City of Madison
Legislative File ID   12575
Type:   Ordinance    Status:   Passed
Enactment Date:   3/19/2009    Enactment No.:   ORD-09-00041
Title:  
FOURTH SUBSTITUTE - Creating Sec. 34.42, amending Sec. 27.05(2)(w) and creating Secs. 32.06(2)(a)1.j. and 32.06(4) of the Madison General Ordinances to govern installation and maintenance of smoke alarms in residential buildings.
Controlling Body:   BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD
Introduced:   11/10/2008    Version:   5
Final Action:   3/3/2009    Contact:   dalthaus@cityofmadison.com
Name:  
Smoke alarms
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD
Sponsors:  
Michael E. Verveer, Paul E. Skidmore, Brenda K. Konkel, Eli Judge, Tim Bruer, David J. Cieslewicz, Joseph R. Clausius, Mark Clear, Lauren Cnare, Judy Compton, Tim Gruber, Julia S. Kerr, Libby Monson, Larry Palm, Thuy Pham-Remmele, Satya V. Rhodes-Conway, Marsha A. Rummel, Jed Sanborn, Michael Schumacher, Brian L. Solomon, Robbie Webber
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
11/10/2008Attorney's Office/Approval GroupThis Ordinance was Referred for Introduction
Notes: Board of Fire Code, Building Code and Licensing Appeals, Public Safety Review Board
11/18/2008COMMON COUNCILThis Ordinance was Referred to the BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Public Safety Review Board, Housing Committee
11/18/2008BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARDThis Ordinance was Refer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD
Notes:
11/18/2008BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARDThis Ordinance was Refer to the HOUSING COMMITTEE
Notes:
12/3/2008HOUSING COMMITTEEHirsch recommended moving to item 8 on the Agenda, Legislative File No. 12575. Ed Ruckriegel of the Madison Fire Department was present to discuss this item. Ruckriegel outlined how the proposal for this legislative file came about. In 2007, the City of Madison experienced 7 fire fatalities in residential properties. Towards the end of the year, they came to realize there is a lack of smoke alarms. Peter Talan died on November 18, 2007, and there were six alarms in the home. The one in the basement is the only one that worked. Channel 3 did an interview with a young lady who lived next door to Peter and there were 8 alarms in that home, and none of them worked. After that, there was a significant outpouring of interest from people in the community that something needed to be done. George Hank and Ruckriegel put together a team and met a few times. Instead of responding to the emotional response, they decided to slow things down and make sure this was done right. There was an AASPIRE Intern over the summer that assembled the data and looked at national and local data. The team met with the Apartment Owners Association of South Central Wisconsin, Madison Landlord Coalition and Ald. Konkel at Tenant Resource Center. A document was developed that Ruckriegel believes is a consensus document. All of the groups referenced support this legislative file. Since then there has been discussion with the Madison Builders Association. The Madison Builders Association has some concerns about getting into the Uniform Codes, the State one and two-family Dwelling Code is a mini/maxi code. It says locals cannot be more or less restrictive. They have also said they are huge advocates of smoke alarms so this puts them in a situation where they do not necessarily like the City going in and doing things retroactively in homes that once they are built are supposed to be left alone, but yet to say they oppose smoke alarms is really a quandary for them. The Ordinance intent is to discontinue the use of 9-volt operating smoke alarms. They are the ones that people pull the batteries out of when there is humidity in a bathroom from showering, and they use the batteries for something else. Judge arrived at 5:43 PM It is a device that can easily be rendered inoperable so they would like to replace all of those 9-volt smoke alarms with either 10-year lithium batteries or hard-wiring (110 volt). In the smoke alarms with 10-year lithium batteries, the battery is actually sealed in the device so that the battery cannot be removed. To remove it, you have to destroy the alarm. With these new alarms, they also have a hush button, so if you get a nuisance alarm, you can push the button and it will silence for a few minutes, rather than taking it down and putting it in a drawer or taking a battery out. In terms of occupant use and occupant maintenance, the 10-year lithium batteries are much more reliable. That is what they are trying to accomplish. They will offer property owners the option of either using the 10-year lithium batteries or going ahead and making the investment to install hard-wiring, powered by the building power system with a battery back-up. In addition to specifying either the 10-year lithium or 110 volt with battery back-up, it will also be required that there is an additional alarm. Currently the State Code says that you can install an alarm in the sleeping area, and it defines the sleeping area as the bedroom floor within six feet of the bedroom door. Data shows that when you sleep with the bedroom door closed, there is a barrier between you and a potential fire. There was an infant in Sheboygan who had a fire start outside of the bedroom and the people were forced to jump out of a window two weekends ago and the child died from the blunt-force trauma of dad jumping out the window with the infant. So if you protect both the bedroom where people are sleeping and the path out, that is providing good safety and it will improve safety for occupants. So the Ordinance specifies the type and also proposes to acquire additional smoke alarms. As they spoke with the various landlord groups, it became very clear that there is an interest in having tenants be responsible for leaving the smoke alarms alone. There is a penalty provision so that if there is a fire call or EMS call and they see that the alarm has been removed, the tenant can receive a citation. If Building Inspection is doing routine program inspections and the device is down and/or inoperable, the tenant can receive a citation. The landlord would be required to install it and the landlord and tenant would sign a document that it is installed and it is present, and the document would also outline the responsibility of the tenant to maintain it. This would be to push the button on it occasionally, but basically leave it alone. There was suggestion by the Apartment Owners Association of South Central Wisconsin that there is a provision for fire safety education. Landlords would be required to provide tenants with fire safety information. The Fire Department would develop that information and put it on their website. The Ordinance also provides identical language in Chapter 27 and Chapter 32, Rental Agreements and Receipts. It would be included in that list so that the landlord knows they need to have the documents prepared and presented to the tenant, as well as the tenant knows what their rights are in terms of receiving that information. They met with the Department of Commerce to discuss concerns about the Uniform Codes and whether this Ordinance is infringing on that and they basically said that it is an additional device. We are not requiring people to pull a building apart. We are not requiring people to open ceilings and walls in order to install an additional smoke alarm. They felt that this was not treading on the construction aspects of the uniformity. There are going to be a couple of revisions based on that meeting. Marcy Paulson, George Hank, and Ruckriegel will be working on that. Ruckriegel does not believe those are substantive changes. Right now as it reads, the new smoke alarms or the additional smoke alarms, the one on both sides of the door, would have to be hard-wired. That was not the intent. So, those additional alarms can be the 10-year lithium batteries. The owner can install hard-wired if they wish. Hirsch asked what the cost of a 10-year lithium battery is. Ruckriegel said a 10-year lithium battery is about $8.42. He found that information online. So the $8.42 for a 10-year period versus 9-volt batteries for 10 years is much more cost effective. It would be about $40.00 to maintain a 9-volt alarm for 10 years. Hirsch then asked if for ongoing rental properties is there a timeframe for installing new alarms. Ruckriegel said the proposal for that is August 15, 2009. Brink asked about carbon monoxide and when that program is going to come through from state. Ruckriegel thinks it will be 2011. There will be a lot of education provided. All smoke alarms only last 10 years. Porterfield asked if there are similar Ordinances for the surrounding communities in Dane County. Ruckriegel said there are not at this time, but other communities should come on board. Porterfield asked Hank if they would inspect for this and Hank said yes. Hank said when they met with the Department of Commerce, then mentioned that when this got to press, other communities in Wisconsin contacted them and said they thought this was a very good idea. So there may be some movement to try to make this statewide. Konkel questioned some of the language in 3(g). She asked if it would be easier, instead of having a separate form, to put it in the standard rental provision. Bosben-Gebhardt did not think it would fit. Bosben-Gebhardt said she already has a separate smoke detector form and her smoke detector sheet is a full page right now. Brink would want a separate sheet because then you would know everyone saw it and signed it. Sparer asked if this should be referred to the Landlord & Tenant Issues Subcommittee. Ruckriegel was okay with referral and then have it come back at the January Housing Committee meeting. Konkel said the timing was okay for this. A motion was made by Sparer, seconded by Villacrez to refer Legislative File 12575 to the Landlord & Tenant Issues Subcommittee. The motion passed by voice vote/other with Chair Hirsch abstaining. This Ordinance was Refer to the LANDLORD AND TENANT ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE.
Notes:
12/9/2008Unpublished Meeting Data Pending*
12/10/2008PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEThis Ordinance was Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD The Fire Department met with the Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin and the Madison Landlord Coalition who represent 85-90% of Landlords within the City of Madison in June to understand where the Fire Department was going with the Smoke Alarm Ordinance. The new proposal will be cost efficient to maintain smoke alarms than what is currently being used. Older homes alarms installed prior to 1990 are the 9v battery operated smoke alarms, which you would have to put 2 batteries in per year. The new 10-year lithium smoke alarm you could purchase at your local retailer for about $17.00 and on-line for less. Ruckriegel indicated that it would be less expensive to install the 10-year lithium smoke alarms. At the national level Ruckriegel said that only 98% of homes in America have smoke alarms with 48% of those working and that you have a fail rate because 9v batteries and because smoke alarms only have a service life of a 10 year span. It makes sense to purchase a lithium alarm because they are sealed in the device, cannot be removed, and have a hush button instead of people taking the alarm off of the ceiling to stop the beeping because of burnt food, steam, etc. which in most cases do not go back on the ceiling. This came about because in 2007, there were 7 fire fatalities that occurred in Madison, five out of six alarms did not work. Installation of a second alarm in a bedroom would be recommended.Pass
Notes:
12/10/2008A motion was made by Scott, seconded by Smith, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the COMMON COUNCIL. The motion passed by voice vote/other.
Notes:
12/16/2008BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARDThe Substitute reviewed is dated 12/16/2008. Issues raised by the Board were that adoption could lead to a non-uniformity argument in any litigation. The State via the Statutes is supposed to have one statewide Uniform Code for dwellings and multi-family. The Ordinance, from a practical standpoint, is not enforceable in one-two family dwellings. A concern was expressed as to the uncertain treatment of single family owners in a loss due to failure to comply with an Ordinance they were not aware of. A motion was made by Statz, seconded by Glueck, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER, modify the Ordinance to have owner occupied one-two family units exempted until the unit was sold or there was a change in tenancy. The motion passed by the following vote:Pass
(7:0)
Notes: Modify the Ordinance to have owner occupied one-two family units exempted until the unit was sold or there was a change in tenancy.
12/18/2008LANDLORD AND TENANT ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEEA motion was made by Konkel, seconded by Ejercito, to Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the HOUSING COMMITTEE: 1. Change 2(d) - where it refers to (4)(h) to (3)(h) as there is no 4(h). 2. In item 3- Change 32.06 to 32.06(2)(a)1. 3. Put the language from (3)(g) in 32.06 and create a new Section (4). 4. Change 3(g) to say - Upon each new lease (STRIKE "and upon lease renewal" and ADD "and at least once every 12 months for every continuing tenant") and strike the rest of the language. 5. In 4 - add the same language as above to say - - - Upon east new lease (STRIKE "and upon lease renewal" and ADD "and at least once every 12 months for every continuing tenant"). The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
1/6/2009COMMON COUNCILThis Ordinance was Rerefer to the BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Public Safety Review Board, Housing Committee
1/6/2009BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARDThis Ordinance was Refer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD
Notes:
1/6/2009BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARDThis Ordinance was Refer to the HOUSING COMMITTEE
Notes:
1/7/2009
1/13/2009PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEA motion was made by Judge, seconded by Skidmore, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the Fire Department. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
2/4/2009HOUSING COMMITTEEAld. Mike Verveer was present and asked that Item 8 on the Agenda be taken out of order. A motion was made by Judge, seconded by Munson to move Item 8 up on the Agenda. The motion passed by voice vote/other. Ald. Mike Verveer and Ed Ruckriegel were present to speak on behalf of Legislative File 12575. Verveer is the main sponsor of this Ordinance. His rationale behind this Ordinance was the tragic house fire on N. Bedford Street on November 10, 2007, which is in Verveer’s District. Peter Talen was killed in that house fire and the Ordinance is named in his memory. The existing Ordinance is not what it could be in terms of life safety. Ruckriegel and Hank have worked very hard on this for about one year and on the one year anniversary of the fire, this Ordinance was introduced by Verveer and others, including Judge. If you do a cost benefit analysis, there is no comparison for the value of a human life. Beyond that, the cost of replacing old 9 volt batteries every year compared to the ten-year lithium batteries that this Ordinance will mandate, among other things, works out favorably when you do the math. Ruckriegel spoke and said there is amazing support for this Ordinance. There is a third substitute because of the City Attorney’s Office. Sparer asked what the differences were in the most current version. Ruckriegel said the primary change is in the way they are handling required installation. The language was cleaned up to make it easier to understand. Konkel arrived at 5:13 PM. Hassel arrived at 5:18 PM A motion was made by Sparer, seconded by Judge, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD, due back on 2/17/2009. The motion passed by the following vote:Pass
(11:0)
Notes:
2/17/2009BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARDVersion 4 of Legislative File 12575 and M.G.O. 29.15 were passed out. Discussion points by Board: 1. Liability of homeowners that do not comply still an issue for single-family owner-occupied homes. 2. The City should not make these mandatory in single-family homes. 3. An option would be to have these required on sale of the single-family owner-occupied homes. 4. Extend the date for single-family owner-occupied homes to August 2010. 5. George Hank of the Building Inspection Division passed out new wording for the Ordinance. Wording added was, "Smoke alarms may use either photoelectric or ionization sensing technology." Wording deleted, "Either the smoke alarm in the bedroom or the alarm within six feet of the door or both shall be a photoelectric smoke alarm." The new wording was required because the market does not provide 10 year batteries for photoelectric detectors. Ed Ruckriegel stated that there was not any significant contract with single-family owners. Link stated Target had them for $25 to $30 each and may cost a homeowner $300 to put these in. A home may require five or six detectors. (There are 38,000 homes where these would be required.) Olson indicated he could see a contractor charging $600 to purchase and put them in. This is a burden on the elderly who cannot do this themselves. A motion was made by Glueck, seconded by Karow, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER: Accept Version 4 with the wording change as noted above by George Hank (attached to Minutes) and an August 15, 2010 compliance date for single-family owner-occupied homes. There was also a recommendation that for the education process that homeowners be told that non-compliance may affect your insurance coverage and to contact your insurance agent. The insurance issue should be addressed by Council per Statz. The motion passed by the following vote:Pass
(7:1)
Notes: George Hank of the Building Inspection Division passed out new wording for the Ordinance. Wording added was, "Smoke alarms may use either photoelectric or ionization sensing technology." Wording deleted, "Either the smoke alarm in the bedroom or the alarm within six feet of the door or both shall be a photoelectric smoke alarm." (Changes attached to Minutes) The new wording was required because the market does not provide 10 year batteries for photoelectric detectors. A motion was made by Glueck, seconded by Karow, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER: Accept Version 4 with the wording change as noted above by George Hank and an August 15, 2010 compliance date for single-family owner-occupied homes. There was also a recommendation that for the education process that homeowners be told that non-compliance may affect your insurance coverage and to contact your insurance agent. The insurance issue should be addressed by Council per Statz.
3/3/2009COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Adopt. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes: 2 Registrant(s) in support wishing to speak.
Approvals
ApproverDateApproval Status
Debra Simon11/12/2008Approved
Michael May11/12/2008Approved
Debra Simon11/20/2008Approved
Michael May11/20/2008Approved
Debra Simon12/17/2008Approved
Michael May12/17/2008Approved
Debra Simon1/13/2009Escalated for Inaction
Michael May1/13/2009Approved
Tim Fruit Approved
Debra Simon3/3/2009Approved
Michael May3/3/2009Approved

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.