Smoke alarms save lives. More specifically, smoke alarms installed in the right locations and maintained properly save lives. An effort is underway in Madison, Wis., to ensure both through the three Es: engineering, enforcement and education.

On March 3, the Madison Common Council approved an ordinance that established specific fines for non-compliance, fire-safety education requirements for tenants, and requirements for smoke alarms to ensure they represent the latest engineered technology.

An endeavor as aggressive as this required a comprehensive action plan. This plan included 12 specific and essential steps:

• Broadly define the desired outcome to allow the flexibility to reach consensus.

• Check data sources to make sure the desired outcome is supported by applicable and specific data.

• Confer with legal counsel to define the legal process and to make sure the goal can survive legal challenges.

• Understand the political realities of the project. Does the boss support the idea? How do elected officials and policy-makers feel about the idea?

• Check the will of supporters and the heart of opponents.

• Draft the proposal.

• Develop a media strategy.

• Meet with stakeholders to present the proposal and reach consensus.

• Adjust the proposal and prepare the required documents for the adoption process.

• Prepare educational materials and train staff as if the proposal has been approved. Be ready to educate the community before the outcome is known.

• Monitor the adoption process, making sure each step is followed and committee reports are submitted to the decision-making authority.

• Acknowledge staff and supporters.

Fire department management used this planning process to drive a change in the way residential occupancies are protected by smoke alarms.

Tragic Beginnings

The Madison initiative immediately took off following an unprecedented fifth fire fatality in November 2007. After Peter Talan died in an off-campus rental house near the University of Wisconsin, elected officials and local media demanded action. Five of the six alarms in the rental had been disabled. Within a few days, a local television station interviewed someone in a neighboring residence and found all eight smoke alarms in that building inoperable.

The Madison Fire Department strategized a plan for change. Shortly after the first of this year, the fire department organized a meeting that included fire-prevention staff, building inspection managers and the city attorney's office. The group discussed the local fire problem, the perceptions of smoke-alarm failures, national fire-loss data and solutions to manage the local fire problem. One of the smartest decisions reached at this meeting was to set aside the sense of immediacy created by the media and follow a deliberate and planned process.

The fire department led a process that focused primarily on garnering up-front support by potential opposition. Before any legal language was drafted, department personnel met with two separate groups of rental-property owners to discuss proposed ideas. Department personnel left the meeting with a sense of support rather than opposition. The department originally proposed requirements to update alarm systems in common areas of rental housing and smoke alarms within the dwelling units, but decided to pursue only alarms inside units. The compromise demonstrated the department's commitment to collaboration with building owners. By simply meeting with the groups, the department's efforts were appreciated and subsequently supported.

Subsequently, the alderman for Talen's district told the Madison Common Council about his personal experience following the fire. Talen's family and housemates also spoke to the council about their loss and experiences related to the tragedy. The emotional testimonials were the beginning of positive change.

The council referred the ordinance proposal to the housing committee, public-safety review board, and the building and fire code review and appeals board. All three committees are citizen boards with elected officials on two of the three. Committee meetings are posted for public comment and testimony. The housing committee referred the proposal to a sub-committee for additional review. Much to the surprise of fire personnel, all committees voted to support the ordinance. Only one member of one of the review authorities opposed the ordinance. (Opposition stemmed from the retroactive owner-occupied, single-family requirements.) While the support of the referral committees and boards was a positive sign, department staff also questioned whether elected officials could take the leap into retroactive requirements for owner-occupied, single-family dwellings.

When the ordinance went back to council for consideration on March 3, Talen's roommates and parents testified again. The executive director of the 1,000-plus-member apartment owners' association also testified in support of the ordinance. The lead alderman outlined the ordinance and made compelling comments to convince the other elected officials to support the proposal — and they did so unanimously.

Media Plan

Shortly before the smoke-alarm ordinance was presented to the Madison Common Council, the Madison Fire Department strategized a plan to engage the media. Surely, the local print and broadcast media would be interested in making the proposal a story. Serendipitously, the ordinance was ready for introduction to the council on the one-year anniversary of Talen's death. His parents and roommates were willing to discuss their loss and support for the ordinance with the media. A press conference was scheduled at Fire Station No. 1 just before the council meeting on Nov. 18, 2008.

The press conference included comments from Chief Debra Amesqua, Alderman Mike Verveer, and Talen's family and roommates. Behind the podium stood the firefighters who rescued three young adults from the burning house and discovered the young man's body. The press conference was an opportunity to frame the ordinance for public review and comment. The new smoke alarm ordinance proposal was a lead story for local television stations. The positive message of the press conference set the tone for positive media coverage.

The media focus was directed on the introduction and final consideration of the ordinance. During the public-comment period and as the proposal worked its way through the various citizen boards and committees, however, the media did not maintain a focus on the proposal at all. By avoiding interim media stories, the proposal was not sensationalized or questioned by media outlets. A comprehensive and competent public-information plan was essential to achieving positive media coverage.

The day the ordinance was scheduled for council consideration, the fire department sent a press release to local media. With the family and roommates ready to speak to council and the media, local news outlets had what they needed and wanted to make the ordinance-consideration a lead story. With the testimony of the victim's mother and supportive comments by the executive director of the apartment owners' association and the lead alderman, the media had good quotes and sound bites to develop their story. When the council voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance, the media had a complete story. The new ordinance was covered in all local markets, and in all cases, it was good news. The media did not make negative editorial comments, nor did they condemn the decision.

Media is a necessary and useful tool. When lasting and positive relationships are established and nurtured, local media can be an effective resource. In this case, the department knew from experience that the media would cover the story and would keep it a positive story. The department continues to work with the media as a partner in disseminating information relative to the new smoke-alarm ordinance.

Property-Owner Support

Acquiring the support of lessors and property owners was much easier than anticipated. Very early in the ordinance research and development, a cost analysis comparing the price of new alarms with the cost of continued maintenance of existing 9-volt smoke alarms was performed. Armed with an existing code requirement to replace all alarms in service for more than 10 years and requirements for regular repair and maintenance of existing alarms, it was easy to demonstrate the proposal was less expensive than to continue with the existing fire protection. Rental property owners liked the proposal.

To gain further support, language was included making tenants responsible for smoke-alarm maintenance and testing. The ordinance opens the door for the city to issue citations to tenants or occupants when disabled or inoperable alarms are discovered.

The initial meetings with two separate rental-owner groups, one conservative and the other more liberal, were more brainstorming sessions than a proposal review. After hearing their suggestions, the ordinance proposal was formulated based on their input. The ordinance includes exact language as proposed by the groups.

In fall of 2008, the executive boards of both groups voted to support the ordinance proposal. The support was a critical accomplishment, and paved the way for approval by three citizen committees and, ultimately, elected officials.

Lessons Learned

With the ordinance approved, the work for the fire department was only beginning. Retailers, contractor supply businesses, security and alarm installers, and smoke alarm manufacturers had to ramp up for the sale of as many as 150,000 smoke alarms. Within days, the fire department organized a meeting with retailers to explain the new law and assist managers with ordering and stocking compliant alarms. The department Web site was updated with documents to assist retailers, rental-property owners, property-management companies and homeowners. With some surprise, the department received a few hundred calls in the week following the adoption. The department continues to enhance the Web site, provide ordinance educational materials and presentations, and hone the public-information campaign in support of the new smoke-alarm ordinance.

The ordinance-development process proved to be well-orchestrated. Department personnel are pleased with the end result and plan to use this process as a model for future ordinance proposals. The collaborative approach with possible opponents worked well. Buy-in was achieved by involving potential opponents in the original ideas, concepts, and goals before any language was drafted. Everyone supported the draft language because opponents, supporters, legal counsel and technical staff worked to find common ground.

One area for improvement related to ordinance education. The three weeks following the adoption was very busy, with hundreds of calls to the fire department and building-inspection department. The flood of calls could have been prevented by posting educational materials on the department's Web site before the ordinance was approved. Instead of meeting with retailers after common council action, it would have been better to meet earlier, allowing retailers to know what they were going to order and stock. A meeting or training session with property lessors immediately after approval would have been an opportunity to get everyone on the same page, prevent confusion, and answer questions once.

Unable to predict the outcome of the elected official review or the date of final approval, it did not seem to make sense to commit time and effort to preparing educational materials when the effort may have been unnecessary. That perception was incorrect. Any pre-approval work would have been well worth the effort. Information for the community and property owners must be available immediately after the ordinance adoption.

Six months after the ordinance was approved, department personnel continue with daily efforts supporting the ordinance, answering questions and meeting with property owners. Community-education officers, code-enforcement officers and receptionists are committed to providing prompt and consistent technical assistance to the community. The total number of hours that staff commits to the new smoke-alarm program exceeds 40 hours per week. The staff and staff hours required to support the ordinance continues to surprise fire-prevention supervisors.

---

Ed Ruckriegel is the fire marshal for the Madison (Wis.) Fire Department. He previously served as the city's fire-protection engineer. Ruckriegel has a bachelor's degree in fire and safety engineering technology.

PETER TALEN SMOKE-ALARM ORDINANCE

On March 3, 2009, the Madison Common Council approved comprehensive ordinance language aimed at saving lives through reliable smoke alarms. The ordinance accomplishes the following.

• Prohibits smoke alarms powered solely by standard 9-volt batteries.
• Requires tamper-resistant or sealed 10-year lithium battery smoke alarms, or 110-volt with battery back-up smoke alarms.
• Requires smoke alarms in the bedroom, within 6 feet of the bedroom door and on every floor of the home.
• Applies to new and existing residential properties and buildings where people sleep.
• Established Aug. 15, 2010, as the compliance date for apartments, condominiums, and other multi-family dwellings.
• Makes the tenant or occupant responsible for smoke-alarm maintenance and testing.
• Requires the owner to provide tenants with fire-safety information.
• Prohibits tenants and occupants from rendering alarms inoperable.
• Establishes a fine for rendering alarms inoperable.
• Requires a document to be signed by the owner stating that alarms are installed and in working condition, and signed by the tenant indicating that they accept the maintenance-and-testing responsibility.
• Establishes Aug. 15, 2010, as the compliance date for owner-occupied, single-family dwellings.
• Requires point-of-sale verification of compliance for owner-occupied, single-family dwellings.

NFPA DATA

The Madison Fire Department went to the world leader in fire safety and education for data to support the local ordinance, the National Fire Protection Association. The NFPA data used to convince rental property owners, board and commission members, and elected officials included:

• 96% of households have smoke alarms, but alarms are not present or non-operational in 46% of reported home fires.
• Working smoke alarms in all homes would save 890 lives each year.
• 65% of home fire deaths between 2000 and 2004 occurred in buildings with no smoke alarms or no working smoke alarms.
• 54% of the inoperable alarms had missing or disconnected batteries.
• 19% of the inoperable alarms had dead or discharged batteries.

FEMA GRANT

In August, the Madison Fire Department was awarded a Fire Prevention Grant through FEMA. The $43,000 grant funds 3,300, 10-year lithium tamper-resistant smoke alarms, community education and outreach, and tools or supplies for the installation process. The grant specifies recipients of the installed alarms must be elderly or disabled homeowners or homeowners with children less than five years of age living in the home. The qualified homeowners will be those most at risk from fire.

Alarms will be installed by organizations or agencies serving the special needs of the elderly, disabled and families. The department intends to partner with local service organizations such as the United Way, Project Home, Habitat for Humanity, Community Living Alliance and others. On-duty installations by fire crews will fill any gaps between the service organizations and needy homeowners. The grant-funded alarms will be installed before the Aug. 15 compliance date for single-family homes.

Related Stories

• Language Barrier
• Beyond Stop, Drop and Roll