| NFSA IRC Update South Carolina | ||||||||||||||||
| Providing an update on adoption of the International Residential Code and the requirement of fire sprinkler adoption of dwellings. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current IRC Status Reports: Changes Code Board membership. Expected back in 2010 A great win - add SC to the list of states whose code commission has adopted the IRC with fire sprinkler requirements. A key issue here was educating the commission members thereby dispelling the misrepresentations presented by the HBA. Attached is a letter from Senator Thomas that was a factor in the process. The letter presented key points that helped turn a vote against us to a close vote then finally to a 6-3 vote in our favor. The points raised by Senator Thomas should be argued in other states preparing to adopt the IRC like RI. I will not debate the value of sprinklers as subject experts have already debated the issue at length. These experts have embraced sprinklers due to scientific research. They are a minimum code requirement, not just a good idea. If we choose less, what message are we sending to others? I know there are concerns about economics and affordable housing. There are also philosophical arguments about forcing a person to protect themselves or their family in their own home. These debates are not new and may be valid to some. However, these concerns are not yours. As the Study Committee and Building Codes Council, your responsibility is to adopt at least the minimum standard - a standard that protects the lives and quality of life of all South Carolinians. I charge you to meet that responsibility and adopt the IRC without modification. The issues of cost and philosophical considerations are the responsibility of others as the elected officers of the General Assembly. If there is a deviance to the minimum standards, let the decision rest with them as they represent the citizens of SC. But now you can add SC to the "ball is in the Legislative Court" list. We expect a bill to be filed next week - legislation had been pending as the HBA expected to win the issue before the code commission. An amendment is expected to be filed next week on a Senate bill that meets the germanity rule that passed the Senate but is sitting in the House. The amended bill will then go back to the Senate so they can approve it. We are looking at a couple week window to kill the initial HBA push but then there will a window until the session ends on May 14th South Carolina adopts home fire sprinkler requirement. On February 24th the South Carolina Building Code Council (SCBCC) voted 6-3 to approve the adoption of the 2009 International Residential Code. This action requires new homes to be equipped with residential fire sprinklers starting January 1, 2011. "Through the collaboration of the entire fire service, sprinkler association, contractors, design professionals, concerned citizens, home builders, insurance representatives, government officials and others, residential fire sprinkler requirements became a reality in South Carolina," said John Reich, Deputy Director of the Division of Fire and Life Safety of the SC Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation (LLR), who stood out as the leader in this effort. He proved his passion for fire and life safety in his steadfast comittment to the see this through to victory. The effort must now move to the state legislature, where the requirement is being threatened by Senate Bill 1057. John adds that “in the interest of fire and life safety, I trust that legislative efforts to overturn this decision by the SCBCC will not be successful.” He adds: “we are fighting for those who will live, or die, in future homes in South Carolina.” This bill was introduced in the SC House yesterday. It states that a building code requiring a residential sprinkler system can’t be enforced. This is a companion bill to Senate Bill 1057. This will have to be taken seriously as the Sponsor is the Chair of the House LCI committee. BUILDING CODE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES AN AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM BE INSTALLED IN A NEW ONE-FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLING MAY NOT BE ENFORCED, TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS MAY CHOOSE WHETHER TO HAVE AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED, TO MAKE THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM APPROVED BY THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE AVAILABLE WHERE REQUIRED BY THAT CODE, AND TO PROVIDE WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION CONTROL EVEN WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER LAW OR LOCAL ORDINANCE. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/4663.htm I thought you would enjoy this message from North Charleston Assistant Chief / Fire Marshal Ray Hoshall. Have a great day. Good Morning All – I have taken the liberty of attaching two links below that will take you to the S. C. State Legislature Online site. House Bill 1057 (H1057) and Senate Bill 4663 (S4663) both present legislation that would prohibit local jurisdictions from enforcing the provisions of the recently approved International Residential Code with regard to requiring residential fire sprinklers in new one- and two-family dwellings. Basically, this would mean that the national consensus codes (ICC) recently approved by the S. C. Building Codes Council (SCBCC) would be adopted as approved, however, any provisions relating to requiring residential fire sprinklers would not be enforceable. This is equivalent to what happened 2 years ago with the cut live Christmas tree issue. In effect, the code would not be changed, just the enforcement capability. The Legislature, by Statute, has given the SCBCC the authority to adopt statewide fire and building codes. Legislatively removing the authority of the local AHJ to enforce the mandated codes seems illogical and effectively allows for line item veto of any (or all) specific code provisions in any of the Codes. Whenever similar bills are introduced in both legislative bodies, this often leads to “fast tracking” of a new law. Since there is often little debate between bodies to reconcile the two bills, it often comes to a full vote very quickly. There are actually two issues involved here. One, the loss of the local code authority’s ability to enforce the adopted code, and the second, the removal of the requirement to provide these life-saving systems, which would allow people to choose to not install a system. Looking at our City alone, in the past two years, where have the fire fatalities occurred? In the one place that people should be the safest. Their home! If this legislative action is successful, not only the people that build a new home today and opt out of a residential fire sprinkler system are being placed at risk, the next person that buys that home, and the next, and the next, will be at risk. On the issue of local code enforcement, this legislative action leads the way for “non-enforcement” of any provision of the fire or building code, simply because a special interest group opposes it. As fire service professionals, we should embrace the adoption of the minimum fire safety codes as developed by a consensus method. Adopting and enforcing anything less than the minimum standard is lowering the bar of fire safety for our citizens and our first responders. I personally encourage you to contact your Senators and Representatives and let them know how you feel about the attached legislation. Time is of the essence in this case as we may only have a matter of weeks or days to let our voices be heard. This is not an issue involving the taking away of personal freedoms, but it is a decision that will affect the newly constructed home and its future owners for the life of the building. I personally and individually need to understand that my decision not to sprinkler the new home I may be building, may well result in the death of someone that buys the home when I sell it. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/1057.htm http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/4663.htm Respectfully,Ray Hoshall The debate on residential fire sprinklers in South Carolina will continue tomorrow Wednesday March 10th, 2010. A Senate Public Hearing will be held in room 308, Gressette Building, SC State Capitol Complex, 11:00am to 1:00pm. This would be a great time to support residential fire sprinklers and help save a life. We are now in the 67th day of the new year. South Carolina’s fire death count is now at 23 Major battle state - Code Board adopts IRC - HBA aggressively misleading Legislature. The forwarded documents are from South Carolina and include a report from the SC Department of Insurance before a SC Senate Committee considering a ban on the 2009 IRC fire sprinkler requirements. The National Flood Insurance Program is a national program and therefore the impact caused by deleting requirements from the model code are consistent in all states. This means there are communities within each state in or near flood zones like beach front property or major rivers that have substantial numbers of citizens who pay for the NFIP who will receive a 5% increase in their premium as stated by the SC DOI. The rates in Charleston SC for example will go up $1.4 million according to the Department of Insurance just so the homebuilders can maximize their profit margin. The South Carolina Senate amended language previously passed by the House. This means the bill has to go back before the House for their final action. If the bill does not pass then the South Carolina Code Commission dates of 1-1-2011 becomes effective. Therefore it is in the HBA's best interest to lobby the bill in the House. And there is a chance the bill could be sent to a Conference Committee whose role it is to fix bills that are conflicting - the Conference Committee could recommend the compromise dates. The Senate made it pretty clear that there is significant opposition to the original language - thus the compromise amendment that Senators on both sides of the issue agreed. If the bill does not pass and the 1-1-2011 effective date becomes final that the SC HBA will file a lawsuit like what occurred in PA. If the compromise passes then both sides have a year to prepare for round two as the HBA is expected to continue its opposition. The Senate could reconsider the vote, conference committee could make different ruling, house could reject Senate amendment and send the bill back to the Senate asking to remove the compromise - many possibilities. An SC update. The compromise language (Townhouses 1-1-2011 and homes 1-1-2014) has been added to the Senate's version of the House bill as a "strike-all" amendment. This means there were many changes to the House bill in the Senate and instead of many amendments traveling back to the House for their concurrence one complete bill has been re-written. A traveling amendment is much more vulnerable to rejection. To remove the compromise language from the strike-all a late filed floor amendment will have to appear in the House - 2/3rd vote needed to hear a late filed amendment. We are monitoring for this amendment. If the bill does not pass then the 1-1-2011 date for everything goes into effect. The timeline is the full Senate will hear the strike-all bill Tuesday and it will pass. The amended bill will then be sent back to the House for their concurrence which is expected next Wednesday the 26th. Both the fire services and the HBA have been told by Senate leadership to stop the fight - the compromise will pass; live with it. Both have been told not to come back with changes during the 2011 SC Legislative session. Our lobbyist, the SC Fire Chief's lobbyist and a great SFM have been key factors in getting us this compromise. While the compromise was a handshake agreement between two Senators representing each side, the need for fire sprinklers impressed in our supporting Senator was key for the filibuster and the compromise. There are many within the SC fire services that have been polarized against the HBA because of what they consider unethical practices. Many were muzzled by their city manager as a result of HBA pressure. Most have calmed as a result of the compromise. All should be finalized by May 26th. There would be no HBA effort to kill the bill as it shortens their compliance date. S.C. Senate passes sprinkler bill, delaying code to 2014 The S.C. Senate passed legislation today that would require homebuilders to install residential fire sprinklers in all new homes built after 2013.In February, the state building council adopted the international code requiring all new construction to have sprinklers. The new code will go into effect in 2011 if no legislation is passed to prevent it, but the bill that passed the senate Tuesday would delay the code until January 1, 2014.The code and pending legislation has led to a lot of debate between fire safety officials who say that sprinklers save lives and homebuilders that say it should be a personal choice and that requiring sprinklers would reduce the number of people who could buy property. The bill that passed the senate was a compromise between the parties and will now be sent back to the S.C. House of Representatives for a vote.Sen. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, said that there was a lot of information initially about the cost, installation and consequences of requiring sprinklers. "I think the Senate did the right thing by putting the code off so people can get educated," he said. Sprinkler Bill in South Carolina signed by the Governor Session 118 - (2009-2010)H*4663(Rat #0282) General Bill, By Sandifer, Bales, Cato, McEachern, Hamilton, Loftis, G.R. Smith, Wylie, Stringer, Willis, Clemmons, Barfield, Ballentine, Whitmire, White, Toole, Huggins, Pinson, Gunn, Norman, Millwood, Simrill, Delleney, Owens, Bannister, Rice, Erickson, D.C. Moss, Stewart, Mitchell, Bowen, J.E. Smith, Dillard, Herbkersman, Chalk, Haley, Viers, Anderson, T.R. Young, Nanney and Vick AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3622, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TAX CREDITS, SO AS TO CREATE A STUDY COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP NEW STRATEGIES TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM BY ALL LOCAL TAXING ENTITIES AND TO REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING THE INSTALLATION OF INTERCONNECTED HARD-WIRE SMOKE ALARMS, TO REQUIRE A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS NO LATER THAN JANUARY 30, 2011, TO PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE SHALL DISSOLVE UPON THE DATE OF ITS REPORT, TO PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE'S MEMBERSHIP AND COMPOSITION, AND TO PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS MUST SERVE WITH NO COMPENSATION FOR PER DIEM, MILEAGE, OR SUBSISTENCE; BY ADDING SECTION 6-9-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE BUILDING CODES COUNCIL SHALL PROMULGATE AS REGULATIONS ANY PROVISION OF OR AMENDMENT TO A BUILDING CODE THAT WOULD AFFECT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE-FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND THAT A BUILDING CODE PROVISION CONCERNING THESE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION MAY NOT BE ENFORCED UNTIL THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATION PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, AND TO PROVIDE A REGULATION MANDATING THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A ONE-FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLING MAY NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2014; TO AMEND SECTION 58-5-390, RELATING TO FEES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, SO AS TO PROVIDE NOTHING IN THIS SECTION MAY GIVE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OR THE OFFICE OF REGULATORY STAFF POWER TO REGULATE OR INTERFERE WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES OWNED OR OPERATED BY OR ON BEHALF OF A MUNICIPALITY, COUNTY, OR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 6-9-135 RELATING TO CERTAIN ADOPTED FLOOD COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE. - ratified titleView full text 03/02/10 House Introduced and read first time HJ-35 03/02/10 House Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry HJ-35 03/03/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Cobb-Hunter, Cato, McEachern, Hamilton, Loftis, G.R.Smith, Wylie, Stringer, Willis, Clemmons, Barfield, Ballentine, Whitmire, White, Toole, Huggins, Pinson 03/04/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Gunn, Norman, Millwood, Simrill, Delleney, D.C.Moss, Owens, Bannister, Rice, Erickson 03/09/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Stewart 03/10/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Mitchell, Bowen, J.E.Smith 03/11/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Dillard 03/16/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Herbkersman 03/17/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Chalk 03/23/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Haley 03/24/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Viers 03/25/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Anderson 03/25/10 House Committee report: Favorable with amendment Labor, Commerce and Industry HJ-13 04/14/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: T.R.Young 04/15/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Nanney 04/20/10 House Requests for debate-Rep(s). Kennedy, Cobb-Hunter, Ott, Umphlett, Rutherford, Sandifer, Gambrell, Funderburk, Whitmire, JH Neal, Govan, Harvin, Jefferson, Clyburn, Mack, Bales, Gilliard, Erickson, Herbkersman, Parker, Kirsh and King HJ-49 04/22/10 House Requests for debate removed-Rep(s). Bales, Kennedy, and JH Neal HJ-35 04/27/10 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Vick 04/27/10 House Member(s) request name removed as sponsor: Cobb-Hunter 04/27/10 House Amended HJ-119 04/27/10 House Read second time HJ-119 04/27/10 House Roll call Yeas-89 Nays-19 HJ-120 04/28/10 House Read third time and sent to Senate HJ-62 04/29/10 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-18 04/29/10 Senate Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry SJ-18 05/13/10 Senate Recalled from Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry SJ-44 05/13/10 Senate Special order, set for May 13, 2010 SJ-44 05/13/10 Senate Amended SJ-44 05/13/10 Senate Read second time SJ-44 05/13/10 Senate Debate interrupted SJ-44 05/14/10 Scrivener's error corrected 05/18/10 Senate Read third time and returned to House with amendments SJ-28 05/25/10 House Concurred in Senate amendment and enrolled HJ-68 05/25/10 House Roll call Yeas-100 Nays-1 HJ-68 06/01/10 Ratified R 282 06/07/10 Signed By Governor |
||||||||||||||||