Republicans trying to balance safety with costs

Less than two months after it took effect, Pennsylvania’s residential sprinkler mandate took the first step towards extinction Monday in the House Labor and Industry Committee.

The mandate took effect on Jan. 1 when the updated Uniform Construction Code (UCC) was adopted by the state Department of Labor and Industry (DL&I). According to the Pennsylvania Builders Association, which opposes the new rule, the mandate adds a cost of up to $15,000 to the average cost of a new home in Pennsylvania. Sprinkler advocates say the cost is worth the added safety provided by the systems.

State Rep. Ron Miller (R-York) acknowledged the lifesaving ability of sprinkler systems and said he would encourage any new homebuyer to have them installed.  Mandating their use adds a costly burden to the struggling construction industry, he said.

“Housing normally leads us out of a recession. There are a lot of issues about…what this is going to do to the housing industry,” said Mr. Miller.

In H.B. 377, House Republicans are trying to balance the concerns of cost and safety.

The bill requires builders to provide potential homebuyers with the option of installing a sprinkler system and to inform them of the benefits of sprinklers.  If the buyer decides not to install sprinklers, the home must be built with extra fireproof material on the floor boards to slow the spread of fire.

State Rep. Garth Everett (R-Lycoming), the sponsor of the bill, told the committee the mandate is an unnecessary overreach of governmental authority.

“It’s a mandate that is just forcing people to go above and beyond what is necessary,” said Mr. Everett. “It’s also, I believe, a personal liberty issue.  There is a point where government goes beyond trying to help people and gets involved in their lives too heavily.”

Mr. Everett said other fire safety requirements are sufficient to save lives and the safety of residents does not improve by more than 2 percent with the addition of sprinklers.

Minority Chair William Keller (D-Philadelphia) said repealing the mandate was an unnecessary government intrusion into the statewide code. He said the move was a slippery slope towards the General Assembly being able to change and revise minute details of the code in the future.

“What we’re doing today is government interference. We’re reaching in and changing that code that this body had nothing to do with,” said Mr. Keller.

The state established the UCC in 2004 when the General Assembly instructed the DL&I to establish a statewide building code.  The department adopted the International Code Council’s triennial building code.

Mr. Miller said the state has already changed the code five times in the past 10 years.

“Sometimes, what is adopted doesn’t make sense for Pennsylvania,” said Mr. Miller.  “Do we automatically adopt what an international body says should be law in Pennsylvania or do we look at it and say this is what we want to do?”

State Rep. Donna Oberlander (R-Clarion) will be introducing a bill to amend the UCC adoption process later this year.

Democrats offered four amendments to H.B. 377 Monday but all were defeated. An attempt to table the bill until more hearings could be held by the committee was also defeated by the Republican majority.

Mr. Miller said the bill was too important to be kept waiting.

If all goes smoothly, the bill could be passed by the House early next week.

If the sprinkler mandate is repealed at the state level, municipalities may still pass their own mandates.  Since 2004, 10 municipalities in the state have tried to enact sprinkler ordinances.

A 2005 state Supreme Court case, Schuylkill Township v. Pennsylvania Builders Association, established municipalities must have “clear and convincing local topographical and public health circumstances” to enact a mandate which exceeds the state UCC requirements.

If Pennsylvania repeals the sprinkler mandate, California will be the only state using the ICC’s code to require residential sprinklers.  The other 22 states which base their codes on the ICC either blocked the sprinkler mandate before it took effect or delayed the implementation of the mandate for at least one year.