Sprinkler Mandate Proposal Agreement Reached

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Last year was a whirlwind of controversy as the Illinois Fire Marshal introduced legislation that would require existing high rises to be retrofitted with sprinklers. The floodgates opened as both owners and renters alike came to the realization that huge special assessments could be coming their way in order to fund the required work.

With questions starting to brew, Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, and Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago stepped in to represent their constituents. The support from community groups, the aldermen, Chamber of commerces and the general public came quick as all expressed outrage at the proposal. The Illinois Fire Marshal, under much heat, decided to withdraw the legislation in August, 2013.

Emotions remained strong however and high rise residents worried about new legislation that could eventually be introduced. This led Rep. Feigenholtz and Sen. Cullerton to introduce House Bill 4609 which would not only create a task force to examine the issue, but would also force such legislation to be introduced to the full elected general assembly.

Friday, Rep. Feigenholtz released a statement to announce her and Sen. Cullerton would table the filed legislation in response to an agreement made with the Illinois State Fire Marshal, Larry Matkaitis. “I believe that any new sprinkler mandate should include open and full discussions with all stakeholders. As long as I am Fire Marshal, I intend to work with local government officials, public safety officials, and all stakeholders to pass any new sprinkler laws through the General Assembly”, stated Mr. Matkaitis.

Rep. Feigenholtz was pleased to reach this agreement, “Thousands of people have sent clear messages to the Fire Marshal over the past few months that a unilateral, statewide sprinkler mandate is bad public policy. We now have assurance that any future fire sprinkler proposals will be considered with full transparency and open discussion.”

Though the Illinois Fire Marshal still seems intent on getting a sprinkler mandate passed, under this agreement, he would have to work with state and government officials first before introducing any legislation in the future.

Tags: Andersonville, Chicago, cullerton, edgeville, Edgewater, feigenholtz, Illinois Chamber of Commerce, sprinkler mandate

We invite you to comment as Edgeville Buzz's GUEST. We review all submissions before they go live on our online property to encourage civil dialogue. Posts must adhere to our COMMENT POLICY and we reserve the right to delete posts/ban users for instances of inappropriate language, bullying speech, character defamation, spam, etc. By posting, you agree to our LEGAL TERMS.

Scott N.

So why settle for his ‘promise’ instead of officially limiting this man with an agenda who has the support of plumbing lobbyists for creating a boondoggle legislation?
Jim C.

Scott N: Because fire sprinklers are proven to prevent loss of life and property from fires. That is why we should ‘settle’ for this man who want’s to save lives.
- urbaneddie
  
  You might be surprised then to know that most fire deaths don’t occur in high rise buildings, but instead in single family homes and other smaller structures that are overall far deadlier than any high rise (even those older ones without sprinklers). Fires don’t travel that easily in buildings built from steel & concrete.
  
  My 1960s high rise has concrete walls throughout (even inside individual units). My last apartment was a typical early 1900s courtyard building. Aside from the brick exterior walls (and a couple fire walls separating apartment blocks), the inside was all wood & a fire trap at that.
  
  The fire sprinkler ordinance is being pushed by special interest groups like the Northern Illinois Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board. Their members stand to gain millions in work related to any legislation passed to require retrofit of existing structures along with new construction requirements.
- Scott N
  
  Jim… Are you ready to finance these improvements? What gives him the right to force condo dwellers into arbitrary improvements? Perhaps we should let the condo dwellers themselves decide whether to make these costly improvements if they see value in them.
  
  Most condo buildings were built with some fire protections. Fire resistent walls between units (cement block) and concrete floors and ceilings make a good barrier to fire spreading. Centralized alarms, zoned communication systems, fire hoses on each floor and more shows most high rise condos are already safer than many single family homes or townhouses.
  
  A one size fits all approach is wasteful and goverment / special interests intrusion at its worst. Give me a call when this is forced on ALL homeowners instead of where the special interests can make the most money.
Richard V.

I’m sure building concrete barriers around all the biking lanes in the city would save lives too – but we don’t do that. Why? Because of money. Lots of things in life could be made safer by spending more money, but not everyone can afford this and the results can be disastrous for lower income families. Arguments in favor of the sprinkler requirement that don’t acknowledge this reality don’t make any sense to me.

Edgewater/Andersonville - Tap Into Your Community

SHOP LOCAL

Sprinkler Mandate Proposal Agreement Reached