Congrats George! I think that the initial surge of anti-sprinkler sentiment in many state legislatures (or in fairness, a sense of concern about costs, recessionary homebuilding trends, etc.) has peaked. This is not to say that the fights are over by any means, but I think that the NAHB has spent an awful lot of their magazine in the first volley. Here in CA, the State Fire Marshal's office convened a two-phase all stakes effort to smooth the way for adoption. Phase I is wrapping up their work on water supply issues and Phase II has just begun their work on installation, legislative and local AHJ issues. The Phase II group includes AFSA members Byron Weisz, Tom McKinnon and Todd Emery for the Association, and myself. The committee also includes the Calif. Dept. of Health (backflow), Fire Service, NFSA, sprinkler fitters unions, PHCC, the manufactured housing industry and other state agency reps. Lastly and most significantly it includes the California BIA, which represents the homebuilding industry.
CBIA has come to the table to participate in the process to lobby for a cost-effective basis and to assure that their members can hit the ground running on Jan 1, 2011. This is a radical departure from the NAHB stance, and it is my understanding that CBIA made their intentions known as soon as the OSFM made a call for members in the task groups. To their credit, they have (correctly, IMHO) perceived the inevitability of the residential sprinkler requirement and are taking the most proactive stance of any homebuilding group that I'm aware of in that regard. It may be cliché, but they have chosen to be part of the solution instead of the on-going problem and I can't say enough about how critically important that is. For the first time in a long while, I'm proud to say that California has taken a leadership role in the code development and adoption process, and our chances for success have been dramatically enhanced by the OSFM's diligence in making this a multi-faceted consensus effort. We fully expect to keep this completely outside of the legislature, and in the hands of the Building Standards Commission, where it belongs. Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting San Diego, CA -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Kettler Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: PA Res Sprkr WIN FWIW - here is an email I received on another list from someone in attendance: Well, folks-we won again, by the narrowest of margins. I've just returned home after spending the day in Harrisburg at the hearing. Debate began shortly after 10 this morning, and save an hour for lunch, concluded at about 1730. A few things took place which I think angered a few council members and swung them over to us: A fellow from the PA Builders Assn was going on about leaving it to be a local choice, and after it was pointed out that every time a municipality tries to choose sprinklers, they end up mired in litigation and appeals, the disingenuous nature of their claim was made clear. A statistics guy from the NAHB was going on at length with a bunch of numbers and how many millions it would cost the building industry just to save .3% of the population above the protection afforded by smoke detectors. A young engineer type on the Council asked him, "What if that .3% is my child?" It was an eye opener for some of them, that we're not arguing about dollars and cents-we're arguing about people being alive after their fire is extinguished, and also wanting all the responders to go home, free of injury or worse. Before voting, the Chair (who is a builder) wanted to get two people on the phone who hadn't been there all day so they could vote. A few members objected to this, because they hadn't had the benefit of hearing ~ 7 worth of testimony, both pro and con, and therefore couldn't cast an informed ballot. Finally, it was moved, seconded, and affirmed that those people who were not in attendance, and weren't listening to the presentations would not be permitted to cast a vote. So, the votes came down 10-7 for leaving RB 64 and 66 in the 2009 ICC. We had a wide range of support ranging from Ed Mann and other senior staff to career and volunteer personnel from all parts of the state. I'm happy about this, but wouldn't consider it over just yet. I'll be quite surprised if the builders don't attempt some other sleight of hand to circumvent today's votes. James M. Kettler, EFO, CFPS Director of Building and Codes/Fire Marshal Buckingham Township PO Box 413 4613 Hughesian Drive Buckingham, PA 18912 215-794-8836 www.buckinghampa.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4030 (20090423) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4030 (20090423) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
