalities fire sprinklers less than a fatal non-sprinklered residential fire. The average water output of a residential fire sprinkler is between 13-15 gallons per minute. The average flow from a fire hose is 95 to 200 that the national average cost for fire sprinkler gallons per minute, under high pressure. installation is $1.61 per sprinklered square foot. Obviously,the activation of a fire sprinkler will In the report,the average median sprinkler- create far less water damage. protected area of a new construction single- Another benefit to the residents of Prince family home is 4,124 square foot,which makes George's County is lower insurance costs for the cost of a full NFPA 13D system $6,640 for an homeowners. Having a home fire sprinkler system average sprinklered structure(4).The Research helps protect the structure and its contents, Foundation study used Prince George's County as lowering the replacement risk of the dwelling. one of Its models and showed that within five When the sprinklered housing stock increases,the years of the ordinance being enacted,the overall fire loss will decrease.which potentially average installation cost dipped below$1.00 per decreases the insurance premiums for everyone. square foot. At this price point,sprinkler The cost of installing a residential fire sprinkler installation should be less than a 5 percent system has long been debated.A 2008 study by increase over the entire cost of construction for the Fire Protection Research Foundation showed the single-family structure. Home Fire Sprinkler coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 8 BENEFITS of RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS:Prince George's County 15-Year History Conclusion This study shows numerous benefits that residential fire sprinklers provide to the public. Prince George's County's residential sprinkler ordinance has had a significant impact on life safety and reduction of property damage.Prince George's County's experience of suffering no loss of life in a sprinklered home should provide ample justification for other jurisdictions throughout the country to pass similar ordinances. ❖ References 1 Residential Sprinklers:One Community's Experience Twelve Years after Mandatory Implementation Fire Chief Ron Siarnicki, Prince George's County Fire Department, January 2001. 2 Source: National Fire Protection Association: Fire Loss in the U.S. 2007 and USFA's Firefighter Fatalities in the United States in 2007 3 Automatic Sprinklers:A 10-Year Study City of Scottsdale,AZ, Rural/Metro Fire Department and the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition, 1997. 4 Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment The Fire Protection Research Foundation, Newport Partners, 2008. 5 http://www.realestatemapsmdva.com/princegeorges.shtml 6 http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24033.html 7 http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/PublicSafety/Fire-EMS/index.asp Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition(Issued:August 2009) Page 9 How fire - - - - 0 dThis esigned liquid is — designed to expand and break sprinklers work the tube a certain _ temperature.The most common are l ® The typical sprinkler head consists of a designed to break at l plug held in place by a trigger mechanism. 155 degrees. In the The most common type of trigger is a glass average sized room, - a 5mm diameter ampule filled with a glycerin-based liquid that ampule will usually expands when heated. break in about one w ` to one and a halff minutes from contact with a heat A less commonly used type of source.Ampules as trigger consists of two metal thin as lmm are plates held together by a solder manufactured for a , point.When the solder melts, S, faster response time. two spring arms pull the plates apart, releasing the plug. ®The plug is fr forced out by ". Plug — the pressurized Air bubble water behind it and allows for deflected away by a normal beveled edge.The expansion water sprays over of liquid - , the deflector plate Plug Spring �* which is designed to = arms Vacuum- r sealed distribute it in an ! r glass tube even patte ow rn.Water r will continue to flow j Soldered plates Deflector until the main valve ' plate ��, is shut off. ±° � w How an uncontrolled How a sprinkler system fire spreads puts the fire out 5;rnokc And tov= 1--AL Even a small smoldering Bases rise From , fire acts like a heat engine the..9ource oa the fire as I, steadily increases They spread r UICkly / the air temperature ` •; m along tt.e celling directly above it. and heat the air Yom. The hot air fans In the roGm" C. out across the i ceiling,heating up the nearest _ sprinkler tread. ar r s ® The current of hot =' As soon as the trigger air forces a curtain of mechanism is heated ` deadly gases down to the required '< the walls, making temperature, it escape more trips and the X155 difficult. In a water is released. few minutes The immediate the air will cooling of the become so hot neat source P ` that the entire usually prevents i,I contents of the other sprinkler �F 1 room will ignite I heads from U spontaneously. activating. Often, This is known one or two as flashover and sprinkler heads usually occurs are enough to between 1,000 and \ control a fire. 1,500 degrees. SOURCES:Tyco Fire Products,Blaze,by Nicholas Farth JOURNAL GRAPHIC/TOM MURPHY TIME vs. PRODUCTS of COMBUSTION FLASHOVER No one survives flashover FIRE GROWTH of smoke alarms +y UNRESTRICTED of fire deaths mum4 didn't J homes home fires in Whkh that had smoke i d e. 0 OF s ffliffiout fire sprinklers, adds F. esraping decrease SMOKE co r OPEN HOSE NOZZLES 0 ACTIVATES ACTIVATES ACnVATIES L6 FIRE GROWTH U- RESTRICTED e 0y� M AdWdELA W RESTRICTED CL DMCTION REPORT , RESPONSE TI<}f1tE SETUP OF FIRE OF EIRE FIGHTING EIRE TIME VARIES TIME DIRECTLY NIMMGE WLE BY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TIME in minutes) ACTIONS Based upon nationof averages BEFORE FIRE 1) TEST WOKC ALARMS � � �1 , Fire .' r•inklert U.S.Ex4ser me YOM Srnake Alarms and 2� CONRUC FIRE i ASSOCIATION OR r��le Alarms. NFPA.September 2001. ESCAPE DRILLS Adr''t�ntwy 1311ii1tl ILI.I'401S NOTE-.Ste 19FPA fire Pratrtlinn Kandhiec4 I i S GC],@ 0!"S For time and temiperature iralwmalic n. United Slates Fire Administration U.S.Department of Homeland Security 16825 South Seton Avenue raraRriiF. Emmitsburg,MD 21727 �f FEMA D st March 28,2008 USFA Position Paper—Residential Fire Sprinklers In the year 2006, 19% of all reported fires occurred in one- and two-family structures; however, these fires caused 66% (2,155) of the fire deaths in the US'. In addition,more than 25% of firefighter on-duty deaths are associated with residential fires. This means that approximately 25 firefighter deaths occur during responses to residential fires each year, since on average, there are about 100 on-duty firefighter deaths annually3. Despite the fact that these figures represent improvement over the last 30 years, they continue to be appalling. Such losses are unacceptable. Since the 1970's, USFA has promoted research studies, development, testing, and demonstrations of residential fire sprinkler systems and smoke alarms. These efforts,in concert with heroic efforts by many organizations and individuals, have resulted in the adoption of requirements to install smoke alarms in all new residential construction. In many jurisdictions, the retrofit of smoke alarms into existing residential occupancies has been mandated. Together, these efforts have saved many lives. The results have been different, however, with respect to residential fire sprinkler systems; only a few jurisdictions have mandated their installation in new construction, and none have mandated retrofit of existing one and two family housing stock. The Center for Fire Research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology has studied the impact of both smoke alarms and sprinklers in residential occupancies4,5, and estimates that: 1. When fire sprinklers alone are installed in a residence, the chances of dying in a fire are reduced by 69%,when compared to a residence without sprinklers. 2. When smoke alarms alone are installed in a residence, a reduction in the death rate of 63%can be expected,when compared to a residence without smoke alarms. 3. When both smoke alarms and fire sprinklers are present in a home, the risk of dying in a fire is reduced by 82%,when compared to a residence without either. Much has been written about the reduction of residential fire deaths due to improvements in building codes and the installation of smoke alarms. Without a doubt, these have had a substantial impact on the home fire problem. The annual number of fire deaths in residential occupancies continues to decline. The trend in fire death data, however, shows that the number of residential fire deaths is declining at a slower rate over the past 10 years than it did in the period 1977 through 1995. Full-scale fire tests in residential settings suggest an explanation for this slowing in the rate of decline in residential fire deaths. The available time to escape a flaming fire in a home has decreased significantly (i.e., from 17f 6 minutes in 1975 to 3f '/2 minute in 2003). This decrease in time to escape has been attributed to the difference in fire growth rates of the representative samples of home furnishings used in the two studies6. In short, it appears that a fire involving modern furnishings grows faster than a fire involving older furnishings. The practical impact of this finding is clear—smoke alarms alone may not provide a warning in time for occupants to escape a home fire. www.usfa.dhs.gov The U.S. Fire Administration's mission is to reduce life and economic losses due to fire and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support. In fulfilling this mission, we have carefully reviewed the data and the relevant research to formulate this official statement: It is the position of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Fire Administration that all citizens should be protected against death, injury, and property loss resulting from fire in their residence. All homes should be equipped with smoke alarms, automatic fire sprinklers, and emergency escape plans. USFA f Illy supports all efforts to reduce the tragic toll of fire losses in this nation by implementing these features, including the proposed changes to the International Residential Code that would require automatic sprinklers in all new residential construction. . Ahrens, Marty, Trends and Patterns of U.S. Fire Losses, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, September,2007. Firefighter Fatality Retrospective Study,Report FA-220, Federal Emergency Management Agency,United States Fire Administration,National Fire Data Center,Emmitsburg,MD,April 2002. 3 Firefighter Fatalities in the United States in 2005, Report FA-306, Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration,National Fire Data Center,Emmitsburg,MD,August,2005. ' Ruegg, Rosalie T. and Sieglinde K. Fuller, A Benefit-Cost Model of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems, NIST Technical Note 1203,National Institute of Standards and Technology,Gaithersburg,MD,November 1984. 5 Butry, Davit T., M. Hayden Brown and Sieglinde K. Fuller, Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems,NISTIR 7451,National Institute of Standards and Technology,Gaithersburg,MD,September 2007. 6 Performance of Home Smoke Alarms, Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings, NIST Technical Note 1455, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, December 2003. USFA: Chief s Corner- A Message from the United States Fire Administrator about Residential ... Page 1 of 2 U.S.Firc Administrdtion ti * .r � Chief s Corner A Spotlight on Innovative Fire Prevention and Safety Programs oc Previous Chiefs Curner...,_Message about Name Smoke Alarms A Message from the United States Fire Administrator about Residential Fire Sprinklers Posted on June 1, 2009 by Glenn A. Gaines,Acting U.S. Fire Administrator The U.S. Fire Administration has promoted research,development,testing, and demonstrations of residential fire sprinkler systems for more than 34 years.The research regarding residential fire sprinkler systems has indisputably demonstrated the following: • Residential fire sprinklers can save the lives of building occupants. • Residential fire sprinklers can save the lives of firefighters called to respond to a home fire. • Residential fire sprinklers can significantly offset the risk of premature building collapse posed to firefighters by lightweight construction components when they are involved In a fire. • Residential fire sprinklers can substantially reduce property loss caused by a fire. The time has come to use this affordable,simple and effective technology to save lives and property where It matters most—In our homes. In the past year, the National debate about the benefits of residential fire sprinklers passed a major milestone with the adoption of a change to the International Residential Code that will require fire sprinklers in all new construction.This code change survived rigorous scrutiny,during which all Interested parties had ampie opportunity to comment on the technical merits of the Issue.Since then, parties who oppose this life-saving technology have started a vigorous campaign to enact laws at the state level that will prohibit adoption of sprinkler requirements for new homes. The U.S. Fire Administration supports ... the recently adopted changes to the International Residential Code that require residential fire sprinklers in all new residential construction. I encourage every member of the fire service to stay abreast of this rapidly changing situation,and to be ready to voice any concerns that you have about proposed legislation to your respective state legislature.The Fire Sprinkler Initiative website has been established to provide a central clearing house for up-to-date Information. Log on to the site at si i iative.org ,ha " „ z..< .n✓ior.ropa,,.rr, —stay vigilant and keep the fire service community Informed of developments in your area.Only by working together can we save lives. It is the position of the U.S.Fire Administration that all Americans should be protected From death,injury,and property loss resulting from fire In their residence.All homes should be equipped with both smoke alarms and residential fire sprinklers,and all families should have and practice an emergency escape plan.The U.S. Fire Administration supports all efforts to reduce the tragic toll of fire losses In this nation,including the recently adopted changes to the International Residential Code that require residential fire sprinklers in all new residential construction. (Download Adobe Acrobat fPDFI Net p'rtt".LLB,w��• ^s nn neNen intm} ates Fore AdmInI1=or about Residential Fire Sprjnkle I i �- 1 %'A Pessag Rm+re t?�e,� jlCCd fr?m_/vrvvw. sfa.ans.ac,rno«rt oanc'raN;a��uo-rnynen:ma Rol'(PI)F,44 Kb) 1 http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/about/chiefs-comer/060409.shtm 11/24/2009 USFA: Chief s Comer-A Message from the United States Fire Administrator about Residential ... Page 2 of 2 Links of Interest • S curlty Leadership Journal W-0 «w,�••Sa n�;.�YFt:r,Hwv,ntis.,,�v �,f�.,r-�n_rsmnn m, ,..fa n_. . .,.. a•_,Would you like to receive press releases and other important notices as soon as they are available From USFA?With our RSS feed,you can. F b' Last Reviewed:June 4, 2009 U.S. Fire Administration, 16825 S. Seton Ave., Emmitshurg, MD 21727 (301) 447-1000 Fax: (301) 447-1346 Admissions Fax: (301) 447-1441 http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/about/chiefs-corner/060409.shtm 11/24/2009 Print Page Page 1 of 2 ra ", National Fire Protection Association N :fCX_ The authority on lira,electrical, and buildlnq safety A Home>Press Room>News releases NEWS RELEASES New report finds sprinkler ordinances don't hurt housing construction or prices County-wide mandates for life-saving sprinklers do not result in reduced housing supplies, compared to counties without sprinkler requirements July 15, 2009—The results of a new study conducted for the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA) concluded that the presence of sprinkler ordinances has no negative impact on the number of homes being built. Conducted by Newport Partners, Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level (PDF, 416 KB)compared residential construction in four counties; Montgomery County, Maryland,was paired with Fairfax County,Virginia, and Prince George's County was paired with Anne Arundel County,both located in Maryland. Montgomery County and Prince George's County have sprinkler requirements; Fairfax County and Anne Arundel County do not.The selected areas,all developmentally mature,cover a wide geographic area and contain a variety of housing stock and income levels, making them prime for comparing municipalities with and without sprinkler ordinances in place. `This study clearly demonstrates that home fire sprinkler requirements do not impede housing development starts,"says Jim Shannon, NFPA president. 'This report is another point to make the case for enacting life- saving sprinkler requirements in local communities." Sprinkler ordinances were enacted in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in several stages,beginning in the late 1980s, but never in Fairfax County.Anne Arundel County adopted a requirement for single-family detached residences this year;this study looked at Anne Arundel County housing starts prior to the ordinance. No reduction in the number of single-family homes built in either Montgomery County or Prince George's County accompanied the enactment of ordinances,compared to the other two counties in the study that do not have sprinkler ordinances. Rather, both Montgomery and Prince George'counties saw larger relative increases in construction in the year after the ordinances went into effect,compared to the other two counties. Data for the analysis included annual single-family building permits,surveys of housing and households, local documents and news reports released before and after adoption of residential sprinkler requirements, as well as reviews of other housing regulations. Interviews with key builders, trade association staff and local government officials were also conducted. In interviews, builders and staff of the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association(MNCBIA)all indicated that the sprinkler requirements did not significantly affect the volume,character or price of the construction of new homes. According to the report, "None of the statistical or interview information demonstrated that the requirements led to reduced housing supply." All model safety codes now require the use of fire sprinklers in new one-and two-family homes.These requirements offer the highest level of safety to protect people and property.To review the complete finding from this report, please visit the Fire Sprinkler Initiative's Web site. About the Fire Sprinkler Initiative:Bringing Safety Home A The Fire Sprinkler Initiative, a project of the National Fire FIRE SPRINKLER 100IrrATI Protection Association, is a nationwide effort to encourage the use of home fire sprinklers and the adoption of tiro " sprinkler requirements for new construction. 45 About the National Fine Protection Association NFPA has been a worldwide leader in providing fire, electrical, building and life safety to the public since 1896. The mission of the international, nonprofit organization is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training http://www.nfpa.org/newsReleaseDetaits.asp?categoryid=488&itemld=44250 11/24/2009 Print Page Page 2 of 2 and education. M Subscribe to NFPA RS5 News feeds Contact: Lorraine Carli, Public Affairs Office: +1 617 984-7275 URL: h ttp://www.nfpa.org/newsReleaseDetails.asp?categoryid=488&i Lem Id=442 50 NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 1 Batterymarch Park,Quincy.MA 02169-7471 USA Te4phone:+1 617 770-3000 Fax:+1 617 770-0700 http://www.nfpa.org/newsReleaseDetails.asp?categoryid=488&itemld=44250 11/24/2009 Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report FEMAf k April 14, 2004 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report PART I An unprecedented gathering of the leadership of the American fire service occurred on March 10"' and 11'h, 2004, when more than 200 individuals assembled in Tampa to focus on the troubling question of how to prevent line-of- duty deaths. Every year approximately 100 firefighters lose their lives in the line of duty in the United States; about one every 80 hours. The first ever National Fire Fighter Life Safety Summit was convened to bring the leadership of the fire service together for two days to focus all of their attention on this one critical concern. Every identifiable segment of the fire service was represented and participated in the process. The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation hosted the Summit as the first step in a major campaign. In cooperation with the United States Fire Administration, the Foundation has established the objectives of reducing the fatality rate by 25% within 5 years and by 50% within 10 years. The purpose of the Summit was to produce an agenda of initiatives that must be addressed to reach those milestones and to gain the commitment of the fire service leadership to support and work toward their accomplishment. The Summit marks a significant milestone, because it is the first time that a major gathering has been organized to unite all segments of the fire service behind the common goal of reducing firefighter deaths. It provided an opportunity for all of the participants to focus on the problems, jointly identify the most important issues, agree upon a set of key initiatives, and develop the commitments and coalitions that are essential to move forward with their implementation. Every individual who came to Tampa was already personally committed to the mission of keeping firefighters alive and all of the organizations that were represented were already on record as supporting the goal of reducing line-of- duty deaths. The Summit was designed to produce a single combined agenda for change that all of the participants, individuals and organizations could agree to support and promote. The product of their concentrated effort in Tampa will provide the foundation for a joint strategy and combined effort that will be essential to produce the desired results over the next ten years. The Summit produced a set of initiatives that may well be regarded as radical today, however it is significant to recognize that nothing new was invented or discovered in Tampa. All of the initiatives that emerged were based on information and fundamental truths that were known long before the invitations to the Summit were issued. The gathering simply provided a forum at which those issues could be discussed openly and freely on their own merits. Some of the policies that were identified are likely to cause discomfort and controversy, however there is no arguing with the fact that the assembled leadership, who came from all segments of the fire service, concluded that these initiatives are essential to keep firefighters from dying unnecessarily. 2 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report This is the first step along a path that will require a huge commitment of energy and resources over several years. Some of the initiatives that were agreed upon will involve radical changes for the fire service. Any revolutionary movement requires committed and unwavering leadership to bring about this type of major change. The core of that leadership will come from the Summit participants who helped to shape the agenda and identify the strategies that will have to be implemented. The invited participants included key individuals who are widely recognized for their influence and leadership, some attending on their own and some as representatives of organizations that represent different sectors of the fire service. In the normal course of events these organizations often disagree on particular issues and priorities, however in Tampa the only issue on the agenda was how to keep firefighters alive and there was a very broad consensus on the efforts that are needed to accomplish that goal. As the initiatives are advanced over the next several years, the fire service will see an example of what committed leaders can accomplish when they agree to work together for an important cause. Process The Summit opened with an immediate emphasis on the need to take bold action to change perceptions and expectations in the fire service. The strongest words of inspiration came from NFFF Board Member Vina Drennan, who clearly reminded everyone of the pain that is felt by surviving family members and shared throughout the fire service whenever a member is killed, particularly when a life is lost in circumstances that could have been prevented. A review of historical data and statistical trends in line-of-duty deaths was presented to help the participants appreciate the range of problems and issues that must be addressed to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities. The majority of the effort during the Summit took place in six discussion groups that focused their attention on specific domains. Groups were assembled to address: • Structural firefighting • Wildland firefighting • Training and research • Vehicle operations • Health-wellness-fitness • Reduction of emergency incidents and risks. The groups were asked to produce a set of initiatives that should be undertaken to reduce line-of--duty deaths within their assigned domains. Each group was assigned two co-facilitators to lead the discussions, as well as a staff assistant to fully document the discussions. Within each of the domains the participants were asked to consider: • Education and awareness issues 3 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report • Standards and regulations • Specific research and technology issues • Psychological barriers • Leadership and personal/professional responsibility issues The groups reported their recommendations back to the full assembly, which then produced a single consolidated set of key initiatives and implementation strategies as the product of the Summit. The consolidated list included 16 individual initiatives: 1. Define and advocate the need for a cultural change within the fire service relating to safety, incorporating leadership, management, supervision, accountability and personal responsibility. 2. Enhance the personal and organizational accountability for health and safety throughout the fire service. 3. Focus greater attention on the integration of risk management with incident management at all levels, including strategic, tactical, and planning responsibilities. 4. Empower all firefighters to stop unsafe practices. 5. Develop and implement national standards for training, qualifications, and certification (including regular recertification) that are equally applicable to all firefighters, based on the duties they are expected to perform. 6. Develop and implement national medical and physical fitness standards that are equally applicable to all firefighters, based on the duties they are expected to perform. 7. Create a national research agenda and data collection system that relates to the initiatives. 8. Utilize available technology wherever it can produce higher levels of health and safety. 9. Thoroughly investigate all firefighter fatalities, injuries, and near misses. 10.Ensure grant programs support the implementation of safe practices and/or mandate safe practices as an eligibility requirement. 4 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report 11.Develop and champion national standards for emergency response policies and procedures. 12.Develop and champion national protocols for response to violent incidents. 13.Provide firefighters and their families access to counseling and psychological support. 14.Provide public education more resources and champion it as a critical fire and life safety program. 15.Strengthen advocacy for the enforcement of codes and the installation of home fire sprinklers. 16.Make safety be a primary consideration in the design of apparatus and equipment. Suggested Role for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation While developing the agenda of initiatives to reduce firefighter fatalities, the delegates were also asked to define an appropriate role for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation in working toward the implementation of the Summit recommendations. The Foundation is committed to this mission and to taking on roles and responsibilities that it can perform more effectively than any other group. The suggestions included a list of potential approaches that could be adopted by the Foundation: ■ Coalition building ■ Provide advocacy for the issues ■ Activism in the standards-making process ■ Political and apolitical activism ■ Partnerships and fundraising ■ Catalyst for change ■ Serve as a clearinghouse for information and data ■ Develop model programs and demonstration projects ■ Provide technical assistance ■ Work with NIOSH on investigations ■ Timely assistance to local jurisdictions ■ Provide recognition for achievements and contributions ■ Review performance and provide progress reports ■ Public awareness and communications The Foundation's Board of Directors will consider all of the suggested roles in the coming months and determine the ability of the Foundation to undertake each 5 NFFF/USFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report activity or project. The Board has already committed the Foundation to assume a set of responsibilities, beginning with organizing the Summit and serving as the key communicator and advocacy group for the initiatives that were developed. In the immediate future the Foundation will join forces with the United States Fire Administration to document, publish and distribute the initiatives. The Foundation will also work with USFA to report on the progress that is achieved in implementing each of the initiatives. The Foundation has already begun to seek partners and ambassadors to move the initiatives forward and scheduled a strategy meeting to establish the immediate, mid-range and long-range priorities for a 10-year campaign. That effort should be extremely visible in the coming months. 6 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report PART II Background discussion related to the initiatives, summarized from the Summit Cultural Change The most fundamental issue that was agreed upon by the Summit participants is the need for the fire service in the United States to change the culture of accepting the loss of firefighters as a normal way of doing business. This concept was reflected in several different statements that were produced by the individual discussion groups. The Summit participants unanimously declared that the time has come to change our culture and our expectations. Within the fire service we all feel the pain with the loss of each individual firefighter, but we have come to accept the loss of more than 100 firefighters each year as a standard expectation. As long as we continue to accept this loss, we can avoid or delay making the radical and uncomfortable adjustments that will be necessary to change the outcomes. We have to convince everyone in the fire service that a line of duty death is not a standard expectation or an acceptable outcome. Personal and Organizational Accountability The essential cultural change has to begin with accepting personal and organizational accountability for health and safety. Every individual within the fire service has to accept a personal responsibility for health, wellness, fitness for duty, skills development, basic competencies and adherence to safe practices. The leaders and members of every fire department and every fire service organization must be accountable for the safety of their members, collectively and individually. In addition the members must be accountable to each other. The most important and fundamental decisions relating to firefighter health and safety are made by individuals, from the top of the organizational chart to the bottom. Irresponsible behavior cannot be tolerated at any level and no external influence can overpower a failure to accept personal responsibility. The managers, supervisors and leaders within the fire service must instill and reinforce these values until they become an integral component of the culture. Incident Management and Risk Management This initiative incorporates a range of components that relate to our ability to safely conduct emergency operations in a high-risk environment. There is no question that fire fighters are expected to work in an environment that is inherently dangerous, however the risks and most of the specific dangers are well known. The most common causes of firefighter deaths are widely 7 NFFF/USFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report recognized, along with the situations where they are most likely to occur. We have to recognize and manage the risks that apply to each situation. The essence of professionalism in the fire service is the ability to function safely and effectively within that dangerous environment. We will never be able to eliminate all of the risks, but we can be very well prepared to face most of them. Firefighters at every level must be properly trained, equipped, organized and directed to perform their duties safely and skillfully. There must be a comprehensive structured system in place to manage incidents and risks. Company officers must be trained to supervise operations and incident commanders must be trained to manage incidents according to standard principles and practices. Firefighters must be prepared to function competently in a wide range of situations, including critical events that can involve unanticipated dangers and immediate risks to their own survival. Several areas were identified for special emphasis, including mayday and rapid intervention procedures, air management and preventing disorientation in zero-visibility conditions. Risk management involves identifying the situations where predictable risks are likely to be encountered and making decisions that will reduce, eliminate or avoid them. Realistic risk management applies at every level within the fire service, from the decisions made by individual firefighters and company officers to the actions of incident commanders and senior officers who have specific responsibilities for evaluating and managing risks. We fail to act professionally when we recognize a risk and choose to do nothing about it. The willingness of firefighters to risk their own lives to save others must never be used as an excuse to take unnecessary risks. Firefighters are highly respected for being willing to risk their own lives to save others, but that cannot justify taking unnecessary risks in situations where there is no one to save and nothing to be gained. In too many cases firefighters lose their lives while trying to save property that is already lost or to rescue victims who are already dead. While these efforts are valiant, they are also futile. Individual firefighters who take unnecessary risks, or fail to follow standard safety practices, endanger their own lives as well as the lives of other fire fighters who are depending on them or who might have to try to rescue them. Right to Stop Unsafe Procedures The Summit participants identified the fundamental right and responsibility of firefighters to stop unsafe procedures as a key issue. To many members of the 8 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report fire service, who have been indoctrinated with a traditional sense of unquestioning discipline, this could be an uncomfortable concept. The underlying principle is that an individual who recognizes an unsafe situation must take action to prevent an accident from occurring. Under this operational concept, any firefighter who believes that a situation is unsafe, or could be unsafe, has both the right and the responsibility to stop the action while an evaluation is made. The justification for this policy in non-emergency activities, particularly training situations, is easily understood. The application of the same concept to emergency operations could be more difficult for some individuals to accept. In too many cases the investigation of a fatal accident determines that an unsafe situation was recognized, but no action was taken to change or reconsider the plan. There are very few situations, even during emergency operations, where a brief hesitation to re-evaluate a potentially dangerous plan of action would have serious negative consequences. On the contrary, experience has shown that many lives could have been saved by taking a few extra seconds to stop and think. This policy does not mean that no action can be taken at an emergency scene that exceeds the comfort level of any individual. The obligation attached to the policy is to pause long enough to determine if it is reasonably safe to continue. In many cases an officer will have to make a very rapid assessment of the situation and decide whether to continue or change the plan. During emergency incidents there is one key question that we need to ask ourselves at regular intervals: "Are the results we are trying to accomplish worth the risks we are taking with our people?" The answer to this question should dictate actions by commanders and firefighters. Mandatory National Standards for Training and Qualifications The Summit participants reached the conclusion that the time has come to apply a mandatory national uniform system of training and qualification standards for all firefighters. This system would establish mandatory training, education and performance requirements, based on the duties an individual is expected to perform, regardless of their status within the fire service or the type of organization. The roles and responsibilities of firefighters at different levels and in different operating environments would be clearly defined. The basic system of professional qualifications standards already exists, however their current applicability depends on state and local jurisdictions, individual organizations, seniority, whether a firefighter is a career, part-time or volunteer member of the fire service, and many other factors. The summit delegates agreed that we must move toward a system where the same standards would be applied to anyone who performs a given role within the fire 9 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report service. The applicable standards must be appropriate and realistic for the functions the individual is expected to perform, however there should not be standards that apply to some individuals and not to others. In reference to the existing professional qualification and certification systems, the need for periodic recertification was identified as a priority. Today, in many cases, an individual can be certified at a particular level and retain that certification for life, with no requirements for continuing education, refresher classes, performance testing or skills evaluation. The established systems for emergency medical practitioner certification were suggested as a model. Mandatory Medical and Physical Fitness Standards Mandatory requirements for medical examinations and physical fitness standards should also be implemented for all firefighters, based on the duties and functions they are expected to perform. Medical surveillance should be increased before strenuous physical activity and during activities where firefighters are expected to operate at extreme levels of exertion and endurance. An increased emphasis on health, wellness and fitness is essential to reduce the number of deaths resulting from heart attacks and other cardiovascular causes. Statistics suggest that the most significant reductions in line of duty deaths are likely to be achieved through increased medical surveillance and physical fitness programs. The need for improvements in this area is most pronounced in the volunteer fire service, where the rate of fatalities due to heart attacks and other cardiovascular causes is now much higher than within the career service. This is a reversal of the situation that existed twenty years ago, when there were more cardiovascular deaths among career firefighters than volunteers. National Research Agenda and Data Collection The discussion of on-going research efforts as well as priorities for additional research projects pointed to the need for a national research agenda and budget for the fire service. Several different areas were listed as operational research priorities, from building construction to communications systems, leadership, management practices, and decision-making. A separate research agenda relating to the full spectrum of health, wellness and physical fitness issues was also identified, including psychological and physiological stress, cardiovascular function, oncology and biofeedback. The need for more comprehensive data collection and sharing to identify problem areas and support research was also recognized. The researchers who were present described their current projects, as well as asking for guidance on the most pressing areas to explore. Several research 10 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report projects are being conducted by different organizations on a variety of subjects relating to health and safety, however most of their funding and support come from sources outside the fire service and the projects are often influenced by other priorities and agendas. The fire service needs a process to identify its own research priorities and coordinate efforts, as well as a dedicated source of funding that can be allocated to the most important research projects. The delegates also recognized the challenge of applying many of the current research findings to real world situations. The fire service is benefiting from crossover adaptations of technologies that were developed for other purposes; however only limited funding is available to develop new technology specifically for fire service applications. The delegates emphasized the need to make the most use of technological advancements that are available to reduce the risks of emergency operations and training exercises. Cost is often mentioned as a barrier that keeps fire departments from adopting technological improvements that could improve the safety of operations. If a technological solution is available to eliminate a known risk, the cost must be considered in relation to the consequences of not making the investment to protect the lives of firefighters. Fatality Investigations The need for more consistent and comprehensive investigations and data collection to analyze the causes of fire fighter fatalities was also identified as an important priority. The delegates noted that the existing NIOSH fatality investigation program needs to be expanded and that every fatality should be thoroughly investigated and documented by a team of investigators who are qualified to examine all of the pertinent factors. The same type of investigation should be conducted for serious injuries and near-miss incidents to focus on preventing future occurrences. The need for autopsy results based on a standard protocol for every line of duty death was reinforced. Safety in Apparatus and Equipment Design Improvements in the design and construction of apparatus and equipment are needed to address a long list of concerns. The areas discussed ranged from breathing apparatus improvements to reducing the risk of rollover accidents involving tanker apparatus. Several on-going research and development projects were described and the manufacturers and suppliers who were present noted numerous suggestions for potential improvements. Several safety issues relating to the danger of firefighters being struck by vehicles while operating on roadways were discussed. A comprehensive approach involving apparatus positioning, emergency lighting, warning signs and traffic control devices, high visibility protective clothing, coordination with police 1l NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report agencies and public education was identified as a high priority for nationwide training and implementation. Incentives and Grants Tied to Safe Practices Several discussion groups identified the need to create a direct link between reinforcing appropriate safety policies and practices and the availability of state and federal grant funds for fire departments. There was unanimous support for the basic concept of using grant funds to leverage improvements in heath and safety programs. The suggestions ranged from making special incentive grants to fire departments in order to implement safe practices to making compliance with health and safety standards a condition for receiving funds under existing grant programs. The Summit participants also supported the idea of officially recognizing achievements and significant improvements in heath and safety. Several individual projects and organizations were suggested as already deserving recognition. Response Policies Another need for cultural change was identified in relation to emergency vehicle operations and response policies. The group that examined this area noted that an average of 10 firefighters are killed each year in vehicle accidents while responding to emergency incidents and an even greater number of civilians die in collisions involving responding emergency vehicles. Many of the emergency response deaths result from excessive speed and unsafe driving, which can be related to the perception that the urgency of the mission justifies an elevated level of risk to the emergency responders and everyone else on the streets. In too many cases the risks that are created en route are greater than the dangers of the situation itself. The cultural change must be based on recognizing that firefighters cannot save lives or property at the scene of an emergency incident unless they arrive safely and there is no justification for causing more harm en route than they can prevent when they arrive. The need for standard policies governing emergency response was identified, possibly through the development of a new NFPA standard or by adding to the scope of an existing standard. These policies should determine when emergency response is and is not appropriate and include specific policies relating to responding in privately owned vehicles. This cultural change has to begin with the enforcement of existing safe driving protocols by leaders and supervisors, as well as the mandatory use of seatbelts by all firefighters. The delegates noted that in many cases firefighters do not use 12 NFFFIUSFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report seatbelts that are provided in their vehicles, in spite of NFPA standards, departmental regulations and state laws. The failure to enforce and to follow these existing and basic safety procedures was highlighted as evidence of the urgent need for cultural change. The delegates recommended the adoption of a special classification of driver's license for emergency vehicle operators, similar to the existing commercial driver's license program. Instead of providing special exemptions for emergency vehicle operators, regulatory authorities should establish strict training and testing requirements, including medical clearances and periodic review of driving records. The highest standards should be applied to emergency vehicle operators. Protocol for Violent Incidents The Summit delegates identified the need for special protocols and policies in several areas, including a protocol for responding to violent incidents. This recognized the increasing exposure of firefighters to violent crimes and situations, up to and including terrorist attacks. Counseling and Psychological Support Based largely on experiences related to 9-11 and FDNY, counseling and psychological support programs were identified as high priorities for increased attention. Some of the accepted concepts and programs have been found to be inadequate or counterproductive. A combination of research efforts and large- scale practical experience will be required to make the necessary changes and improvements to these programs. Public Education The potential impact of public education on firefighter safety was addressed in a variety of contexts. Public fire and life safety education was identified as a strategy to reduce fires and the resulting level of risk to firefighters. In a similar manner, programs that are designed to prevent injuries and teach citizen CPR will reduce the risks encountered when responding to emergency medical and rescue incidents. Teaching drivers how to react appropriately when they encounter an emergency vehicle or when approaching an incident on a roadway will reduce another component of risk to firefighters. Fire Prevention Codes and Residential Sprinklers One of the most productive strategies for reducing the risk of fire fighter fatalities is to reduce the frequency of fires and emergency incidents. A comprehensive effort to increase fire service activism in fire prevention, code development and 13 NFFF/USFA Firefighter Life Safety Summit initial Report code enforcement should have a direct impact on reducing the exposure of fire fighters to dangerous situations. Efforts to promote the installation of automatic sprinkler systems in all new residential construction will have a profound Impact on future fire rates. Addressing the problem of juvenile fire setters will have a positive impact on firefighter safety as well as general public safety. The delegates endorsed placing an increased emphasis on prevention as a long-term strategy to reduce fire fighter fatalities. 14