Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Supervisor Desch Re Sprinkler Ordinance
FINAL MEMORANDUM Disposition date TO; Ithaca Town Board FROM: Noel Desch RE: Sprinkler Ordinance DATE; June 9, 1988 The Town Attorney is drafting a local law somewhat similar to the attached Town of Greenburg ordinance, although I suggested a ten-year retrofit period rather than five years. We also have a copy of the Dobbs Ferry local law. In any event, it is reasonable to ask why in the Town of Ithaca and why now. Those who attended the Firemen's recognition banquet on May 7th very graphically saw the benefits of such an ordinance in the main speaker's program. In the case of our Town, timing becomes even more critical. Let me give you some reasons: (1) The rate at which dwellings are being built in the Town (200-300/year) means that our fire risk is expanding rapidly and probably more so than our ability to expand and pay for fire service. Many of these units are to be in attached buildings, including significant numbers of apartments. (2) Our Town is large and the need for additional fire stations beyond the two now in the design stage will materialize within five to ten years. We can ill afford to gear up to staff such facilities with paid people and the most elaborate of equipment, particularly when mutual aid is available on an effective basis all around us. (3) The need for public water for domestic purposes as well as fire protection has enabled us to cover most of the populated areas of the Town. The water master plan, if carefully pursued, will enable us to cover the remaining critical areas and dovetail well with the installation of sprinklers. These improvements have and will continue to be accomplishable with very little burden to future generations. (4) The cost/benefit of a sprinkler ordinance may be the best investment the Town can be a part of for the next century. The attached analysis shows a payback in less than twenty years, probably even less than ten, through stabilized fire tax and lower insurance rates. (5) The general spacing of buildings in the Town of Ithaca, when coupled with a sprinkler ordinance, affords optimal protection from fire spread such that the level of Fire Department staffing can be held stable or reduced. -1- Memo Noel Desch to Town Board June 9, 1988 'f: (6)The adoption of a sprinkler ordinance has no impact on water supply systems capacity. Distribution system improvements, such as additional storage on South Hill, East Hill, and West Hill will need to be accomplished in response to the growth that is taking place for domestic service. These improvements will also be needed to assure reliable fire protection. (7) A sprinkler ordinance is one way for a community to assess an impact fee for the suppression of both fire risk and long-term fire service costs. (8) The reliability of sprinkler protection is extremely high and well established compared with smoke and heat detection, particularly with regard to malfunction. A major decrease in the number of false alarms is very likely. A. Impact of Cost on Construction Residential 1. The use of a copper pipe system and approval of the use of the normal domestic water service (increase to 1" service) has made the installation of sprinklers affordable in single-family residences. Local plumbers estimate the cost for new homes to be less than $l/sq.ft. or less than $2,000 for a 2,000 square foot home which, on average, would cost $110,000. So, a sprinkler system represents a less than 2% increase in the cost of the home. 2. In multifamily residences, the cost will be potentially greater due to the need for a separate fire service line. However, this is the area of the greatest potential for loss of life, even with the new fire code requirements. Although the Town does annual inpsections, housekeeping in individual apartments is very difficult to monitor and impossible to control. The cost per apartment according to local plumbers would be approximately $600.00 which will have an insignificant impact on rental rates. In fact, insurance savings will result in a payback of five years or less. Institutional All public assembly areas and sleeping areas should be sprinklered as a matter of practice. In the case of classrooms, it may be argued that other forms of protection would be better due to the prevalence of computers and other electronic equipment. Assumptions - Next 20 Years A. New -2- Memo Noel Desch to Town Board June 9, 1988 1, Dwelling Units — all types 300 units constructed/year 2, Institutional — educational, etc. 300 ,000 sq,ft./year 3, Commercial/Industrial 50,000 sq.ft./year B. Retrofit — Next 20 Years 1. Dwelling Units 3,000 units 2. Institutional 1,200,000 sq. ft. 3. Commercial/Industrial 150,000 sq. ft. Cost of Sprinklers New 1. 300 units X 20 yrs. x 1,500 sq.ft. x $1.50/sq.ft. = $13,500,000. 2. 300,000 sq.ft. x 20 yrs. x $1.00/sq.ft, = $ 6,000,000. 3. 50,000 sq.ft. x 20 yrs. x $1.00/sq.ft. = $ 1,000,000. TOTAL $20,500,000. Retrofit 1. 3,000 units x 1,500 sq.ft. x $1.50/sq.ft. = $ 6,700,000. 2. 1,200,000 sq.ft. x $1.00/sq.ft. = $ 1,200,000. 3. 150,000 sq.ft. x $1.00/sq.ft. = $ 150,000. TOTAL $ 8,050,000. B. Cost Savings in Reduced Fire Service Needs Fully Volunteer Force Annual Costs Cost of Financial Aid and Other Incentives $ 40,000. Cost of Operating Three Stations in the Town of Ithaca 9,000 sq.ft. X 3 x $2.00/sq.ft. $ 54,000, Debt Retirement Three Stations $185,000. -3- Memo Noel Desch to Town Board June 9, 1988 Insurance $ 65,000. Supplies $ 10,000. Training $ 40,000. Equipment — Debt Retirement $120,000. Miscellaneous $ 30,000. $544,000. Say, Volunteer Budget $600,000/yr. Note — Cayuga Heights Fire Department Budget is about $100,000/yr. Savings/Year starting in 1992 — $450,000. If Town volunteer department cost increases at the same rate as City department costs (which it will not; it will be lower), savings in tax cost in twenty years will be $9,000,000. excluding major savings in insurance rates. These savings do not include further staffing requests alluded to by the Chief at our public hearing on the Fire Stations, etc. That savings is $200/year on the average house in the Town of Ithaca, or $4,000 in twenty years (again, excluding insurance savings), enough to amortize most of the cost of a retrofit sprinkler system, to say nothing about the major savings in lives. ND/nf enclosures -4- TIMOTHY T. TERPENING JENNIFER C. TERPENING 207 West King Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Phone: (607) 273-0931 JUL29I9BB TOWN OF ITHACA Jiily 27. 1988 FINAL DISPOSITION DATE Mr* Noel Desch Ithaca Town Supervisor 126 E* Seneca St* Ithaca. N.Y* 14850 Dear Mr. Descht I would like to express my disappointment with the Ithaca Town Board for enacting such a sweeping law requiring sprinkler systems to be installed in homes in the Town of Ithaca. I question just how much support you have for this law, as it is written, from private people in your constituency. It seems to me there should have been more discussion and public debate about it before you went ahead with your decision. We used to get a flyer in the mail containing Town news items* Apparently this has been discontinued as we have not received a copy in quite a while. Anyway, we were^ not aware of this matter before we read about the Board's approval of the law. After talking to others I get the impression most people in the Town were not aware something so important was to be decided so soon. My wife and I own and manage a number of apartment buildings in the City of Ithaca and one in the Town of Ithaca. We are very consciencious landlords, especially when it comes to safety for the occupants* In fact we were installing and personally maintaining smoke detection equipment in each apartment many years before the City of Ithaca Building Department or the New York State Building and Housing Code required it* We install the equipment and test it frequently. When we remodel, and have access to do so, we install direct wired alarms in addition to the battery operated alarms already in place. We believe this smoke detection equipment is the first line of safety after responsible building maintenance and careful selection of tenants. The expense of installing such equipment in a new home will pale when compared to the cost, in terms of dollars as well as personal hardship, for an existing home or building installation. Your enacting this law reminds me of the plumber I once hired who caused a flood in an apartment house. He sent me his bill and asked me to kindly send my contractor's receipts to him when my ceilings were replaced* Third parties tend to overlook the broader impact of such work being done while people are living in the home. Landlords and private families must consider this impact, andt TIMOTHY T. TERPENING JENNIFER C.TERPENING 207 West King Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Phone: (607) 273-0931 page 2 like it or not» it nust be added on the bottom line expense of the renovation. And what happens, ultimately, to the bottom line expense of maintaining a home or an apartment building? While all of us know the answer, it appears that governing committies, fire chiefs, building inspectors and private interest insurance companies would like not to ask the question as they go along in making their recommendations. Home owners and families who would like to own a home have no choice but to ask -- and answer — this question. The questions you and the Town Board should be asking -- and answering responsibly -- are those questions that get put to the home owner every day during a renovation project -- every day that workmen flock to the job site at $18 to $30 per hour. Bflr. and Mrs. Homeowner we've run into a problem over here, this wall is not plumb, this floor is not quite level, we may have to move a radiator if you do this or that, Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner, just how far do you want to go with these new floors and walls and ceilings? Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner, of course, would like to have all new floors and walls and ceilings. However, they must live according to the economics of their real estate investment. They must face reality. And what about the questions Bbrs. Day Care Mother will have to ask herself....regarding her continued involvement in the profession versus the expense of renovating her home. Shouldn't the Town board be asking these questions as well? It seems to me the Town of Ithaca government has enacted a law that is not conducive to keeping its established businesses located in the Town, a law that contributes to the lack of cost effective and affordable housing, a law that will surely keep day care mothers out of the business or limit their size and again put more pressure on an area that is causing hardship for so many families. You have enacted a law that appears to be bom of nrare special-interest wishful thinking than of responsible consideration for the real life negative impact it will have versus its benefits. I iirge you and the Board to reconsider this law entirely and to surely amend it to be sympathetic to all existing buildings. FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA DlSPOSiriONDATE^^ 124 EAST SENECA STKOT >, ITHACA, NEW YORK 14450 August 2, 1988 Mr. Robert Harris, Esq. Division of Housing and Community Renewal 1 Fordham Plaza Bronx, New York 10458 Re: Town of Ithaca Local Sprinkler Law Dear Mr. Harris: Confirming your telephone conversation with Town of Ithaca attorney, John Barney enclosed is a copy of Local Law #7 adopted by the Town of Ithaca on July 11, 1988 establishing the require ment that automatic sprinklers be installed in most new construc tion and in certain existing structures in the Town of Ithaca. The express purpose of the legislation is to suppress the rapidly increasing cost of fire service in the Town of Ithaca and to pro vide a level of fire prevention not currently provided for in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in the case of single and two family dwellings. With regard to the cost of fire services we enclose a graph which shows the rapid rate of growth of such costs. The fire fighting entity that serves most of the Town of Ithaca is a com bined paid/volunteer force. As the difficulty to attract and retain volunteers increases and the number of fire calls escalates rapidly, the pressure to increase the numbers of paid personnel also increases. The cost to taxpayers to provide a fully paid rapid response force would be prohibitive. We therefore, need to minimize the increase in the fire risk in our Town where we are experiencing considerable growth in not only traditional single family housing but also apartment, dormitory and alternate housing options for the elderly. Our educational institutions cause over fifty percent of our property value to be tax exempt. The annual construction budget at these institutions exceeds $100,000,000 per year. The sprinkler law will enable us to keep our future fire service options open and the tax burden under control. With regard to the applicability of the Uniform Fire Preven tion and Building Code we note that in the case of single and two family dwellings the adoption of the sprinkler law overcomes an omission in the State Code namely the provision of housekeeping inspection. While the Town might not want to inspect such dwelling units we none the less believe we have a responsibility to assure Mr. Robert Harris, Esq. August 2, 1988 Page 2 the fire risk, in such units, is kept to a minimum. We have seen too many examples where poor housekeeping has led to fatalities even in cases where smoke detection was provided and the fire resis tance integrity of the structure was at or above the standards pro vided in the Code. We would appreciate council review of our local law and your determination that the Town of Ithaca local law regulation is rea sonably necessary under the circumstances. We are aware of the provisions of Section 379 of the Executive Law with respect to factory manufactured homes. If it becomes necessary for us to consider an amendment to our local law to exclude such homes we will do so but only if it can be shown that the fire risk in such a living environment without a sprinkler system is no higher than a "stick built" home with a sprinkler system. As we believe you will see it is not our intent to distinguish or discriminate against any construction in our administration of this local law or the provisions of the State Code. You might find the enclosed recent publicity of interest. If additional supporting information would be helpful, please let me know. You can reach me most easily at my Cornell number (607) 255-4274 or you can call me at Town Hall (607)273-1721. My home telephone is (607)272-3469. If appropriate, I would be pleased to appear before the council to explain our situation. Sincerely, Noel Desch, Supervisor Town of Ithaca Enclosures ND/lp cc: John Barney, Town Attorney Andrew Frost, Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED SPECIAL DELIVERY i »t, tL. ( f;. u k i— i V I- *•- w c ^ \ w h5 2 u.v^^H Jvf r^_0„v/.i^..U ;,.. n !. I i_ J :- —i i ' L_j_ u_ir5Ji:5. iUrcrrcou : ; i 1^ cAyOii^^l I I ^ ^ r I' i \±SlL U t I"" »' ■" »■ 'T" . . I ,~r' I r ; I * 1 I I » . I , ! I I I ( I I I < t I r m 'ft--';FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA 136 SAST SmECA STKHT DISPOSITION DATE miACA, NEW YORK August 3, 1988 Mr, Timothy T. Terpening 207 West King RDad Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Terpening Thanks for your letter of August 3 on the matter of the Towns new Sprinkler Law. A copy of the law is attached for your information. Please note that it does not, in its final form, include the requirement that preexisting single and two family dwellings be retrofitted with sprinklers. I believe that you would be supportive of the law if you understood the rapid escalation in fire district costs absent the control of the future fire risk in our ccmnunity. The amortization of sprinkler installation costs will be significantly less than the cost of supporting a fully paid fire department. 1 would be pleased to show you the detailed projections. In the meantime, do not hesitate to call me about any aspect of your concerns. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js encs. fid! ©IID\W 1968 TOWN OF ITHACA —rm disposition date Mr. Noel Desch Supervisor Town o-f Ithaca ?< Members o-f the Town Board 126 E. Seneca Sst. Ithaca, N-Y- 14850 Gentlemen: The purpose o-f this letter is register a plea -for sound government in the Town of Ithaca. More specifically, I request you to undertake a critical re-evaluation of the recently passed sprinkler ordinance- The eventual repercussions of this ordinance are staggering#let me illustrate with a few examples: A. Home Cost; The cost of providing sprinkler systems in new construction homes with municipal services is approximately $3,000; in new homes on wells and existing homes with municipal water $4000+; and existing homes with wells $5000. With housing affordabi1ity already an critical issue in the Town, a prospective home owner's income requirement for the same $100,000 home increased between $112 and $186 per month with the passage of this ordinance. To further illustrate a morgage of $100,000 requires an income of $44,800 to qualify. A mortgage of $105,000 requires an income of $47,047. For many home buyers pre-manufactured housing offers an economical alternative to conventional "stick" building. The feasibility of this type of housing being able to accept sprinklers is just about impossible, further restricting housing affordabi1ity and availability to people with moderate incomes. B. Code Enforcement: Anyone who has even a small studio apartment and who wishes to make an addition to his home would be required to mm. associates lansing village place Ithaca, new york 14850 phone: (607) 257-6866 simiitaneously add a sprinkler system. This would and dramatically raise the cost o-f the project. A predictable outcome is -for homeowners to avoid getting a building permit where ever possible. This would result in increasingly difficult code enforcement and Increased fire and safety risks. In short because of the inequities of this ordinance, is very likely suffer the same fate as other such laws - civil disobedience. C. Economic feasibility: Perhaps we should view this issue in light of its economic payback to the citizen home owner. According to Robert Lama of Lama Insurance, one could expect a 5% reduction in fire insurance costs with a sprinkler system installed. Given a typical yearly savings of ^15.00 it would take 200 years to pay back the investment that cost $=3000. A 5t6000 investment would take 400 years. This is pure Fiscal Insanity. To contrast one would realize a 30"/. savings on fire insurance costs on homes where municipal water is available as opposed to one that is on a well ! This would only be one small advantage of extending municipal services to those of us homeowners who suffer poor water quality and quantity. Also, this ordinance is aimed at new homes who have few fires and ignores older homes who suffer the great majority of fire 1 OSS. There are many other issues to be considered but they would require far more expertise and resources than one citizen can co^ntribute. However a sample listing may include: 1. How does this ordinance contribute the Elitist "Ive got mine and the heck with you" thinking which is coming into vogue within the Town. 2. Does the Town have any responsibility to encourage the availability of moderate cost housi ng. 3. Is this ordinance a DeFacto Building Moratorium. 4. With regard to the fire safety issue, are we "killing an ant with a sledge hammer". How many homes have been lost and how many will be saved by this ordinance. 5- Have the residents had their say on this issue. « ■f >:• In conclusion, i-f -fire protection is a burning issue amongst the Town Board^ may I suggest as a -first priority increasing the availability o-f municipal water to more o-f our citizens and secondly the immediate suspension o-f the ordinance until a comprehensive review of the issues is completed- Sincerely, Joseph Quigley ■ >-■- ■ TOWN OF ITHACA FINAL 126 EAST SENECA STRHTT ITHACA, NEW YORK DISPOSITION DATE 14860 August 12, 1988 Mr. Joseph Quigley Re/Max Associates Lansing Village Place Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Joe: This is a quick response to your August 11 letter, on iry way out of Town on vacation, but I wanted to alert you to a public discussion of the new sprinkler law scheduled for September 12 at our next regular Town Board meeting. Please plan to attend. Also, let me clear up sane misunderstandings: (1) There is no retrofit requirement for single and two family dvrellings. (2) There is no requirement for sprinklering on additions to a single or two family dwelling. We will very soon have the first installation of sprinklers in a manufactured hone. While we don*t know the exact cost it is expected to be well below your estimate of $3,000. In terms of pay back, the amortization trade off is with respect to the offset against increased fire district taxes and the saving of lives. The amortization cost for sprinklers will very soon {2-3 years) be less than the cost to sustain a rapid response fire department. Come to our meeting on September 12 to express your views. Hope to see you then. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: Town Board Andrew Frost FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA 136 EAST SENECA STXBH DISPOSITION DATE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • August 26, 1988 Mr. & Mrs. Stef^en Sackett 185 Kendall Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sackett: This is in response to your letter of August 24 requesting a variance fron the Tcwn local law requiring the installation of sprinklers in the house you are in the process of building on Kendall Avenue. I have referred the matter to the office of Mr. Frost, Town of Ithaca Building Inspector for his consideration. The Tcwn of Ithaca Zoning Board of ^^ipeals is the agency that considers requests for variances of this nature. Mr. Frost and Mr. Aron wDuld determine \^ether or not your request is appropriate. Perhaps you would want to call Mr. Frost next week to determine the status of your request. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: AixSrew Frost August 24, 19SS Dear Mr. Desch; I would like to request a variance so that I do not have to put in a sprinkler system on my modular home. Although I believe that sprinkler systems can be very important, in this particuliar instance it is making this home are real hardshi p. The basic facts are as follows; We ordered a modular home long before we even knew about this ordinance. Had we known about it we probably would not have ordered the home. We took a lot of chances just to do this project by selling our own home to get the money for it. Now due to many many factors we have had a lot of additional costs. The sprinkler system alone went up from *1, 700.00 to ^2,300.00 and I expect before it is done it will cost us near to ^3,000.00. The reason it will go up is that this home is a home that is already completed. Changes will have to be made and more work will have to be done to do the job and to finish the job because this home is already a completed home. By doing these changes we will be altering the structure of which will void our warranty with the manufacturer alone is one of the major reasons for wanting this However the cost, the extra work, the fact that we not being able to sell the home in the selling season at the present fair market value, and the fact that we lose our warranty is enough of a reason to request a variance. this home That var i ance. may end up We would like to work with the town and we have not tried to be a problem about this but the home is already here, and we plan to set it and finish it as soon as possible. If we do not get everything done soon it will really hurt us and it is more than we can take. Please check into this matter for us and give us a answer as soon as possible. We appreciate any and all help in this matter. Si ncerely, Mr. St Mrs. Stephen Sackett town //■/} Ne X ^ FINAL S^p'Z-^joohe^ /5"~ ' DISPOSITION DATE TJlc^ /^h^c^cf Joor^n^/ / C^ rt-f^c/ ^n cf nnoofiOce^ryi typC-om/n<^ TbtA/n of l-hh<=ic^^ ^lAhhc. on Oc.fot>er fj f-o r-e.c,ons/dc,ir thty Spn/nt^/e^r- ondtnance. ■ / i^cis ^monc^ a nrnb^n of mfe-re-sfe^d- oind pnosp€^o4-'V<. oLH-€.nd€.e,s Qpp.e^r'e^ he^-fore. fhry Soh^'-^l-e^ •f/nn-C' of Monda(j s (^Se^pt, ) tn/h^il he^arfno^ on fh/s suhje-od' huf nof find ^ Scjxf—nor a p/ac€ fo <fand Oomforfo^hlt^ , he-Co,oise. of dhe- /,nn,fed. S^hn^ A-^C^AV. ,Wi-hh so mtAo^h infe-nesP €-n<^^ndojr-e-fi biA this i^r<c^cler,t-s^tf^r-df'>nc^,'-^"i.f possible -hr cfou -f-o -fmcL " har^o^ retr^ -hr fh<. Octcbe-r n public, hc^rln^l Pe-rhupS the, OtUP-hl Court Pourc bos fu u, fhffcr hcorlr,^ foom^u^tuch should he t/f l^cst twice the sfz-e 'f ^'ur fccs^t iaoaf/on)^ and )f so, advance noi-ice. to fher public should be madCr , Ve./-y hru/ij (fours Ard.'-tX.-- (ftfr, Asa GeoPGS) -'-i ji, - -■" -*0'..■, >. ./'■ '■*■- •'. J" * S' r-'>»eOfc*'3-^ ) , ; ls^\3s^ w. , Ssp.fi* \HiA^ ; ' - ^^-Vsiv:, :w v:^v^c:c- ^«OV t.r.s ^ ^ . T ^ -■ 'ai'.\4W4«:V, Vj^TQVAvH V-V '*■• ^ ^5^\> \V>\cr'.v-v;-?,'^ ^V • j^vy-e _^i<s'«VAvj-^ vsicvv>a:>. P.':^V ■^«^v.^-:- s3,ii>./'^i VN^iQvi ;i £i\~ ' VX> 4 .■■3 r.e rt'-JS; wvr\;.^vjr;p>vw ! ';^V \v^:^Si.-■\ ^■-.. ^ xi-i-\s4yC'\.- .\Y S* -C-Vs^'SW . VX % N*^i'.V5»V.' v>.^ irj >. ■ H- h \ rj. ■•■i:}^'^ ^'r Ste - . :S. .•^: ^V :4V5 ...V .. ••» \ V 1^ /x! - ^ --r »«. -4/:.'.-V;-^>iVt,'iti'Vit' "S^..---*r • -. •. •'•■• '■ ' - .^fhiem :;xX>-'^\K-v-^' "■X-k tinvr TOWN OF ITHACA 136 EAST SENECA STKOr ITHACA, NEW YORK DiSPOSlKON DAI£ 14650 Septeitfcer 21, 1988 Richard L. Higgins, Conmissioner State of New York Division of Housing and Conrrtunity Renewal One Fordham Plaza Bronx, New York 10458 RE; Town of Ithaca Sprinkler Law - Cornell Housing Dear Mr, Higgins: This letter pertains to the request of Cornell University for your written interpretation of the Town of Ithaca's Sprinkler Law with respect to the Cornell Housing project referenced in their letter of September 16 to you. Before rendering an interpretation we urge, as part of your review, that you study both the record of hearings on the project and the specific plans for the housing. From tMs you will leam the following facts: (1) At Cornells request, in order to meet zoning and occupancy regulations, the units have been classified cis dormitories and not single nor two family nor multifamily dvrellings. (2) The units are clustered as attached dwelling units and the design features modified to the extent that they have become virtually equivalent to stick built structures. (3) The housing units do not front on a public street. This coupled with increased risk associated with student housing, i.e., housekeeping dictate the need for the autcmatic sprinklers irrespective of the provisions of Section 379 of the Executive Law. (4) A review of the record will also show that Cornell, as a condition of special approval of the land use, represented to the Tcwn Zoning Board of Appeals that sprinklers would be installed throughout this project. Richard L. Higgins 2 September 21, 1988 As a separate condition, we are troubled by a State Agency issuing interpretation of a Tcwn Local Law to private parties. If Cornell refuses to ccitply with the lawful adopted Town ordinance, it will be the Town's responsibility (not the State's) to enforce those provisions and, ultimately a Court's decision as to the applicability of the provisions. Under the circumstances we wonder if it is appropriate for a State Agency to be rendering any opinions at all, particularly in view of the fact that the Town has cilready rendered its opinion orally to Cornell's representatives to the effect that Cornell's project is subject to the sprinkler ordinances requirements. Please feel free to call if you need further information. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js FINAL John C Barney Peter G. Grossman Nelson E. Roth Davio a. Dubow Richard P. Ruswick Rosanne Mayer TO: FROM: RE; DATE; BARNEY. GROSSMAN. ROTH & DUBOW Attorneys at Law 315 NORTH TIOGA STREET P O BOX 6556 ITHACA. NEW YORK 14851-6556 DISPOSITION DATE (607) 273-6841 Telecopier (607) 272-8806 MEMORANDUM NOEL DESCH JOHN C. BARNEY SPRINKLER ORDINANCE September 27, 1988 I received a telephone call from Jim Miller who has apparently been retained by a Manufactured Homes Association out of Pennsylvania to try and have our sprinkler ordinance changed to exclude manufactured homes or, failing that, to bring a lawsuit against the Town declaring the sprinkler ordinance invalid insofar as it pertains to manufactured homes. The basis for the lawsuit would be the language we have discussed contained in Sections 379 of the Executive Law which purports to exclude manufactured homes from statutes amending the application of the State Fire Prevention and Building Code. I will keep you advised as I r^ d-ve additional information. town ,y FINAL OlSPOSlIlON uAI£ MEMDRflNDUM TO: Ithaca Tcwn Board FPCM: Noel Desch RE: Sprinkler Law - One and Two Family Houses DATE: Septentoer 28, 1988 The decision to have included single and two family residences in the new Sprinkler Law is both an econanic and a quality of service matter. I would ask you to consider very carefully the following information before reaching a decision with respect to any changes in the law. In the end, your vote should depend upon hew much you want to have future Tcwn Boards shape the destiny of our Town. First seme corments and answers to questions that have been asked. (1) The Town of Ithaca must have the best rapid response fire suppression system vre can justify. To me this means that we must, while our fire service cost are still moderate make the decisions that will allcw us to control our destiny not only 5 years from now but also 10, 20 years and beyond. The Fire Chief is making a sincere effort to avoid having the City Fire Department beccme a fully paid department. He is, however, failing to achieve success. Note the 1989 budget request and the organization chart that was vinanimously approved by the Board of Fire Ccnmissioners (see Appendix A) . While we do not know how soon the City will approve which part of these increases we have seen the historical pattern of increases such that the full requests will be met in one, twc or three years. The City building stock severely limits which rapid response alternative they must choose. Our existing building stock does not but if vre defer implementation of the Sprinkler Law for single and tWD family dwellings the decision will be much more difficult. Note the similarity of the Dover, New Hampshire situation to ours. Lacking the potential of an alternative rapid response systan for the City (i.e., sprinklers) the Chief is just doing his job responsibly. No one quarrels with the need to put fires out quickly. We, therefore, have to decide which of the tWD alternatives the people of the Town should have. I have prepared a new spread sheet costing out what will happen if we stay with the City long term versus the cost if we set up an appropriate response Tcwn department. The savings are understated because I knew the City cost demands will be higher. With some kind of incentive for retrofitting sprinklers in existing hcmes ve can probably phase out the type of expensive fire service even todays traditional volunteer ccmpanies provide. In fact, we all know how difficult it is to keep any kind of fire service going. V?hen the day connes that we can neither afford to pay for the peiid fire service or perhaps worse - cannot field a volunteer operation our Tcwn must be protected. That is ^jhy our July 11 decision must be preserved even in the face of a possible court challenge with respect to modular housing and mobile hares. If we back away fron this responsibility now future Boards will have a much more difficult decision to change back to the inclusion of sprinklers in single and two family units. (2) Is the requirement for sprinklers in single and tvro family hones going to force such develcpinent out of the Tcwn of Ithaca? It is extremely tmlikely that any significant residential development will shift fron the Town of Ithaca to other areas. Why? There are many reasons: (1) Land prices are ccnparatively low in the Town of Ithaca. (2) Tax rates are among the lowest in Tcmpkins County. (3) Water and sewer assessments are an order of magnitude lower than those few surrounding Towns that have water. (4) The geographical location of the Town of Ithaca significantly reduces living costs, i.e., transportation, etc. Even if the Sprinkler Law causes a 4% increase in the cost of new housing the net cost of owning and operating a hone in the Town of Ithaca will be significantly IcMer than the rest of Totpkins County for the next 20 years and more if we control fire taxes. (3) Will the Sprinkler Law increase the difficulty of providing a full range of affordable housing in the Tcwn of Ithaca? It may in the short run make the capital cost of sane forms of so called single and two family "affordable" housing px^tentially prohibitive. It depends on the level of housing stA)sidy provided in any case. Even without sprinkler laws it is unfortunately unlikely that single and two family homes can offer low incane families an affordable place to live. This is pjarticularly true in the Tcwn of Ithaca where there is little housing stock that can be restored on a "sweat equity" basis. Ironically, it is this housing stock that critically needs sprinklers and such costs should be the highest priority for subsidization. With respect to the mobile hanes, the manufacturers will, of course, do every thing they can to avoid the potential loss of conpetitiveness that they fear from such a law. Even when this form of housing totally cotplies with fire preventions codes it presents the caimunity with the greatest fire risk of all forms of housing. Why? Simply because the high fuel loading (i.e., housekeeping, furnishings) the low volume of oxygen and the limited exiting options make it inpossible for any fire departirent to provide adequate fire protection. Flash over occurs in much less then the 4 minutes we saw in the movie. In fact, the trailer demonstration suggested less than 2 minutes. However, no sprinkler ordinance that would require sprinklering of only mobile hates would not stand the test of a court challenge. (4) Why aren't the recent Fire Prevention Code changes sufficient to reduce the cormunity fire risk so that sprinklers are unnecessary? The Fire Prevention Code does not deal with the fire risk caused by normal hone furnishings. The movie very graphically pointed out hew little it taJces in a neat hate to cause the system of fire protection to becaie inadequate. In the Cornell Residential Club fire the deaths were caused by the toxic fumes, gases frcm the furnishings, i.e., wall paneling, upholstered furniture, carpeting, in a very fire resistive (totally masonry) twD story structure! Think about the percentage of attached single and two family dv^llings being constructed in the Town of Ithaca. Deer Run Black Oak Lane Butterfield Rose Hill Let's further look at what the code doesn't provide in terms of fire spread prevention fran the windows of one attached dwelling unit to another. Look at the elevation plan of any of the attached \inits that have been and are being built in the Town of Ithaca and you will see what I mean. (5) There are no local sprinkler designers and installers, therefore, housing construction will be delayed for extended periods. This should not be a significant concern to the Town Board. The construction indiistry has the ability to quickly "retrain and retool" to introduce new materials, systems of all kinds. It happens every day. Yes, there will be a lag of as much as 6 months and yes, the initial sprinkler costs on residential unit will be hitler until conpetition fully gears vp. In my view it is appropriate for the Town to cmsider the capital vs operating costs as well as life safety in the Town of Ithaca. Ronanber even local developers don't need to do this. For exarrple, if the cost of installing a sprinkler in an average new hane in the Town of Ithaca is $4,000, is that investment too high in relation to the value of a life particularly when net costs may be zero? Further, my crystal ball tells me that the unit cost of sprinJcler installation will go down markedly within 2 years after adoption of the law to such an extent that the costs to retrofit single and tWD family hones may be sufficiently attractive that property owners A;.-. will finance the installation without legislative action by the Town. It is quite speculative of course. Some tax reduction incentive may be desirable. Itost families spend more on monthly financing costs for new cars than they would have to on a sprinkler installation. Mr. Hallberg is the one who quoted the $4,000. He admits it was based on a worse case situation, i.e., using copper pipe rather than PVC and a separate water service. (6) Sprinkler discharges, accidental or otherwise will cause reparable damage to precious possessions, art work, research papers. This again is a value judgement. To many people their life work is as iitportant as life itself. In such cases no fire suppression system will provide the preservation desired. Research papers can be kep)t in fire proof cabinets or vaults but that is easier said than done. What good is art work if it is locked up in a vault and no one can appreciate it? If I were building a house that enphasized antiques, art work or research papers I would install the sprinkler system throughout the house but might have it activated only in the kitchen, hallways and bedrocms. This WDUld give the hcmeowner flexibility to move things arcund activating and/or deactivating certain "critical art" areas like an office, etc. (7) Residential sprinklers, particularly where there is no public water supply is untested technology. This is untrue and NFPA has very thoroughly researched the matter nationally in adopting its regulations. Sane municipalities that have not public water supply have adopted sprinkler laws (see Appendix B). Why? In most cases these municipalities realize they cannot provide any other means of rapid response. In the Town of Ithaca, the Sprinkler Law may discourage housing construction beyond public water. Is that bad? I don't believe so. The ability of the Town to continue a public water system extension capital program on an extremely cost effective basis will afford the opportunity to develop all areas in the most effective way possible. (8) There is no appreciable insiurance benefit to the installation of sprinklers in single and two family hates. In terms of premiums, this currently for the most part is true. A 15% savings translates into only $40-60/year. However, please remember insurance conpanies are protecting your property valtie and perhaps the contents. If you take out liability insiarance on your family, i.e.. Life Insurance, the rates are much higher. (9) What savings would occur if the Tcwn continues to have the City of Ithaca Fire Department serve it with the Sprinkler Law in place. This is unanswerable at this tine. The Chief has said the savings would be small and he may be right for the following reasons: The heavy costs of the operations are driven by service to the educational institutions, the fall off of volunteer activities and the age of the City private and public physical plant. It is unlikely that the City could politically adopt a Sprinkler Law. The cost to retrofit the portion of the Cornell caitpus in the City will be very high. The City would have to invest much more heavily in a retrofit subsidy. The Sprinkler Law would give the Tcwn considerable bargaining power in negotiating the next contract but these savings will be ccnparatively low in corparison with the potential to have our own operation. The community will need to determine how valuable is the EMS caiponent of the carrnunity fire service. Do we collectively really need a huge staff of paid firefighters to provide this service? Finally, the Town Board has to decide at sane point with in the next three years whether or not sufficient irrproved properties of the Tcwn have been sprinklered to avoid being locked into the severe costs of a fully paid City Fire Department. The Town is not required to provide protection to tax exempt areas if it forms its own fire district. This means that the cost of protection that will be needed throughout the Tcwn can be considerably less. The educational institutions can provide their own protection since they have chosen not to assist in the cost. This will also be an incentive for them to ccrtplete their sprinkler retrofit program at a faster rate. The Town WDuld need a traditional volunteer fire department for perhaps another 10 years but at an exceptionally good return on investment. Beyond this period the Town will have even more flexibility in deciding what its fire service needs will be. Assumptions (Spread Sheet) (1) In 10 years the type of land use in the City and Town probably will require construction of a new station on Elmira Road. The nearest station \rfien South and West Hill are ccrapleted will still be 3^ miles away. Using our current estimates of $1,150,000 per station and inflation at 5%/year and the Town sharing the 70% of the cost of the debt retirement is shewn starting in 1999. With sprinklers the new South and West Hill stations can adequately serve the entire Town without the Elmira Itoad Station. (2) Station #7, 9 will probably have to be replaced within 10 years. While the Tcwn would participate in perhaps 50% of the cost of these stations the alternative of a Town volunteer system may still require one new East Hill Station with sprinklers having been installed in the Town. No savings, therefore, are shewn in the calculation. As far as station costs are concerned, it is conceivable that the Tcwn, in this case, could save by staying with the City if we require sprinklers because we could justify a Icwer percentage share of the cost. The cost of paid firemen is still a big factor. ' (3) Equipment replacement and repair is expected to increase very modestly during the ranaining 20 years. (4) By budget time in 1992, the Fire Department will have been operating the new stations for over one year. I have assumed that the Chief will be successful after 4 years of pleading with Council that one paid person needs to be added to each shift for each of the new stations, basically the request already before the Town Board and Catmon Council to add about 13 more people at an annxial cost to the Town of $450,000 x .25 = $112,000, I assume it would start affecting Town costs in 1993. (I probably should not have used 1988 salaries). (5) It is assumed that continued agreements with the City will result in a 1% increase in the percentage of the Tcwn share based on increased value of the Town with respect to the City. The City will expect more. This assumes no sprinkler credit. I am still assuming a two year lag, i.e., 1988 costs in 1990 fixed amount as we have in the contract new. FIICT YEAR TOWN FIRE SERVICE BUDGE?! IF 1993 PERSONNEL Paid Chief $ 35,000 3 Paid FF @ 25 75,000 Volunteer Incentive 1000 X 30 30,000 TOTAL $140,000 X Fringes 33,000 $173,000 Supplies, Insurance 85,000 $258,000 NEW EQUIPMENT 3 Rescue Vehicles 1?65 $230,000 2 Cars 3 Pumpers @250 750,000 $980,000 Equipment Debt over 5 years 200,000/Yr + 70,000 = 270,000 ND/js TC W N FI F E DE P A R I M E N r Co n b i n e d Vo l v i n t e e r / P a i d vd . t h / S p r i n k l e r s Ne w St a t i o n Co s t K$ Eq u i p m e n t Co s t K$ Op e r a t i n g Bu d g e t K$ To t a l K$ As s e s s e d Va l u e $x l 0 6 Ta x Fa t e $/ 1 0 0 0 Ta x Co s t @1 0 0 K Ci t y Ta x Co s t $ Sa v i n g s Ta x $ 19 9 3 24 0 ( 1 ) 27 0 26 0 77 0 24 0 3. 2 1 32 1 59 7 27 6 19 9 4 24 0 27 0 29 0 80 0 25 2 3. 1 7 31 7 60 2 28 5 19 9 5 24 0 27 0 33 0 84 0 26 3 3. 1 9 31 9 62 7 30 8 19 9 6 24 0 27 0 36 0 87 0 27 6 3. 1 5 31 5 63 8 32 3 19 9 7 23 5 27 0 39 0 89 5 29 0 3. 0 9 30 9 64 7 33 8 19 9 8 23 5 18 0 42 0 83 5 30 0 2. 7 8 27 8 66 4 38 6 19 9 9 23 0 18 0 46 0 87 0 31 5 2. 7 6 27 6 76 3 48 7 20 0 0 23 0 18 0 50 0 91 0 33 0 2. 7 5 27 5 78 2 50 7 20 0 1 22 5 18 0 54 0 94 5 34 6 2. 7 3 27 3 79 3 52 0 20 0 2 22 5 18 0 58 0 * 98 5 36 2 2. 7 2 27 2 79 9 52 7 20 0 3 50 5 ( 2 ) 18 0 62 0 13 0 5 38 0 3. 4 3 34 3 80 3 46 0 20 0 4 50 0 18 0 73 0 14 1 0 39 9 3. 5 3 35 3 81 1 45 8 20 0 5 50 0 18 0 79 0 14 7 0 42 0 3. 5 0 35 0 82 4 47 4 20 0 6 49 5 18 0 83 0 15 0 5 44 1 3. 4 1 34 1 84 6 50 5 20 0 7 46 0 18 0 88 0 15 2 0 46 3 3. 2 8 32 8 83 3 50 5 20 0 8 42 0 18 0 96 0 15 6 0 48 6 3. 2 0 32 0 89 4 57 4 20 0 9 38 0 18 0 10 0 0 15 6 0 51 1 3. 0 5 30 5 90 2 59 4 20 1 0 37 0 18 0 10 4 0 15 9 0 53 6 2. 9 7 29 7 90 6 60 9 1) In c l u d e s pa y b a c k to Ci t y (t o D r t l z a t i o n ) 2) De b t fo r Ea s t Hi l l St a t i o n ES T I M A T E FI B E SE R V I C E CU N i ' H A C T CO S T S To w n of It h a c a fe a r %Co n t r i l j u t i o n Ci t y Fi r e De p t . Ac t u a l Co s t Ci t y of It h a c a Co n t r a c t Fi x e d Am t . K$ Ca y u g a If e i g h t s Fi x e d Am o u n t K$ Ne w St a t i o n Co s t K$ Re n o v a t i o n Co s t K$ Ne w Eq u i p m e n t K$ Eq u i p m e n t Re p a i r s K$ Ad d i t i o n a l Pe r s o n n e l Co s t K$ To t a l K$ As s e s s e d Va l u e , S X 10 ® Ta x Ra t e $/ 1 0 0 0 Fi r e Ta » W/ 0 Ho u s Va l u e Oi no o 19 7 9 16 . 7 1 10 6 3 16 6 24 19 0 14 9 1. 2 4 4 12 4 L9 8 0 16 . 7 1 14 5 8 17 8 24 — — — 20 2 15 1 1. 2 7 2 12 7 L9 8 1 16 . 7 1 15 4 6 24 4 24 — — — — 26 8 17 6 1. 4 8 4 14 8 L9 8 2 16 . 7 1 17 2 5 25 8 27 — — — — — 28 5 17 8 1. 5 5 3 15 5 L9 8 3 16 . 7 1 19 4 4 28 8 32 _ — — — 32 0 17 8 1. 6 9 7 17 0 L9 8 4 16 . 7 1 21 0 4 30 8 34 — — — — 34 2 18 4 1. 8 5 5 18 6 L9 8 5 16 . 7 1 22 1 6 32 5 37 — — — 36 2 18 6 1. 9 5 0 19 5 L9 8 6 16 . 7 1 ? 35 2 40 .. . — — — 39 2 18 8 2. 0 7 4 20 7 L9 8 7 19 28 2 7 45 6 40 16 4 — — — 51 6 18 9 2. 4 4 24 4 L9 8 8 21 30 1 5 53 6 44 .. . . — 12 <— 59 2 19 2 3. 0 6 30 6 L9 8 9 22 32 1 5 59 4 44 65 9 27 19 — ' 75 8 19 9 3. 8 1 38 1 L9 9 0 23 34 0 0 65 5 48 16 3 27 . 0 9 60 ' — 96 2 20 9 4. 6 0 46 0 L9 9 1 24 36 5 0 72 0 50 16 3 27 . 0 79 60 * 10 9 9 21 9 5. 0 2 50 2 19 9 2 25 38 0 0 78 7 52 16 2 27 . 0 76 60 11 6 4 23 0 5. 0 6 50 6 L9 9 3 26 41 0 0 94 9 54 16 1 27 . 0 70 60 11 2 14 3 3 24 0 5. 9 7 59 7 L9 9 4 27 43 5 0 10 2 6 58 16 0 27 . 0 70 55 12 2 15 1 8 25 2 6. 0 2 60 2 99 5 28 45 5 0 11 4 8 60 15 5 27 . 0 70 55 13 5 16 5 0 26 3 6. 2 7 62 7 96 29 47 0 0 12 6 1 63 15 0 27 . 0 70 50 14 0 17 6 1 27 6 6. 3 8 63 8 ?7 30 49 5 0 13 6 5 66 14 5 27 . 0 70 50 15 2 18 7 5 29 0 6. 4 7 64 7 31 53 0 0 14 5 7 70 15 1 27 . 0 70 50 16 8 19 9 3 30 0 6. 6 4 66 4 .9 9 9 32 56 0 0 15 8 4 73 14 7 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 17 7 24 0 3 31 5 7. 6 3 76 3 >0 0 0 33 58 5 0 17 4 9 76 14 3 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 19 0 25 8 0 33 0 7. 8 2 78 2 >0 0 1 34 61 0 0 19 0 4 80 13 7 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 20 0 27 4 3 34 6 7. 9 3 79 3 >0 0 2 35 64 0 0 20 4 7 83 13 1 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 21 0 28 9 3 36 2 7. 9 9 79 9 >0 0 3 36 68 0 0 21 9 6 87 12 5 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 22 0 30 5 0 38 0 8. 0 3 80 3 >0 0 4 37 73 0 0 23 6 8 90 11 9 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 23 5 32 3 4 39 9 8. 1 1 81 1 >0 0 5 38 78 0 0 25 8 4 93 11 3 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 24 8 34 6 0 42 0 8. 2 4 82 4 >0 0 6 39 84 0 0 28 4 7 96 10 8 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 26 0 37 3 3 44 1 8. 4 6 84 6 >0 0 7 40 88 0 0 29 6 4 99 10 2 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 27 0 38 5 7 46 3 8. 3 3 83 3 >0 0 8 41 94 0 0 34 4 4 10 2 96 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 28 2 43 4 6 48 6 8. 9 4 89 4 !0 0 9 42 10 1 0 0 36 9 6 10 5 90 +2 8 0 27 . 0 70 45 29 5 46 0 8 51 1 9. 0 2 90 2 10 1 0 43 10 7 0 0 40 4 2 10 9 28 0 — 70 45 31 0 48 5 6 53 6 9. 0 6 90 6 --iss ,3l^- ^ii.-r-.M<-i. Wr •■-' : ^ ..V-.-^" w-' •-•V' ■■■--''-fi- i:. • ••y- • -•hfE •* yf. i - -•> •• <-■ ?.. T . -W.'* • . -W\- • '• .-•' n^- ■: V. ... f^/r. : ' .V ■'-/ *'»i,v-^'' ' .W'- •>. .">)»■■■■-•■iV ' '■5^-"S.i-.•*^ • •■'" - •:- Vl_.K ■ .•> -' 'rf .;',;fc. . i:". V - - .?ii, -- -^r- '^L •. '?!?. FINAL disposition date STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL ONE FORDHAM PLAZA BRONX, NEW YORK 10458 MARIO M. CUOMO GOVERNOR RICHARD L HIGGINS COMMISSIONER Octdoer 24, 1988 fF=- Mr. Noel Desch, Sipervisor Tcwn of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 OCT 2 61988 Re: Town of Ithaca Sprinkler Law - ' OF , i r-iACA Cornell Bousing ' Dear Mr. Desch: With regard to the above-referenced local sprinkler law, your letter dated September 21, 1988, indicates that you are aware of the anvsrdment to Section 379 of the Executive Law v^ch prohibits a municipality from imposing more stringent regulations on Factory Manufactured Banes, (ET®) intended for use as one- or two-family dwelling units or multiple dwellings of not more than two stories in height. Hiis is to inform you that on October 18, 1988, this Division approved a plan sutmittal by Cardinal Industries, Inc. a EMH manufacturer, for student housing as a one-story dormitory on the Cornell University cartpus (EMH Approval No. NY 0475; model series 100) for corpliance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and with the Nw York State Energy Conservation Construction Code. YOU state in your letter that the design features have been modified to the extent that they have became virtually equivalent to stick-built structures, please specify in v^t manner the design has been modified so that you no longer consider the modules to be Factory Manufactured Efcmes. Ihank you for your cooperation in this matter. FLK/bjd cc: Patricia A. McClary, Esq. Associate l^versity Counsel Sincerely, Fred L. Kessner, P.E. Director Bousing and Building Codes Bureau fiwm CITY OF ITHACA 31 □ WEST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 1A8BO OFFICE OF FIRE CHIEF lOVVAJ ^r-1 't^CA DISPOSITION DATE A TELEPHONE: 272-1234 CODE 607 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Supervisor Noel Desch, Town of Ithaca Town Board Andy Frost hief Edward M. Dlmsteadj Jr. Sprinkler Ordinance November 1988 It appears that the Town's Sprinkler Law is destined for some revisions in the near future. The purpose of this memo is to address 3 specific areas of concern related to the Sprinkler Law: 1.) The role of the Ithaca Fire Department in the process; 2.) Technical comments about the law; 3.) Public comments made at the 10/17/88 meeting. 1. The role of the Ithaca Fire Department in the process: We had no role in the Town's process of developing or adopting the law. Deputy Chief Wilbur and I made several offers to Andy Frost and Noel Desch to review any draft of the law and provide the Town with the benefit of our department's extensive expertise in sprinkler codes and systems. The offer was never taken up. We learned of the adoption of the law in the Ithaca Journal. We were immediately deluged with phone calls and inquiries concerning the law and sprinkler systems. We did not respond to questions or comments about the process or the law» but we did respond to the technical questions. It soon became apparent that there was a strong need for an educational program about the technical issues concerning fire sprinkler systems. Towards the end of July* we contacted the New York State Association of Fire Chiefs and requested the use of their mobile demonstration unit at the earliest available date? which turned out to be in September. About 1 to 2 weeks before the demonstration dates, we contacted a large number of groups and facilities to offer the presentation of the demonstration. The contacts included the Common Council and Town Board, and both accepted. I am particularly concerned about some perceptions some of you may have about our appearance at the Town Board meeting on 9/12/88. Mayor Gutenberger has informed me that "some members" of the Town Board are upset with me about the presentation. He was not able to tell me what the specific concerns of the Board members were other that a perception "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Supervisor Noel Desch November 1908 Page S h M n • i of "orchestration or collusion". I asked Supervisor Desch if he was aware of a problem* but he was not. I guess that my only comment can be one of not understanding what the problem is and urging those of you who have problems about Fire Department matters to contact me directly, I believe you will get a candid* honest and factual response. That is a complete summary of our "role" in the Town's process. We provided education and technical information* so that people on both sides of the issue had a basic and accurate knowledge about the systems. 2. Technical comments about the sprinkler law; Our comments are limited to the language contained in Section 2 (definition) and Section 7 (exception). Section 2 states the following; Definition. "Approved sprinkler system" shall mean a sprinkler system approved by the New York Board of Fire Underwriters, the National Fire Protection Association* or other nationally recognized approval organization as determined by the town Building Inspector..." There are 3 technical problems with this language. A. The New York Board of Fire Underwriters has nothing to do with sprinkler system design, approval* installation or maintenance. Their functions are limited to the inspection of electrical components and assemblies found in wiring and signaling systems. B. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) does not approve sprinkler or extinguishing systems. The NFPA is a membership organization that develops, publishes and disseminates consensus standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire in all aspects of contemporary activity. The standards have no application unless they are adopted by the authority having jurisdiction. In the case of sprinklers* there are 4 nationally recognized design, maintenance and operation standards that are the only standards of their type in the United States. 1.) NFPA 13 - Installation of Sprinkler Systems 2.) NFPA 13A - Inspection* testing and maintenance of sprinkler systems 3.) NFPA 13D - Sprinkler systems in one- and two- family dwellings and mobile homes ^.> NFPA 13E - Fire department operations in properties protected by sprinkler and standpipe systems. r:,r^,x: Supervisor Noel Desch November 1988 Page 3 A fifth standard* NFPA 13R - Installation of sprinkler systems in residential occupancies up to four stories in height* is scheduled to be adopted by the NFPA this Fall. There are 16 additional standards covering other types of extinguishing systems or systems and equipment that may be used in conjunction with sprinkler systems. There are no other design, installation and maintenance standards available in the United States. C. The work "approved" can only refer to the approval and listing of individual components used in sprinkler systems by nationally recognized testing organizations. There are only 2 such organizations: Underwriters Laboratories and Factory Mutual. "Approved" can also apply to installation of system components in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. I believe more appropriate wording might be as follows: Definition; "Approved sprinkler system" shall mean a sprinkler system designed and installed in accordance with the appropriate standards of the National Fire Protection Association using materials and components approved by Underwriters Laboratories or Factory Mutual Research Corporation... You may wish to list the specific standards. I don't wish to mess with the rest of the language in Section 2 other than to say that it should be revised to be consistent with the suggested language change. Section 7 contains similar language and the above comments apply to suggested changes in this section. Public comments made at the 10/17/88 meeting: A number of people commented on fire sprinklers. May of those comments contained factual inaccuracies. In particular, the Home Builders representatives skewed the facts to the negative side of the issue. Listed below are my reactions to those negative comments. Please forgive me if I misspell names. Ed Hulbert: a.) The study of square footage cost did not include contact with residential sprinkler contractors to obtain accurate cost estimates. I know from my own experience of installing a sprinkler system in my home that $2.3A per square foot is inaccurate for new construction. Even the National Home Builders Association quotes a 1987 figure of $1.31 per sq. ft. n %■ Supervisor Noel Desch November 1900 Page 4 b.) Unless the Town of Ithaca is requiring some extra items in sprinkler systems* the hard cost + soft cost figures are more than double what new construction should cost. My calculation is $208 per year for a 30 year* 10.5% mortgage* on the basis of a 2000 square foot house. yfefc. -..; •f* t •\ c.) The 199^ Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code addressed deficiencies in the existing New York State Building 7 ■ Code. There were no substantial changes in the separation requirements within 1 and 2 family dwellings. The only sieparation requirements dealt with attached garages. d.) Automatic sprinklers are a long term solution to part of the personnel issue in any fire department. But fire departments will continue to need more people for service delivery in a growing community, unless the services are reduced or eliminated. Walt Schwan a.) Smoke detectors do not do the job that sprinklers do. Smoke detectors have made a significant dent in fire deaths and injuries over the past 10 years. However, they require reaction from the occupants of the structure. They do not extinguish fire. It also appears that the effectiveness of smoke detectors has plateaued. b.) Sprinklers can be installed without municipal water system availability. A 1500 gallon reservoir is not required. In all probability, the tank size in a residence would not exceed 260 gallons. Jim Miller a.) A blanket statement that factory manufactured housing is exempted from sprinkler requirements is not accurate. Some may be, but not all are. Rosalin Quigly a.) Sprinkler accident coverage is not a factor in residential coverage. It is included under the same category as broken water or sewer pipes, stopped up toilets or overflowing bathtubs. The actuarial effect of sprinkler systems would be to reduce the total cost of damage claims paid out by insurance companies. j. 17- From my personal and professional perspective, I see this issue as the right of the people to determine services, levels of LC risk and costs they are willing to accept. I do not propose that the Fire Department should influence that decision. On the other . hand, I feel compelled to defend sprinklers as a rational and affordable life safety and injury prevention system that is far . superior to reactive response by the fire department. It is it.? vmnneeiKlo aKrvti+" i'Ka i wooncc Supervisor Noel Desch November 1988 Page 5 -■-:A'. of sprinkler systems. It is also paramount to remember that the majority of all fires are caused by human carelessness> neglect or accident. Buildings* old or new* do not cause fires. People do. Please get in touch with me if you have any questions. Attached to this memo are copies of some recent articles concerning spr inklers. <■ ,.i V 7? v-.-i . •sS . f •¥ ^7- '■' • I. .i '• ■ cc: Deputy Chief Brian H. Wilbur Chrono r mm CITY OF ITHACA 31 □ WEST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 1A8BO OFFICE OF FIRE CHIEF FINAL N0V-7fi88 rowj\i CFrml DISPOSITION DATE PHONE: 272-1234 CODE 607 TO: FROM: DATE: Supervisor Noel Desch, Town of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Board Chief Edward M. Olmstead, Jr. Response to Walt Schwan's Comments (10/17/88 Town Board Meeting) November 4, 1988 At the 10/17/88 meeting of the town Board» former Town Supervisor Walt Schwan presented comments concerning the Fire Protection Agreement between the City and Town as well as statements concerning the operations and activities of the Fire Department. Mr. Schwan's past service as Town Supervisor would lead one to believe that he has an above average knowledge of those issues he addressed? and that there is a reasonable degree of credibility associated with his remarks. However? I think that it is necessary for all concerned to recognize that Mr. Schwan's remarks were largely opinion and contained little fact. I am particularly concerned that the remarks had the potential of causing serious damage to the public's perceptions of these issues. The following comments are my responses to Mr. Schwan's comments. Mr. Schwan made several negative comments concerning the Fire Protection Agreement between the City and Town. The thrust of his comments was that the City was "taking" the Town. I think it is fair to say that both parties wanted to get more out of the agreement than they were able to achieve. It is also fair to say that the process was a neoo t i ated agreement that provided a reasonable settlement for the interests of both parties. It was also a process that took place over a period of 5 years? beginning in 1982? coming to full speed in 198^ and winding up in 1986. The entire process was carried out in a public forum and solicited the input of all interest groups. Dissatisfaction with the contract by any person is their right? but the process was as fair as possible. To be sure? I am concerned about issues that I feel should have been addressed? but they weren't. For all of those folks who have concerns the negotiation of a new agreement can't be too far away. Mr. Schwan made several specific comments concerning financial support of volunteers? the formation of a Town Fire Department and retirement systems: 1. The Fire Department should pay for volunteers' gas; "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmattva Action Program" Supervisor Noel Desch November 1988 Page 2 The Ithaca Fire Department funds a volunteer incentives program that provides a pool of money to be used by those volunteers that meet a minimum level of activity in alarm response and training attendance (levels are determined by volunteer company captains). The money may be used to purchase equipment or for expense reimbursement. In 1988» the maximum amount per volunteer was just over *300,00. 2. Provide hospita1ization for volunteers while they are traveling to and from alarms and while they are working at alarms: Volunteer firefighters have been covered by the Volunteer Firemens* Benefit Law since 1956. The coverage applies to all ordered and/or authorized activities in which a volunteer firefighter participaets> including not only alarms, but also meetings, fundraisers, banquets, parades, and training. All fire departments are required by State law to provide such coverage, and the City purchases the coverage through its insurance broker. The 1987 cost was approximately *20,000. The coverage is overseen by the Workmen's Compensation Board. All medical expenses are paid in full through this insurance. There is also a provision for a weekly payment of *300.00 to cover lost wages, disability payments and death benefits. 3, The Fire Department should have a program for utilizing students as bunkers (live-in firefighters) to help man the fire stations: The Ithaca Fire Department has had a bunker program utilizing students and volunteers since the 1800's. A significant portion of the *3.3 million planned for new station construction and existing station renovations is budgeted for bunker accommodations. The major reason for the 1 year delay in the construction program centered around the provision of "adequate" accommodations for bunkers. The apartment idea was explored and found to be too costly. What is being provided is more along the lines of dormitory or rooming house accommodations with a communal kitchen and lounge area. We can do it ourselves with our own fire department: This is always an option for the Town. In fact the Town tried hard to do this but was unable to get the numbers of people necessary to staff the department. It is one thing to say that it can be done. It is an entirely different matter to get those people to make the necessary time commitment to provide a functional fire department. 5. The City of Ithaca must provide 80 year retirement for firefighters and police officers and cannot be part of a "pooled" ret irement system: Supervisor Noel Desch November 1988 Page 3 Under the "Taylor Law"» which applies to all public employees and municipalities in New York States there is a list of "mandatory" items of negotiation. This means that management and labor must negotiate the item if either party requests that the item be negotiated. The list includes retirement. No municipality or local government is required to provide 80 year retirement to firefighters or police officers. There is an array of retirement plans available through the New York State Retirement System. The New York State Retirement System operates 3 major retirement programs; one for police officers and firefighters, one for teacherss and one for all other public employees. The City has always participated in the State Retirement System plans? with the specific plan negotiated through the collective bargaining process. The retirement plans are financially solvent with investments administered by the State Controller. The City's contributions to the plan have been reduced by about 1/3 over the past 3 years due to improved investment programs. The City is not self funded. 6. Ue don't have as many fires in the Town of Ithaca. This is an intelligent community. We have people who are not going to have fires: I find this last statement so incredible that I had to ask those sitting near me if I heard it right. In my entire 86 year career as a firefighter and fire officer? I have never gone to a fire that the occupants planned to have (other than arson). Education? demographics? social or economic status? etc.? do not determine whether or not there will be a fire. If education was a factor that eliminated fires? then the Village of Cayuga Heights? Cornell University and Ithaca College would not require fire protection. However? my own memory counts 18 fire fatalities in the Town of Ithaca? with 9 occurring in one fire? a student residence in the Village of Cayuga Heights in 1967. The students were participants in a 6 year program that encompassed undergraduate? graduate and doctoral degrees. Two of the fatalities involved children in cribs. Their older siblings (5-8 years of age) set fire to their bedding with matches or lighters. One fire occurred at Cornell Quarters? and the other occurred in the northeastern corner of the Town. The 18th fatality took place on 5 mile drive. The victim was a mid SO's female who was trapped in her bedroom. Attached to this memo is a 88 month alarm response summary for the Town (not including Ithaca College) that breaks down the types and numbers of things that happen in the Town. As a summary? I would submit to you that there are no easy or pat answers to the fire protection issue. The Ithaca Fire Department is a responsible organization that tires to provide the residents of the City and Town with effective and efficient service. JM:- Supervisor Noel Desch November 1988 Page ^ We are committed to a strong combination operation utilizing career, volunteer and bunker personnel, and we are committed to providing those personnel with the best equipment and benefits that we are able to obtain. If you have any questions, please contact me at work (27S-123^) or at home (84-^-9^20). 1:■% cc: Board of Fire Commissioners Common Council Mayor John Gutenberger Walter Schwan Staff Notice Chrono ■w: ** '"f ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE STATISTICS TOWN OF ITHACA 01/01/87 - 11/03/88 NOV 3, 1988 TYPE OF SITUATION FOUND NUMBER PERCENT OF CALLS" STRUCTURE FIRE 27 4.6 % VEHICLE FIRE 20 3.4 % OUTSIDE FIRE W/VALUE 2 .3 % GRASS. BRUSH FIRE 9 1.5 % RUBBISH FIRE 16 2.7 % EXPLOSION, NO FIRE 1 .2 % OUTSIDE SPILL W/FIRE .0 % OTHER FIRE .0 % TOTAL FIRES 75 12.8 % OVERPRESSURE RUPTURES .0 % ASSIST EMS AGENCY 20 3.4 % EMS PROVIDED 207 35.2 % LOCK-IN .0 % PERSON(S) LOST 1 .2 % RESCUE/EXTRICATION 2 .3 % DROWNING .0 % ELECTROCUTION .0 % OTHER EMS CALLS 10 1 .7 % TOTAL RESCUE/EMS 240 40.8 % HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS 43 7.3 % SERVICE CALLS 13 . 2.2 % EMS GOOD INTENT 33 / 5.6 % OTHER GOOD INTENT 37 6.3 % MALICIOUS FALSE ALARMS 9 1 .5 % BOMB THREAT, NO BOMB 1 .2 % SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS 84 14.3 % UNINTENTIONAL FALSE 53 9.0 % TOTAL FALSE CALLS 147 25.0 % GRAND TOTAL CALLS 588 100.0 % MUTUAL AID GIVEN 1 RECEIVED 11 NONE 576 FINAL DISPOSITION DATE MEMORANDUM TO: Ted Wixon FROM: Noel Desch RE: Town of Ithaca amended Sprinkler Law DATE; NOvisniber 17, 1988 At its meeting last Thursday, the Town of Ithaca amended the Sprinkler Law to exempt detached single and two family residences frcm the requirements for autcmatic sprinklers. However, in issuing plumbing permits we need to stick with the requirement that 1" water services are to be installed as a minimum so that future owners can retrofit the dvrelling should they so desire. The Town Board will also be considering elimination of the annual fee for separate sprinkler service. Please work with Gail to provide me a list of locations and amounts by municipality that we are paid with this fee. ND/js cc: Frost