Worcester will not adopt an optional state fire safety law that requires sprinkler systems in new and renovated residential buildings with four or more units.
After months of debate, a majority of Worcester city councilors concluded on Tuesday that the measure isn’t necessary because the state building code already includes a similar mandate for fire sprinkler systems. That’s even though Worcester’s city manager and fire chief recommended the council still opt into the law, arguing it could provide an extra layer of protection for families and firefighters.
“It should be incumbent upon all of us to enhance our fire safety,” said Councilor Etel Haxhiaj, who advocated for the measure. “What a ‘no’ vote means tonight is that we are choosing to not take advantage of a simple, straightforward measure that the Worcester fire chief and the city manager have fully endorsed.”
The state Legislature created the law nearly forty years ago. Worcester councilors began considering opting in late last year because the city’s housing stock is older and many buildings were built in ways that make them especially vulnerable to blazes. For example, some have antiquated electrical wiring systems that are now illegal to install and can be overwhelmed by high usage. Old heating systems can also be fire-starters.
Under the current Massachusetts building code, any new or renovated building with at least three units has to have sprinklers. The code is enforced by the city’s inspectional services department. The optional state law — known as 26I —does overlap with the code, but also gives local fire chiefs the authority to ensure buildings undergoing significant renovations install sprinklers. Nearly 200 other communities across Massachusetts have opted into the state sprinkler law.
Haxhiaj argued that currently, property owners can bypass the building code by staggering the renovation of their properties. That allows them to make the case that the work is not significant enough to meet the sprinkler requirement.
“There remains a small segment of older buildings where current codes may leave room for interpretation, particularly in the case of substantial renovations,” she said. “By adopting 26I, we ensure that no gaps in fire safety remain particularly in vulnerable structures.”
Still, other councilors pushed back, saying that as long as Worcester’s inspectional services department enforces the building code correctly, they’re not concerned about any complexes skirting the sprinkler requirement. Councilor George Russell argued the building code even goes further than the state law, because it applies to renovated complexes with at least three units while the state law only affects complexes with at least four.
Councilor Morris Bergman added that while many cities and towns have adopted the law, over 100 haven’t. And Councilor Kate Toomey said the measure is obsolete because since its creation about 40 years ago, the state has modified the building code to also require the sprinkler systems.
“Things have changed here in Worcester, and we now have rules and regulations between the fire department and inspectional services that far supersede what this legislation would have,” Toomey said.
After about an hour of debate, Mayor Joseph Petty — who chairs the council and usually casts the deciding vote on contentious matters — weighed in. He said he had gone back and forth on the matter. But once he heard the building code extends beyond the state law, he said he decided not to adopt it.
“Everybody wants to see the safety of our citizens, the safety of our firefighters,” Petty said. “No matter what we do here tonight, protection is there to make sure that sprinklers are put in.”
