to:                 all duvall managed board members

from:           mary wilken

subject:     life safety

As Duvall-managed associations, we wanted to share with you some work we have been undertaking over the past few months with regards to life safety requirements.

First some history.  As you may be aware, annual inspections of the life safety systems are conducted in each building.   These inspections are a requirement of the Charlotte Fire Department’s Fire Prevention Bureau and of the insurance carrier for each building.  These inspections are bid out and contracted with specialized vendors with reports going to the Fire Prevention Bureau and typically, the Association’s insurance carrier during site walk throughs with our management team. 

In late February, following a routine inspection of the audible device testings at one of our Associations, the inspector requested a copy of the certification of testing of the audible device for each residential unit.  We advised that historically those had not been part of the required annual testing. 

Per National Fire Protection Code 72, however,  the audible devices were indeed required to be tested annually.  We were further advised that the individual smoke detectors, whether tied into the building system or not, were also required to be tested annually.

Knowing the significant financial and logistical impact this would have on all of the Associations, we requested a meeting with Dale Carter, the Senior Fire Inspector with the Fire Prevention Bureau.

In advance of this meeting, we brainstormed internally on alternative methods which may be reasonably acceptable to the Inspector’s office, as well as to the insurers.  Methods that would cover the intent (ensuring life safety) of the code, but not cause substantial increased costs to the Associations.  Depending on the property size, a property with a current inspection cost of $1,500 could see fees in the$5,000 to  $7,000 range and a property with a current inspection cost of $4,500 could see those fees rise to closer to $15,000 or $20,000.

We met with Inspector Carter on March 19^th to review the code and discuss alternatives.  We explained that not only would the cost to meet this requirement be prohibitive, but also access to units would be difficult at best.  While the Association has rights of entry, coordination and notifications would be cumbersome and legal hurdles may also be involved. Inspector Carter was understanding of the issues we raised and agreed to try to work together to find a solution.

The recommended procedure we outlined was as follows:

·         Duvall submits a memo to each owner advising of the upcoming annual inspection and requesting that they plan to have someone present during the inspection in order to verify that the alarm was heard within their unit.

·         Owners notify Duvall if they did NOT hear the alarm (this was to enable the Association to accept no response as a positive response and to put the responsibility on the Owner).

·         Repairs would be scheduled with any owner reporting the audible not operational within their unit.

Inspector Carter advised that affirmation of hearing the alarm would probably be required in writing and that they would also need to affirm that they had tested their individual smoke detectors.  We worked through other scenarios as well, including reviewing systems to see if individual units could be tested separately and also to see if all devices could be heard from the hallways.  Inspector Carter’s office decided that it would be beneficial to have the companies that install and test these units involved in the discussions to ensure that all options were being considered.

On April 15^th a meeting was held at Duvall’s office with Duvall representatives, Dale Carter from the Fire Inspector’s office, representatives from Simplex Grinnell, CRS Building Automation, Diebold, and Cemco Systems. Scenarios were reviewed and while each of the installation/inspection companies acknowledged that while they would profit from increased fees, the logistics of entering every unit would not be preferable or practical.

The outcome incorporated the following steps:

·         Duvall submits a memo to each owner advising of the upcoming annual inspection and requesting that they plan to have someone present during the inspection in order to verify that the alarm was heard within their unit.

·         An approved form for the owner to sign indicating that 1) the devices within their unit were operational; and 2) that they had tested the individual smoke detectors within their unit would also be distributed.

·         Two to three additional test times would be added at varying days (weekends) and varying times (evenings) to ensure that all owners had an opportunity to be present during one of the tests.

·         Those owners who advised that they did not hear the alarm would be contacted and inspection/repairs would be scheduled with that owner.

·         Those owners who did not respond would be contacted individually and charged for individual tests required within their unit.

·         Should an owner refuse or continue to not respond, they would be reported to the Fire Prevention Bureau for their files. (legal questions remain on if the association should enter to perform the test, but would prefer not to do so)

Following this meeting, Inspector Carter followed up with the North Carolina Department of Insurance (governing body for these matters in North Carolina) to ensure that this course of action would be considered acceptable.

We were advised this week, that this will be an acceptable means of complying with the requirement. 

While the current governing body has agreed to this course of action, it remains subject to change in the future, and issues on sensitivity testing requirements and sprinkler heads may arise.  We are confident that those governing and enforcing these requirements will continue to work with us on your behalf to ensure that what is in place is the best alternative, both from a life safety and cost perspective.

Duvall will contact legal counsel to draft a standardized form that will include language placing liability on the owner if they do not comply with the outlined testing certifications. This form will be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau and will help to defray any liability from the Association and the Fire Prevention Bureau. 

We believe that this course of action is prudent and that it does indeed meet the intent of the regulations.  Life Safety is of the highest priority, but involving individual owners in the process is in the Association’s best interest, and being able to retain current cost levels is imperative.  We are pleased to have been able to work to ensure this outcome.

If you have any questions on this or just would like more information, please let us know.  We value the opportunity to be able to serve those we manage through significant and serious issues such as this.