Firefighters have lobbied for the across-the-board sprinkler rule for the better part of a decade, and one veteran volunteer firefighter called last night's victory a "landmark piece of legislation."
With the New Year, the council also resolved several other lingering issues from 2008, including tweaking the county's doghouse rule, expanding the solar energy tax credit and rejecting a measure that mandates pollution-reducing septic systems in some homes in the environmentally sensitive Critical Area of the Chesapeake Bay.
Fire Chief J. Robert Ray urged the council to adopt the new sprinkler plan, which expands the current mandate for townhouses, duplexes and apartment buildings to include single-family homes.
"Tonight you have the opportunity to tell all Anne Arundel County residents that their lives are valuable, not just those who are protected by happenstance because of where they live," Chief Ray said.
Recently retired former Chief David Stokes and a Maryland State Fire Marshal both attended last night's council meeting to watch the sprinkler legislation pass 6-1. Councilman Ed Middlebrooks, R-Severn, voted against the bill.
Home builders have resisted mandatory sprinklers in residential homes because the systems add several thousand dollars to the purchase price and buyers don't want them. The home builders were pushing for an optional program that would require them to offer sprinklers to home buyers. A similar program in Howard County showed most buyers elect not to have the systems installed.
Prince George's County has required sprinklers in all homes since 1992, and fire officials report that there have been no fire deaths in homes with sprinklers since then.
Last night, representatives of the home building industry asked the council to delay the bill for at least a year because the slumping housing market could not support the added costs of installing sprinkler systems.
The measure introduced by Council Vice Chairman Cathy Vitale, R-Severna Park, whose husband is a career firefighter for the county, came after two devastating fires in the Annapolis area late last year.
In October, a man, 42, died in a fire at his home, which had neither a sprinkler system nor working smoke detectors. In December, a five-alarm blaze destroyed three homes in the Oyster Bay neighborhood before firefighters could extinguish the flames.
New homes will be exempt from the mandatory sprinkler rule if the house's water pressure can't meet some technical specifications laid out in county law. Those would be homes on well water for the most part.
Although the measure has seen wide support from fire prevention officials in council chambers, at least one local architect has cautioned that enough safeguards are not yet in place. Fred D. Fishback has warned that architectural codes relating to the design and installation of sprinkler systems are not advanced enough to protect homeowners from unforeseen circumstances, such as frozen pipes.
Doghouses
Also last night, the council put to bed a debate over the county's doghouse rule that began more than six months ago. The rule previously required any dog owner to provide a shelter for any pooch left confined outside. A prominent environmental activist was written a ticket for the offense in April, even though her collie was not in danger and she was watching the dog from a window. Technically, anyone who lets their animal out could be cited for not having a proper doghouse.
Councilman Ed Middlebrooks offered two bills to rewrite the rule in order to protect responsible homeowners from having to build an unnecessary doghouse. The version unanimously passed by the council last night requires only that an animal has access to shelter, and was accompanied by changes to the rules for animal control officers so that the rule will be applied only when the dog's safety is in question.
"We are confident that the change we have suggested will make it easier for residents to comply with the law," said Joseph Lamp, an animal activist and head of the Committee for Animal Shelter Issues who recommended the bill's final language.
Septic systems
Additionally, the council defeated by 5-2 a bill that would have required homes near the waterfront with failing septic systems to replace them with pollution-reducing systems. The only votes supporting the bill came from Councilman Josh Cohen, D-Annapolis, and Jamie Benoit, D-Crownsville, two of the bills three co-sponsors.
The measure was widely considered a good environmental policy, but politicians were hung up on the details of how to pay for the plan. Sponsors proposed using a stream of state grant money from the Bay Restoration Fund to offset the cost to residents, but restrictions the county Health Department placed in the grant agreement were too onerous to pass the bill.
Anne Arundel is the only jurisdiction in the state that forbids grant recipients from putting additions on their homes if they accept the grant money. Councilmen decried that provision as unfair and a disincentive to helping reduce the nitrogen pollution emitted by septic systems. The excess nutrient helps fuel a cycle of algae blooms that blocks sunlight to plants and deprives marine life of oxygen.
Councilmen have asked the county to change the no-addition rule, but county officials say it helps prevent tax dollars from subsidizing development in the Critical Area of the Chesapeake Bay.
West/Rhode Riverkeeper Chris Trumbauer, who also finds the grant agreement onerous, still asked the council to pass the measure last night.
"It's the easiest thing to do for our rivers," Mr. Trumbauer said. "And it's already paid for. ... If you don't pass this bill, please do something for our rivers."
Although this bill was dead, councilmen bandied-about the idea of returning to the concept and eliminating the no-addition rule from the grant program, which currently is optional for homeowners who want to apply.
Only 72 projects have accepted the grant money, although 326 people have applied for it. Several councilmen blamed the no-addition rule as the culprit for the luke-warm success of the program.
Health Department officials said the program is new and it's typical for nascent programs to start off slowly.
Other business
The council also passed a bill to expand the county's solar tax credit to include solar panels that generate electricity. They also pulled a bill to help save the popular south county produce stand Dick and Jane's Farm, but councilmen reintroduced another bill to accomplish the same mission.
That bill is scheduled for a public hearing on Feb. 2.
If you encounter other problems, please email ewiffin@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.
In order to post or vote on a comment, you must be signed in with a hometownannapolis account.
Take a look at a summary of Commenting Guidelines.
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0
Sweet - 2009-01-09 22:49:10
This is great news. Now when the system malfunctions and ruin someone's home and property, is the Anne Arundel County Council going to foot the bill for the repairs? I don?t think so. Didn't they also required fire retardant roofing plywood, that disintegrates at 140 degrees and PPB plumbing as well? Excellent decisions. It only cost me about $11,000 to fix those gems. --- The ironic side.... There are far more county citizens injured, maimed and killed in vehicle accidents than fires. How about a mandatory county wide 35 mph speed limit on all roads? It would reduce emissions and bay pollution too right? You may snicker at the thought but it would save a more lives in a single year than this moronic sprinkler law will in a lifetime.
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
Dave D. - Pasadena, MD - Karma: Neutral
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0
Maybe... :-) - 2009-01-07 18:09:59
Johnathan, that is what I get for reading and writing while exhausted. :-) However, I think you read too much into my posting when you say we should submit legislation that we are disinterested in. My reasoning for the posting was this: If I wanted to submit legislation (that interests me, of course), I would not have the same "influence" as did Ms. Vitale's husband. There would be a tremendous amount of work to get to the point of legislation. My first read of the article last night was the perception that the legislation was fast tracked because of a close relationship, which should not happen at any level of government (although you did state it took 10 years for it to pass). Whether it was for financial, material, or sentimental gain, my perception is that it got more than a fair share of attention because of the relationship.
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
Steve K. - ANNAPOLIS, MD - Karma: Neutral
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0
Group of one? - 2009-01-07 06:08:06
Steve I'm failing to make the connection as to how you can see this as a "possible" ethics violation. "Interest" refers to a financial or material interest ie: you, your spouse or relative or buddy own's a stake in a local pipe producer that would benefit down the road from a new market that emerged from this bill passing. "Interest" does not refer to concerned citizens, their spouses or relatives who introduce legislation that they see benefiting the County Residents. Under the auspice of your rationale you are suggesting that we could only submit legislation that disinterested us. The firefighters obviously see what happens in the absence of sprinkler systems so they most likely wouldn't have been pushing so hard for the last 10 years if they didn't think that it would save many lives and property.
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
Johnathan Locke - Edgewater, MD - Karma: Good
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0
Conflict of Interest? - 2009-01-06 22:27:57
There seems to be an ethics violation when a special interest group (firefighting husband) has easy access to a legislator that introduces legislation favoring that special interest group. In this case, the legislation should have been introduced by someone other than Ms. Vitale to avoid an ethics violation. Ms. Vitale's introduction of this particular legislation, which was lobbied for by firefighters and whose husband is a career firefighter, seems to be in violation of section 7-5-101 ( ?7-5-101. Restrictions on participation. This section prohibits an employee from participating in any matter, except for a ?non-discretionary administrative duty that does not affect the disposition or decision with respect to that matter involved?, if the employee, or one of the employee?s ?qualifying relatives? has an interest in the matter.) and section 7-5-110 (?7-5-110. Legislative acts of members of County Council. This section limits participation by a member of the county council in legislative activity as to any matter if the council member or a qualifying relative of the council member has an interest in the matter.) listed in the Conflict of Interest section on the Ethics Commission home page. While I believe that Ms. Vitale's intentions were for the public good, I think this issue should be brought before the ethics commission to determine if there was a conflict of interest. Rules should not be bent or broken because the act was well intentioned. If the public would be better served by a particular action or process, the rule should be changed to allow for those well intentioned actions or processes.
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
Steve K. - ANNAPOLIS, MD - Karma: Neutral
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0
Fire Sprinkler systems - 2009-01-06 20:33:36
When will people simply learn to take responsibility for themselves? More importantly will the government allow (perhaps 'encourage') people to take care of themselves? I do understand that the government should pass laws for general safety; traffic laws, building codes, product warnings, food and drug standards, and many more. The government is here to protect people from 'each others'.
If I choose to not have sprinklers in my newly constructed single family home why should the government intervene? Smoke detectors are required and for great reason. However, should we legislate monthly battery checks? If I choose not to install sprinklers, perhaps I should have to pay a higher premium for home owners insurance, perhaps I have incurred a slightly higher risk but it is my choice. If an owner believes it to be that important have sprinklers installed. Pay for the installation. This legislation simply forces people to spend money on something that they may not want or need. In my opinion I believe there is an increased potential of home damage from accidental activation. I also believe them to be very unsightly, adding an industrial quality to a homes decor. Am I alone? Can we ask the government to take a step back? More over I ask, if we have time to legislate over dog houses, do we have too much time on the government's hands?
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
Scott K. - Annapolis, MD - Karma: Bad
If you encounter other problems, please email ewiffin@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.