2024-02-16. This written testimony was submitted to the New Hampshire House in support of HB1065 (2024), a bill “relative to fire sprinkler requirements in residential buildings.”
Greetings, members of the Special Committee on Housing.
Thank you for allowing me to testify at the hearing on HB1065 (“Relative to fire sprinkler requirements in residential buildings.”) today. I testified in support of the bill.
This one small change to regulations burdening development and home renovations will go a long way toward easing the housing crisis currently facing New Hampshire. But the bill does not go far enough—sprinklers should not be required even in new construction of 3- and 4-unit homes.
I am the owner of a 3-unit “triple-decker” in Manchester, one of the many homes built in the late 1800s. The purchase price for this home was $525,000. The City of Manchester, just two years ago, assessed the property at $390,000—a $135,000 increase in valuation. In 2010, a home like this was worth $180,000. In other words, the valuation has tripled in that time.
Though the home is appraised at $525,000, my insurance policy claims the full replacement cost, to meet current codes and regulations, would be nearly $750,000. In other words, even with currently inflated prices in mind, to build a comparable home in 2024, built to current code, would cost 50% more.
This has led to what homebuilders refer to as the “missing middle.” It is simply not profitable for them to build 3- or 4-unit housing anymore. They build large single-family homes and duplexes, which are attractive to upper middle–class purchasers. And they build large, multi-unit apartment complexes which are profitable investments for corporations. But virtually no one is building 3/4-unit housing.
One of the other testifiers today quoted a sprinkler system installation at $30,000, a figure which makes retrofitting sprinklers into existing homes cost-prohibitive. It also makes it unprofitable to build new 3/4-unit homes. But this figure, large as it is, ignores the ongoing maintenance costs of these systems. My property manager told me some cities charge a yearly fee for sprinklers to be monitored by the fire department. One figure he quoted was $700 per unit per year. That costs the owner of a 3-unit $2,100 each year—twice the amount of a typical water bill for the same property. When a landlord is forced to absorb this costs, rents will just keep rising.
Fire safety. The Fire Marshal testified there are 12 deaths per year in New Hampshire due to residential fires. I would advise the Committee to do two things with this figure—
First, ask what is the actual figure for residential deaths in 3/4-unit homes, and how many of those did not have sprinklers? This number is no doubt smaller—perhaps zero.
Second, this figure should be viewed in light of the ongoing housing crisis. How many people are homeless due to the lack of housing? How many of these people have died as a result—from exposure, violence, and drug overdoses? How many additional units of housing would be built if 3/4-units were profitable again? How many lives could be saved by eliminating these safety rules?
Simply put, should we be making our homes so safe that no one can afford them?
Amendments. I agree with some of the amendment suggestions that were made. This bill should have something like “Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary” added, to make it clear this supersedes other statutes. The Fire Marshal was correct that the clause after “including, but not limited to” is unnecessary; by listing these few items, it actually confuses what part of the fire code still is in effect and not superseded.
Finally, I agree that a line is needed to explicitly state the intent of this bill is to preempt local ordinances regarding sprinklers in 3/4-unit homes. RSA 155-A:2, VIII establishes the State building and fire code as a minimum set of rules—which local ordinances can add to but not subtract from. So, this bill needs to make it clear that local governments cannot preempt it with stricter rules. That RSA states—
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as amending, repealing, or superseding any local law, ordinance, code, or regulation, except local code requirements that are less stringent than the state building code or state fire code, and all buildings, building components, and structures shall comply with all applicable state or local building and fire code requirements, land use restrictions including but not limited to subdivision regulations, use and location restrictions, density and dimensional limitations, or historic district laws or ordinances.
If this bill is sent to a subcommittee or interim study, I would be more than happy to participate in those meetings.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. ▰
In liberty—
Jeremy J. Olson
Manchester Ward 11