In a landmark decision filed today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a declaratory judgment holding invalid the Sprinkler Rule adopted by the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry (DLI).  The Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC) brought the challenge against the Sprinkler Rule, which had required sprinklers in newly-constructed single- and two-family homes, but excepted single-family homes under 4,500 square feet. BATC alleged that the Sprinkler Rule was invalid because it was adopted outside DLI’s rulemaking authority, it violated the constitutional requirement of substantive due process, and furthermore, in the process of adopting the Sprinkler Rule, DLI violated statutory rulemaking procedure. The Court of Appeals agreed on all counts.

The Court of Appeals determined that DLI failed to demonstrate there was substantial evidence supporting the 4,500-square foot threshold.  There was “simply no evidence or explanation” supporting the notion that new two-family homes and single-family homes 4,500 square feet or greater present a unique fire-safety risk that justifies requiring sprinklers. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals noted there was no explanation in the record for why DLI adopted a threshold of 4,500 square feet as opposed to a threshold of any other square footage, be it 3,000 or 5,000 square feet.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals held the Sprinkler Rule was “arbitrary and not the result of a reasoned determination.” The lack of evidence supporting the Sprinkler Rule meant that DLI had also acted outside its authority by adopting a rule that was not “based on the application of scientific principles, approved tests, and professional judgment.” Finally, the court recognized that DLI had failed to comply with Minnesota law insofar as it required DLI to consider the costs of the Sprinkler Rule on small businesses and cities.

• As of today, October 13, 2015, the sprinkler rule is invalidated and cannot be required in any single-family or two-family (twin home) project.
   
• For projects that were permitted prior to the invalidation, counsel recommends that builders seek a permit amendment and a re-stamping of the project’s plans to reflect the invalidation of the sprinkler rule.
   
• If a project is underway, counsel also recommends that builders seek a permit amendment and re-stamping of the project’s plans to reflect the invalidation of the sprinkler rule.
   
• DLI has a 30-day window to request review of this ruling by the MN Supreme Court. It’s unclear whether or not DLI and Governor Dayton will pursue this avenue. Should they, BATC is prepared and well-positioned to defend the Appellate Court decision on behalf of our members and Minnesota homebuyers.

We want to thank BATC's Board of Directors for their leadership and perseverance in pressing forward on this issue. To our members who wrote emails, talked to legislators, contributed to Housing First and supported BATC's efforts in ways big and small, THANK YOU!

Thanks to those who submitted briefs in support of BATC's legal action: Builders Association of Minnesota, MN Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Home Builders in partnership with BATC member Frank Kottschade.

Finally, a special thanks to the Larkin Hoffman team who led this portion of the sprinkler mandate fight. Attorneys Peter Coyle, Rob Stefonowicz, and Bryan Huntington managed this complex and high-profile case with professionalism throughout.