Don't get locked in by selecting the method of adoption before you consider all alternatives. In one city where a high-rise fire claimed several lives, the city council asked the fire chief to propose a solution. He immediately recommended that they adopt an appendix chapter of their fire code that covered high-rise retrofits. When the council met to consider the proposal, a council member noticed that the appendix required all retrofits to be completed within 18 months after it was adopted. He attacked its impracticality, asking how building owners could possibly get financing, let alone enough sprinkler contractors, to comply in that short time. The ordinance failed and the fire department has not brought up the subject again.
Another fire official took a neighbors ordinance and submitted it for adoption. The ordinance contained retrofit provisions, and the city happened to own a lot of high-rise buildings that would be effected. The public housing authority cited a lack of funds and spoke against the ordinance. It failed.
Another problem is conflicting language in other codes or even different sections of the same code. Many fire officials have gotten sprinkler ordinances adopted only to see builders legally circumvent the requirements. An example is area separation walls. Building codes state that structures separated by area separation walls are considered to be separate buildings. To circumvent the sprinkler requirements, a builder can add separation walls and thus add unlimited additions to a structure without ever exceeding the sprinkler ordinances area threshold.
Fire officials need to address conflicts like this in their ordinances. It the case of separation wall language, fire officials can add a clause saying that, for the purpose of applying the sprinkler requirements, area or separation walls will not be recognized. The RFSI sprinkler database contains ordinances with this language.
Fire officials have a range of alternatives, some obvious and some not. Should they amend the building code or fire code? Perhaps a standalone ordinance would be best. Should retrofit be addressed? If so, what occupancies should be covered and what thresholds used? What about a zoning ordinance? Each alternative has merits and demerits, depending upon local and state conditions. For example, what works in one state may not work in a state that has a mini-max building code. A fire official who wants retrofit provisions must consider how palatable they will be to the policy makers. The RFSI sprinkler ordinance database contains examples of these options, and they are available upon request. Also, the RFSI executive director can provide background from jurisdictions that have used the different alternatives.