FA-90, Residential Fire Sprinklers Retrofit Demonstration Project*


CASE STUDIES 

RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS RETROFIT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 

Phase I: Multifamily Structures 
Cooperative Agreement No. HA-12963 

U. S. Fire Administration 
Emmitsburg, MD 21727 

July 18, 1989 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Summary ..................iv
Introduction ............................................... 1
The Case Study Approach .................................. 2
Fire Sprinkler System Design and Installation 2
Fire Sprinkler System Costs .............. : 3
Economic Benefits to Owners of Buildings with Fire Sprinklers .........4
Chapter 1 Austin, Texas ...................................... 6
Local Fire Experience ..................................... 6
Project Initiation ........................................ 6
Building Rehabilitation .................................... 10
System Design and Installation ..............................11
Installation and Testing ................................... 15
System Costs .......................................... 15
Economic Benefits ....................................... 16
Community Outreach ..................................... 16
Austin, Texas: The City and Its Housing Market ................... 17

Chapter 2 Boston, Massachusetts ................................ 20
Local Fire Experience ..................................... 20
Project Initiation ........................................ 20
Building Rehabilitation .................................... 24
Fire Sprinkler System Design and Installation ..................24... 
Installation and Testing 27
Costs 28
Economic Benefits 30
Community Outreach ..................................... 30
Boston, Massachusetts: The City and Its Housing Market .........31... 

Chapter 3 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania .............................. 34
Local Fire Experience ..................................... 34
Project Initiation ........................................ 34
Building Rehabilitation .................................... 38
Fire Sprinkler System Design and Installation .....................39 
Installation and Testing ................................... 42
Costs ................................................ 42
Economic Benefits ....................................... 43
Community Outreach ..................................... 43
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The City and Its Housing Market ........... 44

Chapter 4 Prince George's County, Maryland ........................ 46
Local Fire Experience ..................................... 46
Project Initiation ........................................ 46
Building Rehabilitation .................................... 50
Fire Sprinkler System Design and Installation ...................50
Installation and Testing ................................... 54
Costs................................................ 54
Economic Benefits ....................................... 54
Community Outreach ..................................... 55
Prince George's County: The County and Its Housing Market .......... 55

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 

Chapter 5 Saint Louis, Missouri ................................. 57 
Local Fire Experience ..................................... 57
Project Initiation ........................................ 57
Building Rehabilitation .................................... 61
Sprinkler System Design and Installation ........................ 61 
Installation and Testing ...................................  64
Costs ................................................  65 
Economic Benefits ....................................... 65
Community Outreach ..................................... 65
St. Louis, Missouri: The City and Its Housing Market ...............66 

ii 

NOTICE: Neither the U. S. Government nor the NAHB National Research Center 
endorses products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein 
soley because they are considered essential to the object of this report.

This report was produced by the NAHB National Research Center, for the U. S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U. S. Fire Administration. 
The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should 
not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official view or policies of 
the United States Government, or any other organization or entity.

iii 

SUMMARY 

The United States Fire Administration funded the design and installation of 
quick-response residential fire sprinklers in multifamily residences undergoing 
rehabilitation in low-income sections of Austin, Texas: Boston, Massachusetts; 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Prince George's County, Maryland; and St. Louis, 
Missouri. In conjunction with USFA funding, the U. S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, as part of its effort to rehabilitate and improve urban 
housing. funded the NAHB National Research Center to provide technical 
assistance relating to fire sprinkler system design and installation.

The major goals of the project were to: 

investigate technical, regulatory, and administrative barriers to residential 
fire sprinkler installation in multifamily buildings undergoing rehabilitation 

evaluate residential fire sprinkler design standards as they relate to 
multifamily building rehabilitation 

demonstrate the latest residential fire sprinkler technology 

enhance the fire safety of buildings that house low-income high-risk urban 
populations 

The major considerations for design of the residential sprinkler systems were 
adequacy of existing water service, coverage and location of sprinkler heads, 
response time of sprinkler heads, and sprinkler plumbing.

Total square foot costs for installation and design ranged from a low of $1.51, 
to a high of $3.80, with the six-system average being $2.40. Costs were pushed 
upward in some buildings by the need to upgrade the water service. Conversely, 
costs were lowered in some buildings by donated labor and/ or materials from 
companies wishing to participate in this federally funded technical assistance 
project.

In all cases standards published by the National Fire Protection Association, 
were used to guide design of the sprinkler systems. In all but one system 
chlorinated polyvinyl chloride pipe (CPVC) was used; in the other case 
polybutylene was used. Local fire officials decided on the type of pipe, as well 
as other technical considerations such as adequacy of existing water service for 
fire sprinkler operation, location of sprinkler heads, water flow-activated 
alarms, shut-off valves, and external water connections. Local water and/ or 
housing officials detailed requirements for water metering, connections to 
domestic and public water service, and back-flow prevention. In addition, fire 
officials reviewed sprinkler system plans, witnessed static pressure tests, and 
for systems with flow alarms, required a flow-test.

Immediate tangible economic benefits to building owners included discounts on 
insurance premiums, as well as construction alternatives. Other benefits 
included a possible positive effect on rental income and a reduced chance of 
fire related property losses.

Each participating jurisdiction conducted a public outreach program to publicize 
the project in specific and fire safety in general. Outreach activities included 
production and distribution of a brochure on fire sprinklers: presentation of a 
training course for local plumbers; and organization of a public information 
event featuring speakers, a tour of a sprinklered residence, and a sprinkler 
demonstration trailer.

INTRODUCTION 

Residential fire safety is the primary concern of the United States Fire 
Administration (USFA), an operating division of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. Based on their mandate, USFA funded the design and installation of 
quick-response residential fire sprinklers in multifamily residences that were 
rehabilitated in low-income sections of Austin, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Prince George's County, Maryland; and St. Louis, 
Missouri. The project included various types and sizes of residential buildings. 
In conjunction with USFA funding, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), as part of its effort to rehabilitate and improve urban 
housing, funded the NAHB National Research Center (National Research Center) to 
provide technical assistance relating to fire sprinkler system design and 
installation. Each of the jurisdictions participating in the project are 
recipients of funds from two HUD programs, the Community Development Block Grant 
Program (CDBG) and the Rental Rehabilitation Program (RRP).

Funding for this project came from USFA's fiscal year 1986 appropriation 
directing them to focus on fire safety among "high-risk" populations. The five 
jurisdictions were included in the first phase of a three-year project sponsored 
together by HUD and USFA. Most of the jurisdictions participating in the fire 
safety project were receiving HUD-funded technical assistance regarding 
residential energy efficiency in low-income neighborhoods provided by the 
National Research Center. It was recognized by USFA, HUD and the National 
Research Center that the goals of the fire sprinkler project would be served by 
continuing provision of technical assistance in the same neighborhoods.

The major goals of the project were to: 

investigate technical, regulatory, and administrative barriers to residential 
fire sprinkler installation in multifamily buildings undergoing rehabilitation

evaluate residential fire sprinkler design standards as they relate to 
multifamily building rehabilitation 

demonstrate the latest residential fire sprinkler technology 

enhance the fire safety of buildings that house low-income high-risk urban 
populations 

Statistics have shown low-income families to be at a disproportionately high 
risk of death or injury from fire, as are the elderly, the very young, and the 
physically immobile. Each recipient city or county has a sizeable low-income 
population.

This project began with selection of a building that met the criteria concerning 
occupants and that was imminently scheduled for substantial rehabilitation. 
Design of the sprinkler system began after the building was selected and the 
owner agreed to participate in the sprinkler project.

Standards for sprinkler design, installation, and maintenance have been 
developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and are known as 
NFPA 13 (1987) for large buildings, NFPA 13D (1987) for one-and two-family 
residences and mobile homes, and NFPA 13R (1989) for residential structures up 
to four stories high, NFPA 13R was not available at the time the sprinkler 
systems were designed for this project. The variety in size, use, and 
configuration among the buildings allowed for design of fire sprinkler systems 
based on a modified NFPA 13D standard.

NFPA 13 was developed for property protection as well as for life safety and 
usually applies to large buildings. life f NFPA 13D was developed primarily for 
sa ety and is used for one-and two-family residential buildings and mobile 
homes. The major difference lies in the fact that the sprinkler heads in a 13D 
system are quick-response, and are designed to ensure life safety over property 
protection, Quick-response heads are designed to suppress incipient fires and 
provide additional time for occupants to escape. One philosophy behind NFPA 13D 
is provision of 10 minutes of escape time. The more complex NFPA 13 systems 
require extra connections and control mechanisms, including flow alarms and 
external water connections and higher water pressure necessary to cover larger 
areas. In addition, NFPA 13 delineates many technical variations regarding 
numerous types of occupancies, building materials, and levels of hazard. The 
extensive technical requirements of a 13 system make it more expensive than a 
13D system.

Principal considerations in the sprinkler system 

1 

design and installation process included: 

interpretation and application of NFPA sprinkler standards in rehabilitated 
multifamily dwellings as they pertain to hardware (e. g., pipe and fittings), 
external fire department connections, and placement of sprinkler heads including 
sprinklering non-living spaces 

plan review, inspection, and testing requirements and procedures 

water service connections, metering, fees, and backflow prevention; adequacy of 
existing water service in satisfying hydraulic requirements of residential fire 
sprinkler systems 

licensure requirements for sprinkler designers and installers 

These questions were resolved by relevant authorities during design and 
installation of the system and are discussed throughout this report. 
Requirements and guidance were received from respective fire departments, water 
departments, community and economic development agencies, and building 
commissioners or building inspectors.

Evaluation of a fire safety system must also consider costs and benefits. Total 
cost for design and installation of the fire sprinkler systems are presented in 
the individual case studies. Although there are not enough data to perform a 
formal cost/ benefit analysis, specific benefits are discussed including 
reduction in fire insurance premiums. and construction alternatives.

THE CASE STUDY APPROACH 

This case study is intended to investigate whether or not it is feasible, as 
well as cost effective, to install residential fire sprinkler systems in 
multifamily buildings undergoing rehabilitation, The information is offered as a 
learning tool to help home builders, local officials, and others concerned about 
residential fire safety evaluate innovations in fire safety systems and, 
perhaps, take advantage of opportunities afforded during rehabilitation to 
retrofit residences with sprinklers. The case study outlines the experiences of 
those involved in design and installation of the fire sprinklers and discusses 
specific project characteristics and history. At the end of each chapter is a 
description of the population, income, housing, and residential production and 
rehabilitation programs in the subject community. 

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 

The major considerations for design of the residential sprinkler systems were: 

adequacy of existing water service 

coverage and location of sprinkler heads 

response time/ activation of sprinkler heads 

sprinkler system plumbing 

Each of these items is addressed by NFPA standards and/ or by local codes or 
other building codes enforced in each community. A general discussion of the 
technical considerations is included in this section. The following chapters 
discuss the unique technical considerations of fire sprinkler systems in the 
five participating jurisdictions.

Water Service 

The water service in each of the subject buildings was evaluated for sufficient 
pressure and flow to operate a sprinkler system. In making this determination, 
the project team evaluated the size of the existing water service connection to 
the public water supply. supply pressure at the connection, building height, 
anticipated pressure losses within the system, and maximum number of heads for 
which simultaneous flow is required.

According to NFPA 13D (Section 4-1.1). the flow rate at a sprinkler head in a 
protected area requiring only one head must be no less than 18 gallons per 
minute (GPM). and in each compartment requiring two heads the heads must deliver 
no less than 13 GPM simultaneously. Engineering design protocol is that if these 
requirements are met at the sprinkler head( s) that calculations indicate will 
have the lowest flow rate (usually the farthest heads), it is generally assumed 
that they will be met or exceeded throughout the system. Therefore water 
delivery design must include pressure and flow-rate calculations at the 
sprinkler head most hydraulically remote from the water source and, in a "two-
head" (or a "four-head") system, at the two (or four) heads located in the most 
hydraulically remote compartment (room) large enough to require two (or four) 
heads. Two-head designs are more common for residential systems because rooms 
large enough to require four

2 INTRODUCTION 

sprinkler heads are rarely encountered. Furthermore, in NFPA-13D the maximum 
number of heads for which simultaneous flow must be accomodated is two. Four-
head systems are required by NFPA 13 but not by NFPA 13D.

Coverage and Location of Sprinkler Heads 

One step in system design is to calculate the number and location of sprinkler 
heads. This calculation is primarily related to the square footage of the rooms 
and areas to be sprinklered, although the geometry or shape of each area is also 
a factor. NFPA 13D (Section 4-l 4.1) states the requirement for the maximum area 
covered by a single head to be 144 square feet. Spacing requirements found in 
NFPA 13D (Section 4-l 4.2). call for pendent heads to be one to four inches 
(4'6" for sidewalls) from the ceiling. 'The maximum distance between sprinklers 
shall not exceed 12 feet on or between pipelines and the maximum distance to a 
wall or partition shall not exceed 6 feet. The minimum distance between 
sprinklers within a compartment shall be 8 feet. NFPA 13D requires installation 
of sprinklers in all areas with the following exceptions noted in Section 4-6:

bathrooms not exceeding 55 square feet with noncombustible fixtures 

closets where the least dimension does not exceed 3 feet (0.9 m.) and area does 
not exceed 24 square feet and the walls and ceiling are surfaced with 
noncombustible materials 

open attached porches, garages, carports and similar structures

attics, crawl spaces not used or intended for living purposes or storage 

entrance foyers which are not the only means of egress 

Many fire protection engineers would like to see sprinkler heads installed in 
the areas noted as exceptions, though simplification of sprinkler systems for 
affordability in residential settings encourages making the noted exceptions. 
Excepting the areas listed above is viewed as posing only a minimal life safety 
risk, and including sprinkler heads in those areas would likely add 
significantly to the cost of a residential fire sprinkler system.

Response Time/ Activation of Sprinkler Heads 

Occupant response time is a crucial factor in fire safety. Most deaths from 
residential fires result from inhalation of smoke or toxic gases such as carbon 
monoxide that can spread faster than flames. Sleeping or mobility-impaired 
persons in particular can be asphyxiated before they can escape. In order to 
protect occupants under conditions in which smoke detectors may be insufficient, 
sprinklers must activate early in a fire's sequence of events. One philosophy 
behind NFPA 13D is to provide 10 minutes of fire suppression in the room of fire 
origin to protect occupants during their escape.

Sprinkler head activation occurs when a soft metal link on the sprinkler head 
melts and releases a metal disk thus allowing water to flow. Melting the link 
requires exposure to a certain temperature for a certain duration. The links on 
commercial heads have a greater mass than on residential heads and require 
higher temperatures and take longer to melt, making them slower to discharge. 
For safety, heads are generally set to discharge at no less than a maximum 
ambient temperature plus 35 F. generally between 135 F and 170 F in a 
residential environment.

Sprinkler System Plumbing 

During system design the project design team selected pipe and fitting material. 
Historically, sprinkler systems were fabricated of iron or steel piping 
materials. In recent years residential sprinkler designs have increasingly 
specified plastic pipe and fittings in fire sprinkler systems. Plastic has 
become the preferred material due to both lower material and installation costs 
made possible by its flexibility and ease of assembly. Two plastic materials are 
available for use in sprinkler systems. They are polybutylene and chlorinated 
polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). CPVC's listing allows it to be installed uncovered in 
protected compartments; its joints are solvent-welded together using an adhesive 
primer and a compound made, in part. of liquified CPVC that drys to help form a 
single piece of pipe. By contrast, polybutylene must be covered by material with 
a 30-minute fire suppression rating and its joints are formed by heat welding.

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM COSTS 

Specific costs for each sprinkler system installed during this project are 
presented in the chapters, Costs per square foot ranged from a high of $3.80 to 
a low of $1.51, with an average cost per

INTRODUCTION 3 

square foot of $2.40. There were several major factors driving either up or down 
the final costs of each system. In two cases sprinkler system materials were 
donated or greatly discounted; conversely, the costs of upsizing water service 
added significant cost to some of the systems. Sprinkler supply vendors, making 
little or no profit from this project, were interested in establishing 
reputations in the market for residential fire sprinklers. Staff engineers from 
the National Research Center estimated the cost for the sprinkler systems where 
materials costs were well below what they would have been for other building 
owners. Also, in two cases, National Research Center staff designed the 
sprinkler system at no cost to the grantees. In these two cases the cost of 
design was included in the cost table in order to present more accurate data on 
fire sprinkler systems.

Operation and Maintenance Costs 

Fire sprinkler systems are subject to various costs whether or not a fire occurs 
in a building equipped with them. Costs may include water fees, inspection, 
testing and maintenance, a monitoring and response service, increased property 
taxes reflecting a higher tax assessment, damage from leakage or accidental 
discharge, and financing charges where a loan is involved. Further, in the event 
of a fire large enough to cause sprinkler activation (or false activation), 
there will be costs for replacement of heads, water service, and potentially 
other repair and maintenance costs. There may also be water damage to the 
building or its contents,

Economic Benefits to Owners of Building with Fire Sprinklers 

The principal benefits from any residential fire protection strategy are 
potential reductions in losses from fires and reduction in the underlying 
probability of fire. The major categories of benefits are improved life safety 
and a positive effect on rental income, reduced insurance premiums, reduced 
property damage costs, reduced costs of indirect fire losses, and construction 
alternatives. This section discusses these benefits in general, while the 
chapters on each jurisdiction discuss specific benefits to the participating 
owners of the buildings. National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 1203 (Ruegg 
and Fuller, 1984) presents a more detailed analysis of the benefits of a 
hypothetical sprinkler system.

Improved Life Safety 

Occupants of units with sprinklers benefit from a reduction in probability of 
death or injury from fire. Statistics (in each chapter below) showing local fire 
death experience give an indication of potential for reduction in fire related 
fatalities. As noted above, one philosophy behind NFPA 13D is to provide 10 
minutes of fire suppression to protect occupants during their escape: and when a 
residential fire sprinkler system is supplied by stored water, NFPA 13D section 
2-1 states the supply should be sufficient to provide 10 minutes of flow.

Owners (non-occupants) of sprinklered multifamily buildings ordinarily would 
benefit from the effect of sprinklers on rental income. Two factors 
predominantly determine the extent of effect on rental income: economic 
conditions in the housing market such as vacancy rate and median income of area 
residents, and regulatory authority by federal, state, or local governments who 
control rent levels and/ or subsidize rental payments.

Property Insurance Discount and Reduced Property Damage Costs 

Rate decisions in the insurance industry are guided by an advisory organization, 
the Insurance Services Office (ISO). IS0 has recommended that companies offer 
discounts of up to 10 percent on fire insurance policies covering rental 
structures that have "partial" sprinkler coverage and up to 20 percent for 
buildings that have "full" coverage. Insurance companies are free to offer 
higher or lower discounts with regulatory approval. The discount on any 
particular policy is determined on a case-by-case basis, particularly for large 
policies, and is dependent on evaluation of an underwriter. An underwriter bases 
actual rates on the reliability, maintainability, and expected performance of a 
fire sprinkler system, in addition to standard risk factors such as the local 
community fire protection rating and distance to the nearest fire hydrant and 
fire station.

Many fire insurance policies provide only partial coverage. An owner may not be 
reimbursed for some of the costs of property destroyed by a fire, due to a 
deductible, a low policy limit, or type of coverage (e. g., replacement value or 
less). An owner in this situation will benefit from any system that reduces the 
likelihood of property damage from fire. Also, several types of damage and costs 
from a fire will not be covered by insurance. Examples include demolition of

INTRODUCTION 

remaining property in preparation of construction, security of remaining 
property, and special administrative procedures in response to loss of property. 
Further, tenants may have insurance policies protecting against losses in their 
units, and reduced probability of fire may benefit those with such policies.

Construction Alternatives 

Many jurisdictions enforce local building codes as well as codes used throughout 
large regions or nationally. Many codes require a variety of fire safety 
measures and systems such as an emergency egress from upper floors of 
multifamily buildings or use of material with a prescribed fire suppression 
rating in walls separating individual units or stairwells that serve as 
emergency egress. However, in recognition of protection provided by fire 
sprinklers, local building officials often waive such requirements, thus 
reducing some costs of owning or rehabilitating a building.

INTRODUCTION 5 

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN. TEXAS 

LOCAL FIRE EXPERIENCE 

High-risk populations include the elderly, the very young, and people with 
limited ability to move without assistance. In Austin, 6.5 percent of the 
population is 65 years old or older and 7.6 percent is five years old or 
younger. Further, physical handicaps limit the mobility of 0.2 percent of the 
population. To respond to the fire protection needs of the city, the Austin Fire 
Department maintains the forces listed in Table l-l.

TABLE l-l AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT 

Stations (engine and ladder) 30 
(average coverage of 8.8 square miles per station) 
Engine Companies 31 
Ladder Truck Companies 11 
(average coverage of 6.3 square miles per combined types of companies) Rescue/ 
hazardous material stations 3 
Firefighters 800 
Firefighters on duty during each of 3 shifts 225
Fire chiefs 30 
Fire chiefs on duty during each of 3 shifts 6 
Fire Districts 6 
(average of 53 square miles per district) 
Fire hydrants 12,000 

Source: Austin Fire Department, Research Division. 

It is likely that a city as large as Austin will experience residential fire 
fatalities during a given year and that a disproportionate share of victims will 
be either elderly or very young. Although the over-65 and under-five population 
combined represent only 14 percent of Austin's population, Table 1-2 shows that 
these groups accounted for 40 percent of the fire fatalities during an 11 year 
period. Further, fire deaths are more likely to occur in low-income 
neighborhoods, defined as neighborhoods where property values are lower than 
average and a higher than average proportion of people live in poverty. East 
Austin, site of the sprinkler project, is such a neighborhood, and as Table l-2 
shows, accounts for 39 percent of Austin's fire fatalities even though only 6 
percent of the city's population resides there. East Austin is the area bounded 
by Manor Road to the north, Interstate highway 35 to the west, the Austin town 
lake to the south, and Ed Bluestein Boulevard to the east. Table l-2 shows the 
recent trends for both the city as a whole and for East Austin, while Figure 1 
plots the location of the fatalities on a map of the city.

TABLE l-2 RESIDENTIAL CIVILIAN FlRE FATALITIES AUSTIN 


YEAR NO. OF CIVILIAN FIRE DEATHS (RESI) 65 & OLDER OR 5 & YNGER # %EAST AUSTIN # 
% 

1977 6 3 50 2 33
1978 0 0 - 0 -
1979 2 1 50 0 0 
1980 6 1 17 2 33
1981 4 2 50 1 25
1982 6 4 67 3 50
1983 15* 5 33 7 47
1984 6 3 50 2 33
1985 12 6 50 4 33
1986 9 2 22 5 56
1987 3 1 33 1 33

TOTAL 69 28 40 27 39

*One fire with 4 deaths, one fire with 3 deaths. 

Source: Austin Fire Department. Investigations Section. 

PROJECT INITIATION 

The National Research Center's tentative selection of Austin led to an 
invitation to the Housing and Community Services Department (HCSD) to 
participate in the (federally-funded) technical assistance program. The National 
Research Center notified HCSD of availability of Federal money to increase fire 
safety among urban low-income populations, though the funding sources (USFA and 
HUD) required the funds to be used in conjunction with other CDBG funds 
allocated to rehabilitation of low-income housing. Therefore, the National 
Research Center informed HCSD of the agency's responsibility to identify 
buildings imminently scheduled to undergo CDBG-assisted rehabilitation and 
occupied (or scheduled to be) by low-income tenants. In addition, the National 
Research Center assisted HCSD in evaluating buildings for technical feasibility 
with fire sprinkler installation before final selection of the subject building. 
Further, HCSD staff contacted other city departments concerned with aspects of 
fire safety: the Austin Fire Department and the Austin Water Department. They 
also identified a building as a tentative site for the program. The decision of 
Mayor Frank Cooksey formally initiated Austin's

6 CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

participation in the fire sprinkler technical assistance project. 

At an orientation meeting in Austin in October 1986. National Research Center 
staff met with Chief Malcom Light of the Austin Fire Department, and Laura 
Phillips and Vincent Cobalis of the HCSD. National Research Center staff 
outlined the project and ensuing discussion highlighted ambiguities in 
application of NFPA fire standards 13 and 13D in multifamily buildings. NFPA 13 
was developed for property protection as well as for life safety and usually 
applies to large buildings.

Even though ambiguity over application of NFPA 13 and 13D could be resolved 
through design of a system using a modified NFPA 13 standard, the parties agreed 
that the Austin project should in part focus on development of a new sprinkler 
standard for multifamily residences. Any new standard would have to balance 
adequate fire protection with affordability concerns. Chief Light, stating that 
the fire department was in favor of the use of sprinkler systems in multifamily 
buildings, noted that the department would encourage their use. Soon after the 
initiation meeting, HCSD began the selection process to identify a building that 
met the stated criteria. After review of several potential sites. HCSD chose a 
townhouse complex consisting of two two-story buildings located at 5810 and 5812 
Sweeney Circle. The fire sprinkler system was designed as an NFPA 13 system 
based on the fire department requirement that, although a building is not 
required to be sprinklered. any system installed in a building with more than 
four units must comply with NFPA 13. Installation of a system in the selected 
building that would comply with NFPA 13 was estimated to cost $23,000, excluding 
modifications to the building that may have been necessary to facilitate 
sprinkler installation. Project participants agreed that this amount was beyond 
the scope of the project and another (smaller) building would have to be 
selected. The estimated costs dictated investigation of a new standard for 
future application.

HCSD evaluated several duplexes and identified two as likely sites. The duplexes 
are located at 3501 Pennsylvania Avenue and 2601 Sol Wilson Avenue. Both are in 
East Austin, an economically depressed area targeted by HCSD for housing 
rehabilitation, (Refer to Figure 1 for location of the buildings). They are one-
story wood frame structures with "pier and beam" raised wood basement floors. 
Each consists of two housing units and was built around 1945.

Total area in Sol Wilson is approximately 1,370 square feet, total area in 
Pennsylvania Avenue is approximately 1.280. Prior to rehabilitation, one of two 
units was occupied in the Sol Wilson Avenue duplex, while the Pennsylvania 
Avenue duplex had been condemned and was vacant. [Figure 2 shows the floor plan 
and sprinkler configuration of one of the buildings). HCSD contacted by letter 
the owner of both buildings, Mr. Mike Leff, and informed him of the project 
goals. Soon after being invited to participate, Mr. Leff agreed to join the 
project.

The letter from HCSD stated the department's willingness to reimburse Mr. Leff 
for the costs of installing a fire sprinkler system, including design and site 
work. Funds for reimbursement would come from a grant to HCSD from USFA. 
contingent upon execution of a written agreement between HCSD and Mr. Leff Costs 
were to be in accordance with the budget approved by USFA. with fire sprinkler 
installation costing up to $12.800 and site work up to $5,000. Site work 
included water taps, water lines, and trenching. Mr. Leff agreed to pay any 
additional sprinkler installation costs above the budgeted amount. In addition, 
the fire department and HCSD agreed to a USFA request to conduct a public 
outreach program for the project, budgeted at $5,000. Grant provisions 
disallowed transfer of funds in excess of 5 percent between cost categories 
without approval from USFA

Contractors working on exterior of 3501 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 

FIGURE 1 

LOCATION OF BUILDINGS, "EAST AUSTIN," FIRE FATALITIES IN AUSTIN 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

FIGURE 2 

FLOOR PLAN AND SPRINKLER CONFIGURATION 

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

All participants agreed to communicate regularly during the design and 
installation phases, with meetings scheduled in Austin as necessary and, if 
possible, in conjunction with site visits by National Research Center personnel. 
The parties also agreed that telephone conversations and/ or written 
communication would be necessary to secure input regarding system design. 
Photographs of the rehabilitation of the buildings would be taken by the 
National Research Center including installation of the sprinkler systems, 
together with "before and after" views of construction. After informing all 
participants of their roles and of the overall goals of the program, National 
Research Center began the design phase of the sprinkler system.

Exterior view of 2601 Sol Wilson Avenue. 

BUILDING REHABILITATION 

Both duplexes were substantially rehabilitated including new floors, walls, 
roofs, ceilings, doors, windows, and utilities. The total cost forrehabilitation 
design and construction (excluding the tire sprinkler system) was $15,000 per 
building. Further, HUD asked the National Research Center to identify ways the 
buildings could be made more energy efficient. National Research Center staff 
engineers made the following recommendations that were Included in the 
construction:

insulation in flooring and underneath each building (R-18) 

replace kitchen appliances 

Foundation of 3501 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Underside of 3501 Pennsylvania Avenue Prior to Skirting. 

10 CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Interior of 3501 Pennsylvania Avenue during rehabilitation with new window and 
insulation installed in walls. 

Interior of 3501 Pennsylvania Avenue prior to rehabilitation. 

SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 

Since the city of Austin would not allow a sole source contract to be let. the 
National Research Center and HCSD developed and sent a procurement notice to 
three licensed sprinkler system contractors (the state of Texas requires 
licensure). The National Research Center and the city specified that the 
contract include system design and cost analysis as well as installation. 
Sandberg Fire Protection, Inc., (SFP) submitted the low bid of $12,000 and was 
awarded the contract.

The fire department agreed to use NFPA 13D criteria for the design with no 
requirements for fire alarms or system monitoring. The fire department, having 
become more familiar with the technical assistance project, agreed to review the 
plans in shorter time than the four months for review of plans for the Sweeney 
Circle buildings.

The sprinkler system design was a coordinated effort between the National 
Research Center, Mike Parker of SFP. Bill Cooper of the Austin Fire Department, 
and Mike Leff the owner. As mentioned, NFPA 13D guided design. An overview of 
major issues in designing sprinkler systems is presented in the introduction.

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 11 

Water Service 

The hydraulic calculations and subsequent tests were based on two heads open 
simultaneously, a "two-head design." (See Appendix A for an example of the 
hydraulic calculations for these buildings). The Sol Wilson duplex has a single, 
metered water supply serving both units while the Pennsylvania Avenue duplex has 
a separately metered water supply for each unit. Flow requirements revealed that 
a new one-inch line would be needed at Sol Wilson and that two existing three-
quarter inch water supplies could be tied together into one service line for the 
sprinkler system on Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Austin Water Department required the sprinkler systems to be tapped into 
each building's main water supply after (downstream of) the meter, thus metering 
any water discharged from the sprinkler system. Friction loss within the meter 
is likely to cause a 5-10 pound per square inch drop in the water pressure of 
the buildings. The water department also required installation of a single back-
flow preventer (rather than a double) to prevent standing water in the sprinkler 
pipes from flowing back into the domestic water supply. Friction loss in the 
back-flow preventers is likely to cause a 5-10 pound per square inch reduction 
in the water pressure of the sprinkler systems, and these losses have been 
factored into the design delivery of the sprinkler heads. In the Sol Wilson 
duplex, the control manifold was installed in the hot water closet, and, in the 
Pennsylvania Avenue duplex, it was installed under the sink in the kitchen of 
the front unit. Each control manifold has a pressure gauge and a drain and test 
valve. The sprinkler systems can be shut off without special equipment. There 
are no external water connections.

Whereas the building on Sweeney Circle would have required a valve-pit at the 
connection to the city water supply (a cost of $9,000) as well as installation 
of a new supply line, the total additional cost for water service for this 
project was $2,500.

Coverage, Location, and Activation of Sprinkler Heads 

In both duplexes, there are 16 quick-response heads located a maximum of six 
feet from the wall, with 12 feet between pipes and sprinklers, and a minimum of 
eight feet between heads. The installer is assumed to be responsible for 
replacement of defective heads, and no spare heads have been stored on the 
premises. As per specification of the Austin Fire Department sprinklers were 
installed in one large bathroom in each duplex, and they were not installed in 
closets. The sprinkler heads were produced by the Central Sprinkler Corporation, 
Inc., of Pennsylvania, and are their Omega R-l model. They are a pendent type 
that protrude through drop ceilings. The use of drop ceilings simplifies 
installation because of the flexibility of raising or lowering the ceiling for 
sprinkler installation and for access to the system, but they are less sturdy 
and of lower aesthetic quality than wallboard ceilings (See Figure 2 for 
location of pipes and heads).

For safety, sprinkler heads are generally set to discharge at no less than a 
maximum ambient temperature plus 35 F., generally between 135 F. and 170 F. 
in a residential environment. In the Austin buildings, the heads are designed to 
discharge at 160 F.

Domestic water supplies tied together into one supply for sprinklers (3501 
Pennsylvania Avenue). 

Sprinkler System Plumbing 

The pipes and risers in both subject buildings are made of CPVC. In the 
Pennsylvania Avenue duplex and one-half of the Sol Wilson duplex, however, 
piping in the walls and ceilings is located behind a 30-minute fire-rated 
wallboard. In the other half of Sol Wilson, piping is behind wood paneling with 
no fire rating. Although CPVC is rated as fire-safe in exposed

12 CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

applications. exposed piping is usually unsightly as well as more susceptible to 
accidental damage or vandalism. 

Tied together water supply with shutoff and test valves. 

View of control manifold with back-flow preventer, drain and test valves, and 
pressure. gauge, in heater closet at 2601 Sol Wilson.

View of control manifold with back-flow preventer, drain and teat valves, and 
pressure gauge, in heater closet at 2601 Sol Wilson. Water connectton from city 
water main, and sprinkler drain pipe (2601 Sol Wilson).

13 

Lateral pipe with sprinkler connections in ceiling. 

Sprinkler head through drywall ceiling (2601 Sol Wilson). 

Adjacent water systems, sprinkler, and domestic sanitary vent stack (3501 
Pennsylvania Avenue). 

Sprinkler runs before relocating behind wall (2601 Sol Wilson]. 

14 CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Sprinkler connections and other utility connections (2601 Sol Wilson). 

INSTALLATION AND TESTING 

After a series of meetings among city officials, Mr. Leff, and staff from the 
National Research Center, design of the systems for the duplexes was completed 
in November 1987. The contractor began installation in the Pennsylvania Avenue 
building on January 7, 1988. and in the Sol Wilson Avenue building on January 
14. 1988. Installation of the sprinkler systems took three weeks, with both 
systems installed by the end of January. During the first week of February, the 
fire department witnessed the code-required hydrostatic test in each duplex. Mr. 
Leff requested that the control valve in Pennsylvania Avenue be relocated from 
above to below the kitchen sink in the front unit, a change accomplished by 
February 15. Overall rehabilitation of Pennsylvania Avenue, more comprehensive 
than Sol Wilson, was finished on March 1. and Sol Wilson Avenue was finished on 
March 15.

SYSTEM COSTS 

Design and Installation Costs 

Table l-3 lists the costs for design and installation of the two sprinkler 
systems. Total costs for design and installation and the costs per square foot 
were significantly affected by the costs of increasing the water service. The 
increased water service necessary to operate a sprinkler system, as determined 
by hydraulic calculations, while required in this case may not be in other 
cases. The increased water service at 2601 Sol Wilson added an additional 53 
percent to the cost of the sprinkler system, and combining the water lines at 
3501 Pennsylvania added 19 percent to the cost of that sprinkler system. The Sol 
Wilson case indicates it may be cost prohibitive to increase water service for 
operation of a fire sprinkler system in a small building. Installation of new 
water service usually requires trenching and other special operations whose 
costs of materials, equipment, and labor may not be cost effective in small 
buildings.

TABLE 1-3 SPRINKLER SYSTEM COSTS 

2601 WILSON AVENUE DUPLEX Design $l, l00.00 
(Includes plan revtew by fire department) 
Installation $1.600.00 
Materials $ 710.00 
Increased water service (new 1" main) $1.800.00 
TOTAL $5.210.00 
COST PER SQUARE FOOT $ 3.80 
3501 PENNSYLVANIA DUPLEX 
Design $1.100.00 
(Includes plan review by fire department) 
Installation $1.900.00 
(Includes equipment) 
Materials $ 703.00 
Combining water service line $ 700.00 
TOTAL $4.403.00 
COST PER SQUARE FOOT $ 3.44 
TOTAL COST FOR TWO DUPLEXES $9.613.00 
AVERAGE COST PER UNIT $2,403.25 
AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE FOOT $ 3.62 

SOURCE; Sandberg Fire Protection Inc., National Research Center 

As stated in the introduction, a major goal of the sprinkler technical 
assistance project was to demonstrate sprinkler technology that may potentially 
decrease fire danger among 'high risk' urban populations. This goal, established 
by congressional mandate, led USFA through HUD to subsidize installation of 
sprinklers in buildings being rehabilitated with money from other Federal 
programs such as CDBG or RRP. This meant owners of the particular buildings 
selected

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 15 

for participation (Mr. Leff in Austin) paid little or no design and installation 
costs. 

Oparation and Maintenance Costs 

Mr. Leff estimates that his costs for routine inspection and testing will be 
negligible, and the property taxes did not rise. It is too soon to assess costs 
from leakage and/ or false activation. As mentioned above, there were no 
financing costs, no annual fee for water (water use if any will be metered), and 
there is no external monitoring service.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

Improved Life Safety-Effect on Rental Income 

As a participant in the Federal Section 8 housing voucher program, Mr. Leff must 
limit rents to "fair market" amounts as set by the U. S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. The Austin Housing Authority distributes vouchers to 
tenants chosen from an established waiting list and informs them of buildings 
eligible for use of vouchers. Tenants must pay no more than 30 percent of their 
gross income for rent, and the vouchers make up the difference between that 
amount and the federally set market rent. The fact that the two duplexes owned 
by Mr. Leff contained fire sprinklers may have shortened the time the units 
remained vacant because prospective tenants are free to choose any eligible 
dwelling on the basis of features, and enhanced fire safety may be one of the 
more popular features.

Reduced Property Damage Costs. and Property Insurance 

Mr. Leff has a property insurance policy that covers up to $45,000 for property 
loss for each of the duplexes, currently considered to be full replacement 
value. The deductible is $250, and therefore, currently, that sum should be the 
most Mr. Leff can lose in direct property damages caused by fire. It is also 
possible for him to incur property losses not directly related to a fire such as 
demolition and/ or security of remaining property. Therefore, the reduced 
likelihood of a destructive fire in the two duplexes reduces the chance of such 
losses.

The Texas State Board of Insurance sets rates for specific types of dwellings 
and conditions. The board requires their engineering department inspect a fire 
sprinkler system before an insurance company can cite the presence of a fire 
sprinkler system as the basis for deviation from a set rate. Currently, there is 
no deviation allowed for buildings with NFPA 13D fire sprinkler systems. The 
life safety versus property protection emphasis of NFPA 13D is the rationale for 
disallowing discounts on property insurance policies. Therefore, Mr. Leff did 
not receive a discount on his insurance premium.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

A public information event was held in Austin on March 16, 1988. The first phase 
of the event was a walk-through tour of 2601 Sol Wilson Avenue guided by Mike 
Leff Mr. Leff, along with Mike Parker of Sandberg Fire Protection, Inc., (the 
contractor hired to install the systems), and Carey Lively of the National 
Research Center described the sprinkler system and some of the decisions that 
were made in the course of design and installation. Mr. Clyde Bragdon, 
Administrator of the U. S. Fire Administration, discussed the goals and 
objectives of the residential fire sprinkler program. Mr. Eliseo Garza. Jr., 
Deputy Director of the Austin Housing and Community Services Department, 
discussed the Rental Rehabilitation Program and other housing programs offered 
by the city of Austin.

Mr. Clyde Bradgon. Administrator. U. S. Fire Administration. speaking at Public 
Information Event, Austin, Texas, March 16. 1988. 

10 CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Fire demonstration trailer from Texas A& M University at Public lnformation 
Event, Austin. Texas. March 16, 1988. 

Ms. Paula Philips, Director. Austin Department of Housing and Community 
Services, being interviewed by KTBC Television Austin at Public Information 
Event, Austin, Texas, March 16, 1988. 

The second phase of the event was held at the South Plaza Hotel. Chief Bill 
Roberts of the Austin Fire Department made the opening remarks, and, in addition 
to technical presentations, Lieutenant Steve Cook of the Austin Fire Department 
discussed statistics on fire safety and sprinkler systems. After the 
presentations, participants watched residential sprinkler heads douse flames 
inside a sprinkler demonstration trailer donated for use in this event by Texas 
A & M University and operated by Mr. Jack Sneed.

CBS affiliate television station KTBC (channel 7 in Austin) filmed portions of 
the day's events for broadcast during regular news shows at 5: 00 and 6: 00 p. 
m. A VHS copy of the portion of the broadcast concerning the sprinkler event was 
purchased from Teleclip Inc., (Austin) by the National Research Center for its 
files.

AUSTIN, TEXAS, THE CITY AND ITS HOUSING MARKET 

The U. S. Census Bureau's December 1985 population estimate for the City of 
Austin was 470,000, an increase of 36 percent since the 1980 U. S. Census. 
Inmigration of new residents and annexation of existing communities accounted 
for most of the city's population gain. According to a 1985 mid-year field 
survey, Austin contained roughly 181.000 housing units, (2.6 persons per unit) 
of which 55 percent were single-family structures, 38 percent were multifamily 
structures with five or more units, 5 percent were two-to four-unit structures, 
and 2 percent were mobile homes. Austin's housing stock is the newest among the 
cities that participated in the sprinkler project, with 50 percent built since 
1960. Despite the relatively young age of the stock, official local survey data 
(1986) indicate that 15 percent of the city's housing is in substandard 
condition, Table l-4 presents a limited profile of the population and housing 
characteristics of the city.

Since 1982, construction of multifamily units in Austin has exceeded that of 
single-family units. In 1985, for example, 69 percent of all building permits 
issued were for multifamily units. With the predominance of new multi family 
construction, the balance of renter-versus owner-occupied units has reversed 
from 52 percent owner-occupied and 48 percent renter-occupied in 1970, to 46 
percent owner-occupied and 54 percent renter-occupied in 1980.

The shift from owner-occupied to rental housing was paralleled by a large 
increase in the cost of housing in Austin. By mid-1986, the median

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 17 

TABLE 14 
Austin, Texas, 
Community Profile 

Population (1985 estimates) 470,000 
Population below poverty level 15.8% 
Population 65 years old and older 6.5% 
Population 5 years old and younger 7.6% 
Population with limited mobility 0.2% (U. S. Census defined as persons with 
limited ability to use public transit) 
Total Housing Units (1985) Multifamily (five or more units) 181,000 
Single-Family 55% 
Multifamily (two to four units) 38% 
Population density par square mile 1,772
population density per housing unit 2.6
Housing units built after 1960 50% 
Median Price (1985) 
Single-Family $115.000 
One-Bedroom Rental $382 
Vacancy rate-overall (1985) 6.9% 
Rental vacancy rate 19.3% 
Subsidized housing vacancy rate 0% 

SOURCE: Austin Department of Housing and Community Services: and Austin Housing 
Authority 

cost for a single-family house in Austin had risen to $115,000. well above the 
national median of $82,400. The cost of rental housing had risen as well. In 
1980, median monthly rent in Austin for a one-bedroom apartment was $250; by 
1986. it had risen to $382, an increase of 53 percent.

As for income distribution, 15.8 percent of Austin's population fell below the 
poverty level in 1980, compared to 14.7 percent for the state of Texas and 12.4 
percent for the United States. The retrenchment that has occurred in the oil 
industry during the 1980s has had a major economic impact on Texas. Austin has 
felt the effects of the economic downturn, although to a lesser degree than 
other areas of the state because Austin's economy is more diversified and less 
dependent on oil. Nevertheless, the rate of growth in total employment for the 
Austin metropolitan statistical area (MSA) dropped from the 10 percent average 
annual increase between 1982 and 1985 to a 2.7 percent rate in 1986. 
Unemployment within the Austin MSA increased to 5.6 percent during 1986, well 
above rates experienced during the previous five years. Declines in the 
employment rate were most evident in the manufacturing and construction sectors.

As further indication of Austin's current economic condition, city staff noted 
that the number of building permits is down and there is little rehabilitation 
activity beyond that initiated by the City.

The Structure of the Multi family Rehabilitation Program 

According to the staff of HCSD, the city's rental rehabilitation program (RRP) 
is designed to upgrade target neighborhoods, assist low-and moderate-income 
households in securing decent and affordable housing, and reduce the number of 
blighted areas and substandard housing. As noted above, there are over 25,000 
substandard housing units in Austin, offering substantial opportunity for 
residential rehabilitation.

In 1986, owners submitted applications for rehabilitation of 322 units under the 
RRP. Of these, the city accepted three buildings containing a total of 52 units 
and carried over two buildings with a total of 46 units for 1987. As of December 
1986. rehabilitation work had begun in two projects totalling 38 units: work 
began in two other buildings totalling 46 units in 1987.

In general, rehabilitated structures are two-or three-story buildings of 
masonry/ construction. Individual units average between 700 and 800 square feet 
and are 15 to 20 years old. The condition of the structures varies widely across 
the city. The city promotes its rental rehabilitation program to owners through 
advertisements, newspaper articles, public notices, and presentations to 
organizations. The Housing and Community Services Department obtains leads from 
responses to promotional activities as well as through referrals from the 
Building Inspection Department and the Austin Housing Authority.

After the city accepts a structure for rental rehabilitation and performs an 
initial inspection, its involvement is largely administrative. The building 
owner is responsible for preparing bid specifications and retaining a contractor 
to specify and perform the work. The specific types of rehabflitation to be 
carried out are determined through use of a standard inspection instrument and 
through consultations with the city rehabilitation specialist and the owner. 
Fire safety audits are not a routine part of the initial inspection that 
precedes development of rehabili-tation specifications. Even in the absence of 
routine fire safety inspections, the Austin Housing and Community Services 
Department recommends some fire-related improvements for incorporation into 
rehabilitated properties, including new high efficiency heating/ cooling

18  CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 

equipment and new windows if existing windows do not provide emergency egress as 
required. In addition the city of Austin requires smoke detectors in all 
rehabilitated units.

Owner-occupied rehabilitation projects are financed through a variety of 
sources, including CDBG, Section 312 (low interest construction loans), RRP, and 
city funds. Standard owner-occupied rehabilitation projects are eligible for lo-
year deferred payment or for a 3 percent loan for 10 to 20 years. Rehabilitation 
projects financed by the RRP are eligible for lo-year zero interest loans issued 
as promissory notes. The city provides a $5,000 subsidy for each unit, the 
maximum amount permitted under federal program guidelines.

CHAPTER 1 AUSTIN, TEXAS 19 

CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

LOCAL FIRE EXPERIENCE 

The populations generally considered at high risk from fire include the elderly, 
the very young, and people with limited mobility. In Boston, 19 percent of the 
population is over 55 years old. 6 percent is under four years old, and 2 
percent of the population suffers from limited mobility due to physical 
handicaps. To respond to the firefighting needs of the city, the Boston Fire 
Department maintains the forces listed in Table 2-1:

TABLE 2-l 
BOSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT 

Stations (engine and ladder) 66 
(average coverage of 0.8 square miles per station) 
Rescue stations 2 
Firefighters 1675 
Fire fighters on duty during each of 4 shifts 300 
Fire chiefs 65 
Fire chiefs on duty during each 4 shifts 14 
Fire Districts 12 
(average of 4 square miles per district) 
Fire hydrants 13000 

Source: Boston Fire Department, Public Information Division 

It is likely that a city as large as Boston will experience residential fire 
fatalities during a given year and that a disproportionate share of victims will 
be either elderly or very young. Although the over 55 and under 4 population 
combined represent only 25 percent of Boston's population, these groups 
accounted for 47 percent of fire fatalities in a recent four year period. 
Further, fire deaths are more likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods where 
property values are lower than average and a higher proportion of people live in 
poverty. In Boston, 32 percent of the population lives in the five districts 
with the highest incidence of poverty (including Roxbury), yet the fire 
fatalities in those districts made up 43 percent of the total fatalities. Table 
2-2 shows recent fire experience in Boston, and Figure 3 plots the general 
location of the fatalities on a map of Boston's 16 planning districts.

TABLE 2-2 RESIDENTIAL CIVILIAN FIRE FATALITIES 

 
YEAR NO. OF CIVILIAN FIRE DEATHS (RESI) 55 & OLDER OR 4 & YNGER NO. % IN LOW-
INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD NO. % 

1985 13 9 69 9 69 
1986 14 2 14 5 3 6 
1987 13 2 14 1 20 
1988 9 7 78 6 67 (thru March) 
Total 49 23 47 21 43 

Source: Boston Fire Department 

PROJECT INITIATION 

National Research Center's tentative selection of Boston led to an invitation to 
the Public Facilities Department (PFD) to participate in the (federally-funded) 
technical assistance program. The National Research Center notified PFD of 
availability of federal money to increase fire safety among urban low-and 
moderate-income populations, though the funding sources (the U. S. Fire 
Administration and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) 
required this money to be used in conjunction with other CDBG funds allocated to 
rehabilitation of low-income housing. Therefore, the National Research Center 
informed PFD of the agency's responsibility to identify buildings imminently 
scheduled to undergo CDBG -assisted rehabilitation and occupied (or scheduled to 
be) by low-income tenants. In addition, the National Research Center assisted 
PFD in evaluating buildings for technical feasibility with fire sprinkler 
installation before final selection of the subject building. Further, PFD staff 
contacted other city departments relevant to fire safety. In this regard, PFD 
communicated with the Boston Fire Department, the Boston Water Department, and 
the Boston Inspection Services Department. They also identified a building as a 
tentative target for the program. The decision of Mayor Raymond Flynn formally 
activated Boston's participation in the fire sprinkler technical assistance 
project.

At an orientation meeting in Boston on October 23. 1986, National Research 
Center staff met with the following city officials:

20 CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

FIGURE 3 
LOCATION OF BUILDING, ROXBURY, FIRE FATALITIES IN BOSTON 

Figure K: Boston's 16 Planning Districts 
Locations of fire fatalities 1985 -March 1988 

Source -Boston Fire Department 

CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACEUSETTS 21 

Boston Fire Departement: Chief John White, Chief Paul Cook, and Chief 
Martin Fisher 

Inspection Services Department: Paul Donga. Tom McNichols, and Robert 
Fairbanks 

CDBG Coordinator: Miriam Colon 

Hugh Kelly and Cinote Ibrahim, the owner and engineer, respectively, of a 
building tentatively selected for installation of fire sprinklers were also in 
attendance. National Research Center staff outlined the project and the ensuing 
discussion highlighted ambiguities in application of NFPA fire standards 13 and 
13D in multifamily buildings. NFPA 13 was developed for property protection as 
well as for life safety and usually applies to large buildings. Even though 
ambiguity over application of NFPA 13 and 13D could be resolved through design 
of a system using a modified NFPA 13 standard, the parties agreed that the 
Boston project should in part focus on development of a new sprinkler standard 
for multifamily residences. Any new standard would have to balance adequate fire 
protection with affordability concerns. Chief White, stating that the fire 
department was in favor of the use of sprinkler systems in multifamily 
buildings, noted that the fire department would encourage use of sprinkler 
systems. He was uncertain about application of NFPA standards for a multifamily 
building but agreed to a modified standard for the project on an experimental 
basis. Inspection Services Department employees also agreed to use of a modified 
NFPA 13 as long as adequate fire protection was provided throughout the 
building. Mr. Kelly expressed his enthusiasm for the project and his willingness 
to comply with the city's decisions regarding use of NFPA standards. A further 
complication concerned the building's multiple uses: parts of the first floor 
and basement are used as a training center for guards employed by a commercial 
security agency. The multiple use issue would be resolved during design of the 
system.

In December 1986, Patrick McGuigan, Deputy Director for Neighborhood Development 
of the Boston Public Facilities Department, sent a letter to Mr. Kelly, formally 
notifying him that a building owned and managed by his firm (KVC Associates) had 
been selected for participation in the fire sprinkler technical assistance 
project. The building, located at 777-779 Huntington Avenue (Mission Hill 
section of Roxbury) is a four-story (including basement with laundry facility) 
masonry structure with commercial space on the first floor and 22 residential 
units. There are eight two-bedroom apartments, 12 three-bedroom apartments, and 
two four-bedroom apartments. Each floor is 5,400 square feet, for a total 
building size of 21,600 square feet. The structure was built around 1900. Before 
rehabilitation, the building was occupied despite such problems as exposed 
electric wiring and leaky plumbing. (See Figure 4 for a typical floor-plan.)

The letter from PFD stated the departments intention to reimburse Mr. Kelly for 
the costs of installing a fire sprinkler system, including design and site work. 
Funds for reimbursement would come from a grant to PFD from USFA. forwarded to 
Mr. Kelly, contingent upon execution of a written agreement between PFD and Mr. 
Kelly. Costs were to be in accordance with the budget approved by USFA, with 
fire sprinkler installation costing up to $17,600 and site work up to $5,000. 
Site work included water taps, water meter lines, and trenching. Mr. Kelly 
agreed to pay any additional sprinkler installation costs above the budgeted 
amount. In addition, the fire department and PFD agreed to a USFA request to 
conduct a public outreach program for the project budgeted at $5,000. Grant 
provisions disallowed transfer of funds over 5 per cent between cost categories 
without approval from the Project Assistance Officer at FEMA.

In response to the letter, Mr. Kelly wrote to Miriam Colon, Development 
Specialist with PFD. to acknowledge his formal participation in the project. He 
enclosed a copy of the contract executed between his company, KVC Associates, 
and Fire Protection Plus, Inc., (FPP) of Framingham. Massachusetts. According to 
Mr. Kelly, FPP was chosen to install the sprinklers with concurrence from the 
National Research Center for the following reasons:

their experience in design and installation of fire sprinkler systems 

their credibility with the Boston Fire Department, Building Department, and 
Water and Sewer Commission 

the favorable price quotation in the interest of participating in the initial 
technical assistance project 

22 CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

FIGURE 4 
FLOOR PLAN AND SPRINKLER CONFIGURATION 

CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 23 

At the time, Boston did not require a special license to install fire 
sprinklers. 

All participants agreed to communicate regularly during the design and 
installation phases, with meetings scheduled in Boston as necessary and, if 
possible, in conjunction with site visits by National Research Center personnel. 
The parties also agreed that telephone conversations and/ or written 
communication would be necessary to secure input regarding system design. 
Photographs of the rehabilitation of the building would be taken by the National 
Research Center including installation of the sprinkler system, together with 
"before and after" views of construction.

After informing all participants of their roles and of the overall goals of the 
program, the National Research Center began the design phase of the sprinkler 
system.

BUILDING REHABILITATION 

The subject building was substantially rehabilitated including new floors, 
walls, ceilings and roofs, doors, windows, and utilities. Total cost for 
rehabilitation design and construction (excluding the fire sprinkler system) was 
$800.000. Further, HUD asked the National Research Center to identify ways the 
building could be made more energy efficient. National Research Center staff 
engineers made the following recommendations that were included in the 
construction:

double pane glass and aluminum windows 
thermally insulated exterior doors 
new insulation: 6.5 inch Batts (R-19) below roof, covered with a vapor barrier; 
3.5 inch Batts (R-l 1) in walls 
individual electric meters in residential units 
central gas-fired high-recovery hot water heater 

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 

The fire department decided on use of NFPA standards, as well as other technical 
requirements of the sprinkler system. The sprinkler system design was a 
coordinated effort between the National Research Center, Tom Rinoldo of FPP. 
Paul Donga, (assigned to the Boston Inspection Services Department from the 
Boston Fire Department), and Hugh Kelly, the building owner. An overview of 
major issues in designing sprinkler systems is presented in the Introduction.

Water Service 

Due to the requirements of the Boston Fire Department who were unsure of the 
fire protection level of an NFPA 13D "two-head" system, a "four-head" system was 
installed in the building on Huntington Avenue. Such requirement was primarily 
due to the size of the building. (See Appendix B for an example of the hydraulic 
calculations for the building).

Flow requirements of the fire sprinkler system demanded an additional two-inch 
supply line in the building. The Boston Water Department required the line to be 
connected directly to the city water main rather than to a feeder line within 
the building's domestic water service. The fire sprinkler line was installed in 
addition to a new two-inch line for domestic water supply that replaced the old 
three-quarter inch line as part of the rehabilitation. Local authorities 
required installation of a control manifold with double check-valves on the 
dedicated sprinkler supply lines to prevent backflow of standing water from the 
sprinkler pipes to the domestic water supply. Friction loss in the back-flow 
preventer is likely to cause a 5-10 pound per square inch reduction in the water 
pressure of the sprinkler system, and this loss has been factored into the 
design delivery of the sprinkler heads. The control manifold has a pressure 
gauge, drain and test valve, and a flow-activated alarm switch. In addition, a 
shutoff valve operable without special equipment was not allowed by the fire 
department on the sprinkler water supply to prevent a potentially disastrous 
disabling of the sprinkler system. External connections were provided making it 
possible to supply the sprinkler system with water from a fire department pumper 
truck (or other external source) in the event of disrupted water supply. There 
is a flow switch connected to external alarms.

The upgraded water supply cost $5,000 to design and install, including such 
materials as pipe and fittings, as well as trenching and other labor. The city 
will charge an annual flat fee of $165 for the water in the sprinkler system 
rather than meter actual consumption as other jurisdictions might do.

24 CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Adjacent risers, sprinkler system, domestic water, waste and vent. 

Adjacent horizontal laterals, sprinkler and electric systems. 

Coverage, Location, and Activation of Sprinkler Heads 

In the residential areas of the subject building there are 190 quick-response 
sprinkler heads and in the commercial area there are 20 quick-response sprinkler 
heads located in compliance with the spacing requirements of NFPA 13D. The 
Boston Fire Department required sprinklers be installed in the foyers, 
bathrooms, and hallways.

Pendent-type sprinkler heads were installed in the subject building. In one 
section they are installed in drywall ceilings, and in the other section they 
protrude through a drop-ceiling. The drop ceiling simplified installation 
because of the flexibility of raising or lowering the ceiling for sprinkler 
installation, but is less sturdy and less visually appealing than the drywall 
ceiling (see Figure 4 for location of pipes and heads). For safety, heads are 
generally set to discharge at no less than a maximum ambient temperature plus 
35 F., generally between 135 F. and 170 F. in a residential environment. In 
the subject building, the heads are designed to discharge at 160 F.

contractor installing sprinkler head to branch pipe cut through joists in 
basement. 

CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 25 

Sprinkler System Plumbing 

CPVC has been certified for use in open areas and was left exposed in the 
basement of 777 Huntington Avenue. Polybutylene was used throughout the rest of 
the sprinkler system. In this case polybutylene, less expensive to supply and 
more flexible and elastic than CPVC, was the preferred pipe despite the covering 
requirement. On the third floor the pipe runs in the ceiling are protected from 
freezing by 6.5 inch fiberglass BATTS (R-19). placed above the pipes.

Blocking in joists for sprinkler head connection. Double check valves, flow 
alarm switch, pressure guage, and drain valve located at water service 
connection.

26 CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Sprinkler head connection through nearly complete ceiling. 

INSTALLATION AND TESTING 

After a series of meetings among city officials, Mr. Kelly, and staff from the 
National Research Center. installation work was begun at 779 Huntington Avenue 
(11 units) in January 1987. Acting as his own general contractor Mr. Kelly hired 
Fire Protection Plus, Inc., to install the sprinkler system.

Review of sprinkler design and of the rehabilitation construction led to a field 
change in the system design. It was decided by Mr. Kelly in conjunction with FPP 
and the National Research Center that rather than using one large vertical riser 
with large horizontal supply lines to supply the living units, four smaller one 
and one-quarter-inch vertical risers and one horizontal feed in the basement 
would be preferable. This change decreased the cost of the system due to reduced 
need for drilling through joists and studs. Mr. Kelly needed to decide what to 
do about replacement of drywall ceilings in the hallways, and therefore decided 
to replace all drywall in the building.

Installation was completed in March 1987, with few problems or other changes in 
the original plans. A pressure test for leaks was performed by FPP and Mr. Kelly 
in March, and a flow test was witnessed and certified by the Boston Fire 
Department on April 4, 1987. The first phase of building construction was 
completed on May 15, 1987. The escutcheons retaining the sprinkler heads were 
installed after the drywall and paint were completed. The fire alarm panel 
system, also contracted to FPP. was installed in the hall of the phase-one unit 
on April 25, 1987. An occupancy permit for the units was issued by the City of 
Boston in the morning of May 15, 1987, and tenant reoccupation began that 
afternoon.

Installation of the sprinkler system on the second half of the building (777 
Huntington Avenue) began in July 1987, following completion of demolition in 
late June 1987. Other than the change to CPVC noted earlier, there were no 
changes in the plans, Mr. Kelly covered the lateral pipe runs in the hallway 
with a drop ceiling with a 30-minute fire rating. The second half of the system 
was completed in October 1987. The hydrostatic test was performed early in the 
month by Mr. Kelly and FPP, and the flow test witnessed and certified by the 
Boston Fire Department was performed late in the month. The drywall and paint 
were completed on November 15, 1987. An occupancy permit for these units was 
issued by the City of Boston on November 17, 1987, and tenant reoccupation began 
that afternoon.

CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 27 

View of finished units. 

Finished common hallway. 

Fire Control Panel. 

SYSTEM COSTS 

Design and Installation Costs 

Table 2-3 presents the costs of the sprinkler system. 

TABLE 2-3 SPRINKLER SYSTEM COSTS 

WORK CATEGORY MATERIALS LABOR TOTAL 
SYSTEM DESIGN $ 0 $ 2,250 $2,250 
SYSTEM INSTALLATION $8,100 $12,150 $20,250 
(With Discounts) 
SYSTEM INSTALLATION $12,060 $18,090 $ 30,150 
(National Research Center Estimate w/ o Discounts) 
INCREASED WATER SERVICE NA NA $ 5,000 
UPGRADED CAPABILITY OF FIRE PANEL NA NA $ 2,000 
WITH DISCOUNTS 
TOTAL $29,500 
PER SQUARE FOOT $ 1.37 
PER UNIT INCLUDING COMMERCIAL $ 1.283 
PER RESIDENTIAL UNlT $ 1,341 
WITHOUT DISCOUNT 
TOTAL PER SQUARE FOOT $ 39,400 
PER UNIT INCLUDING COMMERCIAL PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT $ 1,713 

Source: Fire Protection Plus Inc., National Research Center 

28 CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

As mentioned above, it is important to point out that the contractor offered a 
substantial price reduction in order to participate in a federally funded 
technical assistance project. National Research Center staff worked with the 
contractor to establish the estimated cost of the system had there been no 
discount. The sprinkler contractor was not asked by the project team to report 
costs separately for labor and materials and therefore the percentage of total 
costs attributable to labor and to materials was estimated by National Research 
Center staff; 60 percent of total cost was attributable to labor and 40 percent 
to materials. In addition, it is important to note that the fire alarm panel was 
upgraded to include the sprinkler system per the requirement of the Boston Fire 
Department. The panel would have cost $7.000 without connections to the fire 
sprinkler system and actually cost $9,000, an increase of 29 percent.

The design and installation costs and the costs per square foot (non-discounted) 
are well within what would be expected for a building the size and shape of 777-
779 Huntington Avenue. The increased water service, necessary to operate a fire 
sprinkler system as determined by hydraulic calculations, while required in this 
case, may not be in other cases. The increased water service added an additional 
14 percent to the non-discounted cost of the system. The fire panel, upgraded 
for supplementing the sprinkler system as required by the Boston Fire 
Department, added 5 percent to the total cost of the sprinkler system. In future 
rehabilitation projects such panels may become redundant with fire sprinkler 
systems and dropped from fire department requirements.

As stated in the introduction, a major goal of this technical assistance project 
was to demonstrate fire sprinkler technology that may potentially decrease fire 
danger among "high risk" urban populations. This goal, established by 
congressional mandate, led USFA through HUD to subsidize installation of 
sprinklers in buildings being rehabilitated with money from other federal 
programs such as CDBG or RRP. This meant the owners of the buildings selected 
for participation (Mr. Kelly in Boston) paid either none or only a small portion 
of the design and installation costs.

Operation and maintenance costs 

Mr. Kelly estimates that his costs for routine inspection and testing will be 
approximately $200 per year. His property taxes rose due to the rehabilitated 
condition of the building, and he estimates that any portion of the increase 
attributable to the sprinklers was negligible. It is too early to assess costs 
from leakage and/ or false activation. As mentioned above, there were no 
financing costs and the annual flat rate for water is $165.00. The monitor and 
summoning service costs $120 per year.

Mr. Hugh Kelly, building owner. 

Exterior view of 777-779 Huntington Avenue. 

CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 29 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

Improved Life Safety -Positive Effect on Rental Income 

In the Boston building, rents on 14 of the 22 units are set by the Boston 
Housing Authority (BHA) as part of a subsidized housing program (including two 
first floor units specially built for the physically disabled). Although the 
other eight units are not rent controlled, Mr. Kelly reports the same rent is 
charged for these units as for the subsidized units. The low vacancy rate in 
Boston makes it easy to rent units, and the sprinklered apartments in this case 
were no exception.

Property Insurance Discount and Reduced Property Damage 

Mr. Kelly reports that his carrier reduced the insurance premiums for protection 
against liability and property loss at 777-779 Huntington Avenue by more than 40 
percent as a direct response to sprinkler installation. This savings, realized 
annually, will amount to the contract cost of the system within a few years. The 
insurance company reviewed the sprinkler plans prior to installation and sent an 
engineer to observe installation of the sprinkler system. The insurance policy 
covers full replacement value for property loss. The deductible is $1,000, which 
thus should be the most Mr. Kelly can lose in direct property damage per fire. 
It is also possible for him to incur property losses not directly related to a 
fire such as demolition and/ or security of remaining property. Therefore the 
reduced likelihood of a destructive fire in 777-779 Huntington Avenue reduces 
the chance of such losses. Further, tenants may have insurance policies 
protecting against loss or damage to their personal property. Reduced 
probability of fire and potential discounts on tenants contents insurance will 
therefore benefit tenants as well.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

A public information event was held in Boston on July 11, 1989. The first phase 
of the event was held at the Codman Square Branch Library. Joe Lewin. Deputy 
Director of the Boston PFD, gave the opening remarks, followed by Boston Fire 
Commissioner Leo Stapleton who discussed fire safety and fire prevention efforts 
in Boston. Mr. Clyde Bragdon, Administrator of the U. S. Fire Administration, 
discussed the goals and objectives of the residential fire sprinkler program, 
and noted the importance of up to date fire safety systems. Mr. Barry Berman, 
project manager at the PFD, discussed the successful merger of fire safety 
programs with federally funded housing rehabilitation, a n d t h e continuation 
of such efforts by his department. Mr. Hugh Kelly, the participating building 
owner, discussed the design and installation of the sprinkler system in his 
building and presented a short slide show of the installation.

After the presentations, participants watched residential sprinkler heads douse 
flames inside a sprinkler demonstration trailer donated for use in this event by 
the Massachusetts State Fire Academy and operated by Mr. Fred Piechota. The 
second phase of the event was a walk-through tour of a building across the 
street from the library that was recently rehabilitated by Mr. Kelly. The fire 
sprinkler system in that building is identical to the one in 777 Huntington 
Avenue, and Mr. Kelly discussed features of the system.

The PFD will publicize the event and stand ready to offer information to the 
public on sprinklers and/ or residential fire safety and housing rehabilitation.

Public Information Event. 

30 CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Clyde Bragdon, Administrator, U. S. F. A.. and Commissioner Leo Stapleton, 
Boston Fire Department at Public Information Event. 

Spreading flames inside sprinkler demonstration trailer...... 

.... seconds later. 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS: THE CITY AND ITS HOUSING MARKET 

In 1985, Boston had a population of 604,000 persons and a housing stock of 
249.000 units, an average of 2.4 people per housing unit. One-half of the stock 
was in private rental apartment units, nearly one-third was in owner-occupied 
units, and less than one-fifth were either subsidized or publicly owned. Forty-
three percent of the stock was in multifamily structures containing five or more 
units. Many of these multifamily units have recently been converted from rental 
units to condominium ownership. Since 1970. 25 percent of the private rental 
apartments have been converted into condominiums. The trend is clear, in 1985. 
there were 4525 such conversions, more than during the 1970s. The Roxbury 
planning district (location of the building installed with sprinklers) had the 
highest level of assisted housing at 43 percent.

Citywide, vacancy rates were exceptionally low in 1985. Local surveys conducted 
that year revealed an overall vacancy rate of 2.5 percent and a rental vacancy 
rate of 0.9 percent. The vacancy rate for regulated and rent-controlled rental 
dwellings was 0.7 percent.

In 1985, the rate of housing production in Boston approached 2,000 units, almost 
equally divided between new construction and

31 

conversion of existing structures. Current growth in demand far exceeds 
production, which has led to record inflation of housing and rental values in 
the city. In the six-year period between 1979 and 1984, citywide median values 
for one-, two-, and three-unit structures increased 20 percent annually. The 
increase in value from 1984 to 1985 was 37 percent. pushing the citywide mean 
for such structures to over $110,000. In 1985, the median market rent in Boston 
was $350 without utilities and $400 with utilities. Table 2-4 presents a limited 
profile of the population and housing characteristics of the city.

TABLE 24 Boston, Massachusetts. community Profile 

Population (1985 estimate) 604,000
Population below poverty level  21% 
Population 55 years old and over 19%
Population four years old and under 6% 
Population with limited mobility (U. S. Census defined as persons with limited 
ability to use public transit) 2%
Total Housing Units (as of 1985) 249,000
Multifamily (five or more units) 43% 
Multifamily (two to four units) 41% 
Single-Family 16% 
Population Density per square mile 12.500
Population Density per housing unit 2.4 
Housing built prior to 1939 63% 
Median Price (as of 1985) One-, two-, three-unit structures $110,000
Median Rental Payment (with utilities) $400 
Vacancy Rate-overall (as of 1985) 2.5%
Rental vacancy rate 0.9% 
Subsidized housing vacancy rate 0.7% 

Source: Boston Redevelopment Authority 

Boston's housing stock is the oldest among the cities participating in the fire 
sprinkler technical assistance project. According to 1980 U. S. Census data, 63 
percent of all existing units were constructed prior to 1939. Despite its age, 
however, the housing is generally in good condition. According to 1984 Boston 
Redevelopment Authority data. 92 percent of the stock was found to be in "very 
good" or "good" condition.

In 1985, 21 percent of Boston's population was classified as "impoverished" (an 
income below the $10,600 poverty level for a family of four), and almost one-
half of the city's population was classified as "low-income" (at or slightly 
above the poverty level). At the same time, the stock of affordable units has 
been decreasing as multifamily rental structures are rehabilitated and upgraded 
to higher-rent units or converted to condominium ownership. Between 1980 and 
1985. the number of private apartments in multifamily structures citywide 
decreased by nearly 12,000 units. In the same period, the rate of state-and 
federally-assisted production dropped to 560 units annually, 25 percent of the 
rate of a decade earlier. Low-income households are thus increasingly vulnerable 
to being priced out of their present housing during periods of inflation.

Boston's Neighborhood Development and Employment Agency, together with the 
Boston Housing Authority, experiences no difficulty placing families in units 
rehabilitated by the city. At the same time, however, the strong demand for 
rehabilitated rental housing can deter owners from incorporating fire safety 
improvements into their projects. In this "seller's market," owners may be less 
inclined to plan, design, obtain approvals for, and install complex fire safety 
measures in rehabilitated units and structures because housing demand is great 
and the units are easily rented without such improvements.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE MULTIFAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM 


Boston's Public Facilities Department (PFD). as part of an ongoing effort, is in 
the process of rehabilitating 87 buildings in targeted neighborhoods throughout 
the city. Though not all multifamily structures, the buildings average 2.5 
units. The city actively promotes its rehabilitation efforts but. given current 
low interest rates and competing investment opportunities. also recognizes that 
it must market rehabilitation aggressively to realtors and owners of vacant 
buildings to ensure a steady supply of affordable rental housing.

The rehabilitation program is targeted to specific neighborhoods based on area 
income and housing condition but does not include provisions relating 
specifically to fire sprinklers. The city does, however, require that the 
following fire safety systems be installed during rehabilitation of buildings: 
smoke and heat detectors, emergency lighting in common corridors in buildings 
with three or more units, and fire alarm pull stations outside all units in 
buildings with six or more units. In addition, the city requires that "gut 
rehabilitation" include new windows, new heating systems, and other improvements 
considered standard practice that may improve overall fire safety through 
reduced hazards and/ or improved egress.

The 12 PFD rehabilitation specialists have not been trained to assess the need 
for sprinklers or other fire safety systems or to evaluate the plumbing 
capabilities and requirements of specific buildings. Further, the specialists 
have not generally attempted to calculate payback or

32 CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

other investment evaluation data from the installation of a residential 
sprinkler system. 

Boston's rehabilitation program relies on "gap financing," encouraging owners to 
borrow as much as possible through conventional channels. The PFD can, however, 
help owners arrange financing by referring them to banks that will lend on the 
value of the property. Both federal and state funds are available for housing 
rehabilitation under the federal CDBG, RRP, and Section 312 programs and through 
the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency. PFD uses the federal Section 8 and 
state Section 707 voucher programs (both low-income housing assistance programs) 
to assist tenants.

CHAPTER 2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 33 

CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

LOCAL FIRE EXPERIENCE 

High-risk populations include the elderly, the very young, and people with 
limited ability to move without assistance. In Harrisburg, 27 percent of the 
population is 55 years old or older and 8 percent is four years old or younger. 
Further, physical handicaps limit the mobility of 1.2 per cent of the 
population. To respond to the firefighting needs of the city, the Harrisburg 
Fire Department maintains the forces listed in Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1 HARRISBURG BUREAU OF FIRE SAFETY 

Stations (engine and ladder) 4 
(average coverage of 1.9 square miles ner station) 
Engine Companies 5 
Ladder Truck Companies 3 (average coverage of 1.0 square miles per combined 
types of companies) 
Rescue/ hazardous material stations 1 
Sworn personnel, chiefs and firefighters 102 
Firefighters on duty during each of 4 shifts 15 
Fire chiefs on duty during each of 4 shifts 2
Fire Districts (average of 1.9 square miles per district)  4
Fire hydrants 1,400 

Source: Harrisburg Bureau of Fire Safety, Research Division. 

Any city as large as Harrisburg is likely to experience residential fire 
fatalities each year, and a disproportionate share of victims will be either 
elderly or very young. Although the over-55 and under-5 population combined 
represent only 35 percent of Harrisburg's population, these groups accounted for 
63 percent of the fire fatalities during an 11 year period. Further, fire deaths 
are more likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods [defined as neighborhoods 
where property values are lower than average and a higher than average 
proportion of people live in poverty). The Harrisburg enterprise development 
area (EDA) is such a neighborhood and accounted for 65 percent of Harrisburg's 
fire fatalities from 1982 to 1987 even though only approximately 25 percent of 
the city's population resides there. Table 3-2 shows the recent trends for both 
the city as a whole and for the EDA, while Figure 5 is a map of the city with 
the EDA outlined.

TABLE 3-2 RESIDENTIAL CIVILIAN FIRE FATALITIES

YEAR  -NO. CIVILIAN FIRE DEATHS (RESI) 55 & OLDER OR 5 & YNGER # % IN ENTERPRISE 
DEVEL. AREA # % 

1977 5 NA NA 
1978 2 NA NA 
1979 2 NA NA 
1980 4 NA NA 
1981 2 NA NA 
1982 5 NA 3 60
1983 2 NA 1 50
1984 4 NA 3 75 
1985 4 NA 1 50
1986 3 NA 3 100
1987 1 NA 0 0 

TOTAL 32 20 63 11* 65 

l 1982 to 1987 only. 

SOURCE: Harrisburg Fire Department. Investigations Section. 

PROJECT INITIATION 

The National Research Center's tentative selection of Harrisburg led to an 
invitation to the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) to 
participate in the federally funded technical assistance program. The National 
Research Center notified DCED of availability of federal money to increase fire 
safety among urban low-income populations, though the funding sources (USFA and 
HUD) required the funds to be used in conjunction with CDBG funds allocated to 
rehabilitation of low-income housing. Therefore, the National Research Center 
informed DCED of the agency's responsibility to identify buildings imminently 
scheduled to undergo CDBG-assisted rehabilitation and occupied (or scheduled to 
be) by low-income tenants. In addition, the National Research Center assisted 
DCED in evaluating buildings for technical feasibility with fire sprinkler 
installation before final selection of the subject building. Further, DCED staff 
contacted other city departments concerned with aspects of fire safety: the 
Harrisburg Bureau of Fire Safety and the Harrisburg Water Department. They also 
identified a building as a tentative site for the program. The decision of Mayor 
Stephen R Reed formally activated Harrisburg's participation in the fire 
sprinkler technical assistance project.

At an orientation meeting in Harrisburg in late 1986, National Research Center 
staff met with Chief Donald Konkle of the Harrisburg Fire Bureau, and Daniel 
Leppo and Toni Phillips of

34 CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

FIGURE 5 
LOCATION OF BUILDING AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AREA 

CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 35 

DCED. National Research Center staff outlined the project, and the ensuing 
discussion highlighted ambiguities in application of NFPA 13 and 13D in 
multifamily buildings. Even though issues surrounding application of NFPA 13 and 
NFPA 13D could be addressed through design of a system using a modified NFPA 13 
standard, the parties agreed that the Harrisburg project should in part focus on 
development of a new sprinkler standard for multifamily residences. Any new 
standard would have to balance adequate fire protection with affordability 
concerns.

Chief Konkle noted that the fire department supported the passage of a sprinkler 
ordinance in Harrisburg. The ordinance requires all new buildings with three or 
more units, and all buildings undergoing rehabilitation worth 50 percent or more 
of assessed value and with five or more units to have residential fire sprinkler 
systems installed. It is important to note that although the subject building of 
this technical assistance project meets the physical profile of buildings 
covered by the sprinkler ordinance it was not covered by the ordinance due to 
its having been in the rehabilitation process prior to enactment of the 
ordinance.

Soon after the project initiation meeting, DCED began the selection process to 
identify a building that met project criteria. Following a review of several 
potential sites, DCED chose a building located at 1249-55 Market Street, once 
known as the Hill Cafe. Design of a sprinkler system for that building 
progressed until the owners of the building encountered difficulty with 
financing and could no longer be certain they could go forward with the planned 
building rehabilitation. The National Research Center. in conjunction with city 
officials. decided that the project would benefit from designation of another 
building for installation of sprinklers.

Exterior view of 1317/ 19 Derry Street. 

The DCED evaluated several buildings and selected a likely site. The building is 
located at 1317-19 Derry Street in the economically depressed Allison Hill 
neighborhood, an area targeted for housing rehabilitation as part of the EDA. 
Built around 1905, the building is a three-story brick structure with two halves 
connected by a common stairwell. The first floor has commercial space in the 
front (formerly used as a church) and a garage in the rear. On the second and 
third floors there are three two-bedroom apartments, two in front of a foyer and 
one behind the foyer. Total area of living space is 5.550 square feet, total 
commercial area is 1.480 square feet, and the garage is 770 square feet, for a 
building total (excluding basement) of 7,800 square feet. (See Figure 6 for a 
floor plan of the building), Prior to rehabilitation, the building was in a 
moderately deteriorated condition and unoccupied. DCED contacted by letter the 
owner of the building, Inner City Developers, Inc., (owned by Richard and 
Michael Kushner) and informed them of the project goals. Soon after being 
invited to participate, Inner City Developers agreed to join the project and 
assigned Mr. Hal Lanshe of their staff as project manager.

Exterior view of 1317/ 19 Derry Street. 

36 CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 


FIGURE 6 
FLOOR PLAN AND SPRINKLER CONFIGURATION 

CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 37 

The Derry Street Neighborhood. 

The letter from DCED stated the department's intention to reimburse Inner City 
for the costs of installing a fire sprinkler system, including design and site 
work. Funds for reimbursement would come from a grant to DCED from USFA, 
contingent upon execution of a written agreement between DCED and Inner City. 
Costs were to be in accordance with the budget approved by USFA, with fire 
sprinkler installation costing up to $12,800 and site work up to $5,000. Site 
work included water taps, water meter lines, and trenching. In addition, the 
fire department and the DCED agreed to a USFA request to conduct a public 
outreach program for the project budgeted at $5,000. Inner City agreed to pay 
any additional sprinkler installation costs above the budgeted amount. Grant 
provisions disallowed transfer of funds in excess of 5 percent between cost 
categories without approval from FEMA,

All participants agreed to communicate regularly during the design and 
installation phases, with meetings scheduled in Harrisburg as necessary and, if 
possible, in conjunction with site visits by National Research Center personnel. 
The parties also agreed that telephone conversations and/ or written 
communication would be necessary to secure input regarding system design. 
Photographs of the rehabilitation of the building would be taken by the National 
Research Center including installation of the sprinkler system, together with 
"before and after" views of construction.

After informing all participants of their roles and of the overall goals of the 
program, National Research Center began the design phase of the sprinkler 
system.

BUILDING REHABILITATION 

As per plan, the building was only partially rehabilitated. Changes to be made 
had to comply with the requirements of the historic society and included 
patching and painting walls, repairing ceilings and floors (with some 
replacements), new windows, replaced bathroom and kitchen fixtures, and new 
lighting. Totalcost for construction (excluding the fire sprinkler system) was 
$205,000. Further, the National Research Center was asked to identify ways the 
building could be made more energy efficient and staff engineers recommendations 
that were included in construction follow: installation of storm-windows 
throughout building replacement of old steam boiler and radiators with higher 
efficiency gas boilers and hydronic baseboard roof insulation added throughout 
building, R-30 in most places new kitchen appliances

View of Interior prior to rehabilitation. 

38 CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

View of interior prior to rehabilitation. 

Some of the energy improvements also serve to increase the fire safety of the 
building mostly in terms of the reduced chance of fires caused by faulty heating 
and electrical systems, and appliances.

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 

The sprinkler system design was a coordinated effort between the National 
Research Center, Charles Shadle of C and S Mechanical Engineers, Inc. (CSME), 
Larry Stamer of the Harrisburg Fire Department, and Hal Lanshe. CSME is the 
mechanical and plumbing contractor hired by Inner City for the building 
rehabilitation including sprinkler design and installation. An overview of major 
issues in designing sprinkler systems is presented in the Introduction.

Water Service 

The hydraulic calculations and subsequent tests were based on two heads open 
simultaneously, a "two-head design." (See Appendix C for an example of the 
hydraulic calculations for the building). The Harrisburg Fire Department 
determined that the water pressure for a sprinkler system was adequate. The 
Harrisburg Water Department required the sprinkler system to be tapped into the 
building's main water supply after (downstream of) the meter, thus metering 
water consumption of the sprinkler system. Friction loss within the meter is 
likely to cause a 5-10 pound per square Inch drop in the water pressure of the 
building. The water department also required installation of a single back-flow 
preventer (rather than a double) to prevent standing water in the sprinkler 
pipes from mixing with the domestic water supply. Friction loss in the back-flow 
preventer is likely to cause a 5-10 pound per square inch reduction in the water 
pressure of the sprinkler system. and this loss has been factored into the 
design delivery of the sprinkler heads. The control manifold has a pressure 
gauge and a drain and test valve. The sprinkler system can be shut off without 
special equipment. There is no connection for a fire department hose or other 
external source of water. There is an alarm system interconnecting the sprinkler 
system and the smoke detectors.

Coverage, Location and Activation of Sprinkler Heads 

In 1317-19 Derry Street, there are 82 quick-response heads located in compliance 
with the spacing requirements of NFPA 13D. There are 5 spare heads stored on the 
premises as per NFPA 13D section A-l-5.1.1 requirement of preparation for 
immediate head replacement. In the subject building, sprinklers were not 
installed in the bathrooms in the residential units, nor in closets, the foyer 
or the garage. There is no crawl space. Sprinklers were installed in common 
halls. The sprinkler heads were manufactured by Grinnell Fire Protection Systems 
Company, Inc., and are either a pendent type protruding through drop ceilings or 
are sidewall mounted. The use of drop ceilings simplifies installation because 
of the flexibility of raising or lowering the ceiling for sprinkler 
installation. Drop ceilings, however are less sturdy and usually of less 
aesthetic quality than wallboard ceilings. Figure 6 is a floor plan of the 
second floor of the building (the third floor is identical to the second with 
the exception of the bathroom shown in the rear foyer area) and shows the 
location of pipes and sprinkler heads.

For safety, heads are generally set to discharge at no less than a maximum 
ambient temperature plus 35 F., generally between 135 F. and 170 F. in a 
residential environment. In the subject building, the sprinkler heads are 
designed to discharge at 160 F. except in the furnace heater room where they 
will discharge at 185 F.

CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 39 

Sidewall sprinkler head in common hall, ceiling sprinkler head in entrance foyer 
of apartment. 

Pendant type sprinkler heads (capped) in finished interior hallway, 

Sidewall sprinkler head in finished bedroom.

Sprinkler system lateral piping and head fitting cut through ceiling rafters

40 CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Sprinkler System Plumbing 

The pipes and risers in the subject building in Harrisburg are made of CPVC 
(brand name "Blazemaster"), and were left uncovered in the commercial area on 
the first floor. All other sections of pipe are contained inside walls made of 
either drywall (new walls) or patched plaster (existing walls). On the third 
floor the pipe runs in the ceiling are protected from freezing by 9- inch 
fiberglass RATTS (R-30), placed between the pipes and the roof deck.

Sprinkler system "t" connections adjacent to electric conductors in ceiling 
rafters. 

Sprinkler system laterals and elbows adjacent to other building utility systems. 

Sprinkler system laterals in commercial area. 

CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

41 

INSTALLATION AND TESTING 

National Research Center staff and Mr. Charles Shadle of CSME spoke periodically 
with Mr. Lanshe to determine when the building would be ready for rehabilitation 
to begin. Since the work plan developed jointly by CSME and Inner City called 
only for minor rehabilitation, holes were drilled for sprinkler pipe 
installation. The project team had a chance to view the structure of the 
building in more detail after plaster ceilings in the halls were removed and 
decided to use fewer risers in the sprinkler system than had been initially 
planned. By reducing the number of risers the team was able to lower the cost of 
installation by reducing material costs and by making installation easier and 
less time-consuming.

The hydrostatic test was performed by the project team and witnessed by the fire 
department on April 18, 1988. The sprinkler system was pumped to 200 pounds per 
square inch as required by the fire department (it took 45 minutes to pump the 
system to that level by hand). Two heads leaked and there was a pinhole leak in 
one of the pipes on the second floor. The small size of the pipe leak indicated 
that it was caused by a manufacturing defect rather than by handling or 
installation. The system was drained, the two faulty heads were replaced, and 
the hole was repaired. The material used to repair the hole required a three-
hour wait before refilling the system with water. The project team then pumped 
the system to 203 PSI and continued the test. The system held the 203 PSI for 
two hours as required by the fire department and afterwards the fire department 
declared the fire sprinkler system operational.

Chief Larry Stamer, Harrisburg Bureau of Fire Safety certifying pressure for 
system static presure test. 

SYSTEM COSTS 

Design and Installation 

Table 3-3 presents the costs of the sprinkler system. 

Most of the materials for the sprinkler system were donated by a major supplier 
in order to participate in a federally funded technical assistance project. 
National Research Center staff estimated the cost of the system using estimates 
of the wholesale and retail costs of donated material. In addition, it is 
important to note that the installer had to drill holes through existing walls 
that were not replaced during building rehabilitation, thus increasing the labor 
costs of sprinkler installation.

The design and installation total costs and costs per square foot (non-
discounted) are well within what would be expected for a building the size and 
shape of 1317-19 Derry Street.

Mr. Hal Lanshe pumping system to 203 PSI by hand. 

42 CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

TABLE 3-3 SPRINKLER SYSTEM COSTS 

Design* $ 1,750 
Materials pipe, fittings, and hangers (wholesale) $ 1,608
sprinkler heads (wholesale)$ 802  control manifold (Including double check , 
valve, pressure gauge, relief valve, flow switch, and assorted fittings)  $ 350 
ESTIMATED MATERIAL TOTAL (wholesale) $ 2,760 
ESTIMATED MATERIAL TOTAL (wholesale) (30 % markup for retail)  $3588
Site Labor (approximately 180 hours) $ 7,000
Building expense to install sprinklers (patch floors walls and ceilings $ 1,500
WITHOUT MATERIAL COSTS 
TOTAL $ 10,250
COST PER SQUARE FOOT $1.44
COST PER UNIT INCL. COMMERCIAL AREA $1.464
COST PER RESlDENTlAL UNlT $1,708

WITH WHOLESALE MATERIAL COSTS  
TOTAL $13.010
COST PER SQUARE FOOT $ 1.83 
COST PER UNlT INCL. COMMERCIAL AREA $1,858 
COST PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT (wholesale material costs) $2,168 

WITH ESTIMATED RETAIL MATERIAL COSTS 
TOTAL $13,838 
COST PER SQUARE FOOT $ 1.95 
COST PER UNIT INCL. COMMERCIAL AREA $ 1,977 
COST PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT $ 2,306 

* Done by National Research Center 

Operation and Maintenance Costs 

Mr. Lanshe estimates that costs for routine inspection and testing of the 
sprinkler system will total approximately $200 per year. As part of the DCED 
effort to revitalize the Allison Hill area, Inner City has received an abatement 
that discounts the property tax for 1317/ 1319 Derry Street on a graduated scale 
for five years, at which time the tax will not be discounted. There is a 
monitoring and summoning service that costs $5 per month. It is too soon to 
assess costs from leakage and/ or false activation. As mentioned above, the 
owner incurred no loan financing costs and the sprinkler system water supply is 
metered along with the building's domestic water.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

Improved Life Safety -Positive Effect on Rental Income 

As a participant in the Federal Section 8 housing voucher program, Inner City 
must limit rents to "fair market" amounts as set by HUD. The Harrisburg Housing 
Authority distributes vouchers to tenants chosen from an established waiting 
list and informs them of buildings eligible for use of the vouchers. Tenants 
must pay up to 30 percent of their gross income for rent, and the vouchers make 
up the difference between that amount and the HUD determined market rent. The 
fact that the building owned by Inner City contained fire sprinklers may have 
shortened the time units remained vacant. Upon obtaining their vouchers, 
prospective tenants are free to choose any eligible dwelling. and within certain 
price ranges would likely choose units with enhanced fire safety. The high 
vacancy rate and the low income of residents in Harrisburg make it difficult to 
rent units, and the sprinklered apartments in this case probably would have been 
no exception if tenants did not have vouchers. Mr. Tom Blaine, leasing agent for 
Inner City, believes the presence of sprinklers had little effect on his effort 
to secure tenants for the building. He cites the fact that advertising for the 
building did not mention fire sprinklers and his experience indicates that fire 
safety is not among priority items prospective tenants inquire about. 
Nevertheless the presence of fire sprinklers in multifamily buildings is 
potentially a beneficial factor for building owners competing for tenants in 
markets with high vacancy rates.

Property Insurance Discount and Reduced Property Damage 

The insurance carrier for Inner City reported to the National Research Center 
that the multiple peril insurance policy for 1317-19 Derry Street cost Inner 
City between 30 and 40 percent less than it would have cost if fire sprinklers 
were not installed. The policy covers full replacement costs if the building is 
destroyed by fire. The policy deductible is $500, and therefore, currently, that 
sum should be the most Inner City can lose in direct property damages caused by 
fire. It is also possible for them to incur property losses not directly related 
to a fire such as demolition and/ or security of remaining property. Therefore, 
the reduced likelihood of a destructive fire reduces the chance of such losses. 
Further, tenants may have insurance policies protecting against losses in their 
units, and reduced probability of fire will benefit those with such policies.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

The city officials in attendance at the initial project meeting in Harrisburg 
stated their intention to have plumbers install the sprinkler system. The 
National Research Center suggested that plumbers may need special training to be 
qualified for sprinkler installation, and the city officials agreed. A training 
course was designed and scheduled for any licensed plumber wishing

43 

to learn about residential fire sprinkler system design and installation, 
innovative plastic pipe materials, and NFPA fire sprinkler standards. Fire 
Protection Plus, Inc., (FPP) of Framingham, Massachusetts was known by the 
National Research Center as a qualified firm in the design and installation of 
residential fire sprinkler systems due to its successful participation in the 
sprinkler technical assistance project in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Tom Rinoldo 
of FPP was retained early in the project by the project team to conduct the 
training program in conjunction with other members of the team. The intention of 
the Harrisburg fire and community development departments was (in addition to 
increasing the availability of qualified sprinkler installers) to use the course 
as an outreach program designed to publicize both the technical assistance 
project with the National Research Center and the recently initiated fire 
sprinkler ordinance in that city, Appendix D is a copy of the course outline.

Sprinkler installation was videotaped by the Harrisburg Bureau of Fire Safety. 
The tape, along with file footage at the fire department, is being used for 
outreach and training in Harrisburg and may also be used by other jurisdictions 
participating in this technical assistance project.

Upon completion of rehabilitation, the building was dedicated in a ceremony 
attended by Mayor Reed. Mostly a publicity event concerning public/ private 
cooperative housing rehabilitation, the event also highlighted the installation 
of the fire sprinkler system. Further, the Harrisburg Community and Economic 
Development newsletter Community Ink published a story (January/ February, 1989) 
specifically covering the sprinkler grant and the city's recently enacted 
sprinkler ordinance.

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, THE CITY AND ITS HOUSING MARKET 

The U. S. Census Bureau's December 1986 population estimate for the city of 
Harrisburg was 51,530, a decrease of 3 percent since the 1980 Census. According 
to the 1980 U. S. Census, Harrisburg contained 26,006 housing units (2.0 persons 
per unit), of which 48 percent were single-family attached structures, 10 
percent single-family detached structures, and 40 percent multifamily structures 
with two or more units. Since 1980, Harrisburg has issued 30 permits with a 
total value of $9,917.500 for new multifamily residential construction and 5,378 
permits with a total value of $39.851,412 for repairs, alterations, and 
additions to residences. Since 1983, the annual trend for new residential 
construction has turned sharply upward while spending for rehabilitation has 
remained nearly constant. In fact, in 1986 there was a 2,000 percent increase 
over 1983 in the funds spent by the private and public sectors on new housing 
construction, and only a 39 percent increase in spending on rehabilitation. 
However, the fact that rehabilitation expenditures have been 400% of new 
construction expenditures reflects the emphasis placed on rehabilitation by the 
city.

Table 3-4 presents a limited profile of the population and housing 
characteristics of the City. 

TABLE 3-4 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Community Profile 

Population (1986 estimate) 51.530 
Population below poverty level 23.0%
Population 55 years old and older 26.8% 
Population 4 years old and younger 7.6%
Population with limited mobility 1.2% 
(U. S. Census defined as persons with limited ability to use public transit) 
Population density per square mile.6,692 
Population density per housing unit  2.0 
Total Housing Units (1980) 26,006 
Multifamily 5 + units 21% 
Multifamily 3-4 units 10% 
Multifamily 2 units 9% 
Single-family (attached) 48%
Single-family (detached) 10% 
Other 2%
Age of Housing Built before 1940  57%
Built 1970-1980 5%
Median Price Single family (1986) $40,217
One-bedroom rental (1980)  $ 237 
Vacancy Rate -overall (1987) 3.0%
Rental Vacancy Rate  8.0% 

SOURCE: Harrisburg Department of Community and Economic Development: U. S. 
Census Metropolitan Data Book. 1986 

The Harrisburg Enterprise Development Area (EDA) 

In 1983, the Allison Hill section of Harrisburg (includes Derry Street) was 
designated as a state enterprise development area (EDA). Overall, this 
designation allowed the city to combine public and private financing for 
physical improvements in commercial as well as residential properties. In 
addition, the city granted tax abatements for investors meeting specified 
criteria. As part of the effort to use the EDA concept to revitalize housing in 
Harrisburg, city officials together with the state of Pennsylvania have 
implemented several programs. Although there are no programs specifically 
concentrated on fire safety, the city enforces its new fire sprinkler ordinance 
in addition to requiring smoke detectors be

44 CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

present in all residential buildings. 

Home Mortgage Pool 

Started in 1987, the Home Mortgage Pool offers 8.25 percent fixed-rate 30-year 
mortgages for eligible buyers. The borrower must be an owner-occupant after 
rehabilitation is complete, though properties of up to four living units are 
eligible.

Home Improvement Loan Program 

Low-and moderate-income homeowners are eligible to receive assistance in 
securing loans at 6 percent interest for home rehabilitation. In addition, 
homeowners with incomes up to $50,000 may receive home improvement loans at 
10.75 percent. Repayment for these loans ranges from two to 15 years.

Rehabilitation Grants 

Grants of up to $15,000 for housing rehabilitation are available to low-and 
moderate-income owner-occupants. Owners of vacant structures may also receive 
the same grant if they provide at least 25 percent of the cost of 
rehabilitation. Between 1983 and 1987, over $2 million in grant monies was 
distributed.

Basic Svstems Repair Program 

Low-income homeowners may be eligible to receive grants up to $8,000 for repair 
of faulty basic systems such as heating, plumbing, and electric.

Nuevos Frentes (New Fronts) Program 

Residential properties in commercial areas are eligible for up to $6,000 per 
unit for exterior repairs as long as the owner matches the grant dollar for 
dollar. Vacant units must be rented to low-or moderate-income tenants. Rental 
Rehabilitation Program Low-interest deferred payment loans are available in 
combination with private financing on properties approved for assistance by 
DCED. Preference is given to vacant structures with between four and 15 units, 
although some occupied buildings may also qualify. Approved applicants must rent 
at least 51 percent of units to low-income tenants.

Harrisburg Property Reinvestment Board 

Acquisition of vacant structures within the EDA can be expedited through the 
Harrisburg Redevelopment Authority. Tax delinquent properties or properties with 
serious code violations may be obtained either through negotiations or eminent 
domain proceedings. Between 1984 and 1987, 64 properties were acquired by the 
Property Reinvestment Board. Properties that have been acquired by the city can 
then be sold either through conventional methods or through use of one or more 
of the above mentioned programs. To facilitate rehabilitation of abandoned 
structures, the city uses its "clean and seal" program whereby buildings are 
readied for immediate rehabilitation. Thus far 200 buildings have been cleaned 
and sealed citywide, some of which have been sold, while others are likely to be 
sold in the near future.

Mount Pleasant National Register Historic District 

Mount Pleasant is an area within the EDA that has been declared a national 
historic district by the Federal Government. The designation allows 20 percent 
of the cost of rehabilitating an eligible building to be credited toward 
developers' income, thereby reducing their tax liability. To be eligible, the 
building must become income producing and must be architecturally characteristic 
of the historic district.

CHAPTER 3 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 45 

CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

LOCAL FIRE EXPERIENCE 

Populations at higher risk of fire include the elderly, the very young, and 
people with limited ability to move without assistance. In Prince George's 
County, 12.7 percent of the population is 55 years old or older and 7.0 percent 
is five years old or younger. Physical handicaps limit the mobility of 0.2 
percent of the population. To respond to the fire protection needs of the 
county. the Prince George's County Fire Department maintains the forces listed 
in Table 4-1:

TABLE 4-l Prince George's County Fire Department 

Stations (engine and ladder) 46 (average coverage of 10.6 square miles per 
station) 
Engine companies 45
Ladder Truck Companies 19 
Rescue/ Hazardous Material Stations 9
Firefighters (Professional) 520 
Firefighters (volunteer) 1,200 
Firefighters on duty during each of 4 shifts (Professional) 160 
Firefighters on duty during each of 4 shifts (Volunteer) NA 
Fire chiefs/ Battalion Captains 26 
Fire Battalions 9 (average of 54 square miles per battalion) 
Fire Hydrants 13,555 

Source: Prince George's County Fire Department, Division of Fire Rescue 
Operations. 

Washington Suburban Sanitary commission, Maintenance Services Division. 

It is likely that a county as large as Prince George's will experience 
residential fire fatalities during a given year and that a disproportionate 
share of the victims will be either elderly or very young. Although the over-55 
and under-five population combined represent only 20 percent of Prince George's 
County's population, Table 4-2 shows that these groups accounted for 58 percent 
of the fire fatalities during a six-year period. Further, fire deaths are more 
likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods, defined as neighborhoods where 
property values are lower than county and regional averages and a higher than 
average proportion of people live in poverty. Prince George's County is an 
urban-rural mixture, with the Capital Beltway (Interstates 95 and 495) roughly a 
"border" between the high density urbanized areas with a large proportion of 
low-income residents and the low density suburban and rural areas with residents 
of more affluence. The high-density area (HDA) of Prince George's County 
(approximately 48 square miles, or 10 percent of county land] is bordered by 
Washington D. C. on the west, "Langley Park' and Montgomery County (Maryland) on 
the north, the Beltway on the east, and "Suitland" on the south. The Fairmont 
Heights neighborhood, location of the subject building of this project, is 
situated close to the geographic center of the HDA of the county (See Figure 7). 
Table 4-2 shows 66 percent of Prince George's County's fire fatalities occurred 
in the HDA even though only 40 percent of the county's population resides there. 
The downward trend in the percentage of county fatalities occurring in the HDA 
partly reflects ongoing efforts of the county fire department to reduce fire 
fatalities in the HDA.

TABLE 4-2 
Residential Civilian Fire Fatalities 
Prince George's County 

FISCAL YEAR NO. OF CIVILIAN FIRE DEATHS (RESI)*  55 & OLDER OR 5 & YNGER # % IN 
HDA # % 

1979 10 8 80 9 90 
1980 4 2 50 3 75 
1981 15** 9 60 11 73 
1982 16 5 31 11 69 
1983 21 15 71 14 67 
1984 14 7 50 5 36 

6 YR TOTAL 80 46 58 53 66 

* excludes suicides by fire 
** includes one fire with 5 deaths 

SOURCE: Prince George's County Fire Department, Investigations Section. 

PROJECT INITIATION 

The National Research Center's tentative selection of Prince George's County led 
to an invitation to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to 
participate in the federally funded technical assistance program. The National 
Research Center notified HCD of the availability of federal money to increase 
fire safety among urban low-income populations, though the funding sources--USFA 
and HUD--required the funds to be used in conjunction with other CDBG funds 
allocated to rehabilitation of low-income housing. The National Research Center 
informed HCD of the agency's responsibility to identify buildings imminently 
scheduled to undergo CDBG-assisted rehabilitation and occupied (or scheduled to 
be) by low-income tenants. In addition, the National Research Center assisted

46 CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY. MARYLAND 

FIGURE 7 

GEOGRAPHIC CENTER OF THE HDA

Location of Building and Prince George's County High Density Area 

CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 47 

HCD in evaluating buildings for technical feasibility with fire sprinkler 
installation before final selection of the subject building. Further, HCD staff 
contacted other departments concerned with aspects of fire safety: the Prince 
George's County Fire Department and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 
(WSSC), the water company for Prince George's County. HCD staff also identified 
a building as a tentative site for the program. The decision of County 
Executive, Parris Glendening, (highest elected county official) formally 
initiated Prince George's County's participation in the fire sprinkler technical 
assistance project.

At an orientation meeting in Prince George's County in October 1986, National 
Research Center staff met with David Banwarth, Chief Fire Protection Engineer 
for the Prince George's County Fire Department, and Emelda Johnson-Heller and 
Leroy Brown of HCD. National Research Center staff outlined the project, and the 
ensuing discussion highlighted ambiguities in application of NFPA 13 and 13D in 
multifamily buildings. Even though the issues surrounding application of NFPA 13 
and NFPA 13D could be addressed through design of a system using a modified NFPA 
13 standard, the parties agreed that the Prince George's County project should 
in part focus on development of a new sprinkler standard for multifamily 
residences. Any new standard would have to balance adequate fire protection with 
aifordability concerns. Chief Banwarth stated that the fire department was in 
favor of the use of sprinkler systems in multifamily buildings.

Shortly after the project initiation meeting HCD identified two multifamily 
buildings that met the project criteria. In each case, despite initial interest 
on the part of the building owners, the sites were dropped from consideration 
due to uncertain funding and rehabilitation scheduling. After further review, 
HCD chose a four-story masonry building containing 15 three-bedroom units 
located at 5353 Sheriff Road in the Fairmont Heights section of Prince George's 
County. Built in the mid-1960s it is one of five 17,664 square foot buildings in 
a complex called "The Lodge Apartments" containing a total of 75 units of mixed 
size and floor plans. (Figure 8 shows typical floor plans of apartments in the 
subject building). Prior to rehabilitation, the building was partially occupied 
and had no major physical problems but had many moderate repair and replacement 
needs. The basement apartments were in a severely deteriorated condition due to 
flooding from the building's sanitary sewer system. HCD contacted by letter the 
owner of the building, Mr. Wayne Bowie, and informed him of the project goals. 
Soon after being invited to participate, Mr. Bowie agreed to join the project.

The letter from HCD stated the department's willingness to reimburse Mr. Bowie 
for the costs of installing a fire sprinkler system, including design and site 
work. Funds for reimbursement would come from a grant to HCD from USFA. 
contingent upon execution of a written agreement between HCD and Mr. Bowle. 
Costs were to be in accordance with the budget approved by USFA, with fire 
sprinkler installation costing up to $13,600 and site work up to $5,000. Site 
work included water taps, water meter lines, and trenching. In addition, the 
fire department and HCD agreed to a USFA request to conduct a public outreach 
program for the project budgeted at $5.000. Mr. Bowie agreed to pay any 
additional sprinkler installation costs above the budgeted amount. Grant 
provisions disallowed transfer of funds in excess of 5 percent between cost 
categories without approval from FEMA.

Exterior view of 5353 Sheriff Road. 

All participants agreed to communicate regularly during the design and 
installation phases, with meetings scheduled as necessary. The parties also 
agreed that telephone conversations and/ or written communication would be 
necessary to secure input regarding system design. Photographs of the 
rehabilitation of the building would be taken by the National Research Center 
including installation of the sprinkler system,

48 CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

FIGURE 8 
FLOOR PLANS OF APARTMENTS AND SPRINKLER CONFIGURATION 

CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 48 

together with "before and after" views of construction. 

After informing all participants of their roles and of the overall goals of the 
program, National Research Center began the design phase of the sprinkler 
system.

BUILDING REHABILITATION 

As per plan, the subject building was only partially rehabilitated. Changes 
included remodeled kitchens, total rehabilitation of basement apartments (ruined 
by sanitary sewer flooding), patched and painted walls, renovated sanitary sewer 
mains, and remodeled laundry rooms. The total cost for rehabilitation design and 
construction (excluding the fire sprinkler system) was estimated by National 
Research Center staff to be $215,000 based on a reported cost of $1,075,000 to 
rehabilitate all 5 buildings. Further, HUD asked the National Research Center to 
identify ways the building could be made more energy efficient. National 
Research Center staff engineers made the following recommendations that were 
included in the construction:

upgrade replacement windows and sliding glass balcony doors from single-to 
double-pane 

upgrade apartment entry doors to high-security doors with insulated cores 

Common interior stairway at 5353 Sheriff Road. 

replace the gas furnace and air conditioning systems with mid-level efficiency 
units 

add roof insulation in some areas 

replace kitchen appliances 

Utility and laundry area with commercial sprinkler system. 

Some of the energy improvements may have increased the building's fire safety by 
reducing the risk of fires caused by faulty heat or electrical systems. 

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 

The sprinkler system design involved a coordinated effort among the National 
Research Center, Don Rivetta (rehabilitation job superintendent), and Wayne 
Bowie (building owner). An overview of major issues in designing sprinkler 
systems is presented in the Introduction.

Water System 

The hydraulic calculations and subsequent tests were based on two heads open 
simultaneously, a "two-head design." (See Appendix E for an example of the 
hydraulic calculations for the building). The Prince George's County Fire 
Department determined that the water pressure

50 CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

for a sprinkler system was adequate. The sprinkler system is tapped into the 
main fire supply of the complex, thus any water discharged by the sprinkler 
system is not metered. Friction loss within the meter is likely to cause a 5-10 
pound per square inch drop in the water pressure of the overall water system to 
the complex. The WSSC required installation of a double (rather than single) 
back-flow preventer to prevent the standing water in the sprinkler pipes from 
mixing with the domestic water supply. Friction loss in the back-flow preventer 
is likely to cause a 5-10 pound per square inch reduction in the water pressure 
of the sprinkler system, and this loss has been factored into the design 
delivery of the sprinkler heads. There is a pressure gauge and a drain and test 
valve, and the sprinkler system can be shut off without special equipment. There 
is a connection for a fire department hose or other external source of water, 
and a flow switch connected to external alarm bells.

Valve detail at supply connection, including double back-flow preventer. 

Coverage, Location, and Activation of Sprinkler Heads 

In the subject building, the sprinkler system includes 143 quick-response heads 
(excluding the commercial heads that were already in the laundry room) located 
in compliance with the spacing requirements specified in NFPA 13D. There are 
five spare heads stored on the premises as per NFPA 13D section A-l-5.1.1.

In the Lodge Apartments, sprinklers were not installed in the bathrooms or 
interior closets, there are sprinklers in the furnace closets located on each 
unit's balcony. There is no attic, crawl space, or garage. Sprinklers were not 
installed in common halls and stairwells.

Holes cut for sprinkler piping through heating duct. 

The water pressure in the building was sufficient to allow the use of sidewall 
sprinkler heads in all rooms other than the laundry and storage areas. There was 
the need to use one ceiling pendent head in each unit due to the configuration 
of a corridor between the bedrooms and a bathroom. Sidewall mounted heads 
eliminate the need for horizontal pipe chases running across the ceilings, thus 
lowering both material and labor costs. The system design team also had to 
consider that the rehabilitation plan for the building did not include 
demolition of existing walls. Customarily, piping is concealed by walls and 
ceilings, but to do so in this project would have required work not planned and 
would have significantly raised the cost of the system according to the project 
team. Instead, the team decided to surface mount and hang the system piping 
exposed in living areas and then conceal the pipes by constructing special 
drywall soffits or "boxing" using standard drywall techniques. Although the CPVC 
pipe used in this project is rated as fire-safe in exposed applications, exposed 
piping is usually unsightly and is more susceptible to accidental damage or 
vandalism. Using hung and boxed piping rather than

CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 51 

installing the system inside walls reduced installation costs of the system. 
(Figure 8 shows a typical floor plan of the sprinkler system in the living 
units].

Holes for sprinkler piping through finished walls. Ceiling pendent head between 
rooms, with smoke detector and ceiling light fixture. 

sprinkler head, above closet, during rehabilitation. 

In the subject building, the heads are designed to discharge at 165 F.. except 
the sidewall dry-heads used in the furnace closets that are set to discharge at 
286 F. The sprinkler heads were manufactured by Grinnell Fire Protection 
Systems Company, Inc. 

sidewall head not in soffit, above closet. 

CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

Sidewall head in finished rehabilitated kitchen. 

Sprinkler system adjacent to hard wired smoke detector. 

Typical sidewall dry sprinkler head in furnace closet. 

Sprinkler System Plumbing 

CPVC pipe and fittings were used in the residential areas of the Lodge 
Apartments, while iron pipe and fittings were used (as required) in the laundry 
and storage areas.

CPVC piping hung but not boxed. 

CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 53 

CPVC piping wrapped around hot air duct work. 

INSTALLATION AND TESTING 

Fire Department officials approved the sprinkler system plans on December 11, 
1987. Mr. Bowie contracted with Livingston Fire Protection Inc., to install the 
sprinkler system. Prince George's County does not require the licensing of 
sprinkler installers, The contractor began installation of the system in April, 
1988. Installation of the sprinkler system was coordinated with the rest of the 
building rehabilitation project, and took six months. The system was operational 
by November 1, 1988. During October, 1988. the fire department witnessed the 
code-required water pressure test. Overall rehabilitation of the building was 
finished in early 1989.

SYSTEM COSTS 

DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 

The grant amount designated for sprinkler installation in Prince George's County 
fell short of the actual cost by $4,810. and Mr. Bowie paid the difference. The 
low cost per square foot is attributable to two major factors. First, there was 
no increase in the water service to the building, and second, there was no 
drilling or other wall penetration for sprinkler pipes and the soffits were 
simple and inexpensive to construct. Table 4-3 presents the cost of the 
sprinkler system.

TABLE 4-3 SPRINKLER SYSTEM COSTS 

LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL 

Design $1,750.00* 
Sprinkler Installation $ 8360.00 $ 5,740.00 $ 1,750,00 
Soffits to Conceal Pipe $ 3,098.00 $ 2.152.00 $ 5,250: 00 
Preparatory Drilling and Layout $ 2,520.00 0 $ 2.520.00 
Plumbing Hook up to Existing Water supply $ 826.00 $ 574.00 $ 1,400.00 
Electrical Connection to Existing Alarms $63.00 $177.0 0 $240.00 

TOTAL (lncl. design) $16,517.00 $ 8643.00 $25,160.00 
COST PER SQUARE FOOT $ 0.99 $ 0.52 $ 1.51 
COST PER LIVING UNIT $ 1.101.00 $ 576.00 $ 1.677.00 

* Done by the National Research Center, not funded by grant to Prince George's 
County 

Operation and Maintenance Costs 

Mr. Bowie estimates that his costs for routine inspection and testing will be 
negligible, and believes the property taxes will not be affected by the presence 
of the sprinkler system. It is too soon to assess costs from leakage and/ or 
false activation. As mentioned above, in this case there were no financing 
costs, there is no annual fee for water (water use if any will be metered), and 
there is no external monitoring service.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

Improved Life Safety -Positive Effect on Rental Income 

The W. A. Bowie Company reported that the presence of sprinklers had no clear 
effect on rent levels, citing the need to limit rents in a low-income apartment 
complex as well as uncertainty over the marketability of the sprinkler system, 
The company could not cite a reduction in duration of vacancies attributable to 
the presence of fire sprinklers.

Property Insurance Discount and Reduced Property Damage 

The W. A. Bowie Company purchased a new property insurance policy for their 
Sheriff Road apartment complex following the rehabilitation. The company sought 
a new policy in part due to installation of the residential sprinkler system. 
The new policy annual premium is $21,000, $5,000 less (19 percent) than the 
previous year. The company reports that $1,000 of the decrease was directly 
attributable to installation of

54 CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

sprinklers in one of five buildings covered by the policy. This means sprinkler 
installation led to a 4 percent decrease in insurance costs.

The property insurance policy for the Lodge Apartments covers up to $2,200,000 
of property loss, ($ 444,000 per building). At present, the insurance is 
considered to represent full replacement value. The deductible is $250 per 
building and therefore, currently, that sum should be the most Mr. Bowie can 
lose in direct property damages caused by fire. It is also possible for him to 
incur property losses not directly related to a fire such as demolition and/ or 
security of remaining property. Therefore the reduced likelihood of a 
destructive fire reduces the chance of such losses. Further, tenants may have 
insurance policies protecting against losses in their units, and reduced 
probability of fire will benefit those with such policies.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

The Prince George's County Fire Department has a full-time professional unit 
dedicated to education and outreach called the Educational Resources Division 
(ERD), of the Bureau of Fire Prevention and Public Education. The ERD is 
involved in the ongoing production of presentations regarding a variety of 
subjects. The ERD has in-house audio/ visual facilities and also contracts for 
productions with outside organizations. The ERD is producing a thirty-minute 
monthly cable television show to be called


TABLE 4-4 Prince George's County, Maryland Community Profile 

Population (1980 Census) 665,071 
Populatlon (1990 estimate) 694,103 
Population below poverty level (1980) 6.7% 
Population 55 and older (1980) 12.7% 
Population 5 and younger (1980) 7.0%
Population with limited mobility  0.2% 
(U. S. Census defined as persons with limited ability to use public transit) 
Population density per square mile (1988) 1,426 
Population density per housing unit (1988) 2.8 
Total Housing Units (1980) 236,465 
Total Housing Units (1987) 256.126 
Mulifamily (five or more units) (1980) 43% 
Multifamily (five or more units) (1987) 41% 
Single family (1980) 52%
Single family (1987) 59%
Age of Housing Built before 1939 5.7%
Median Price (1987) 
Sale Price New Single Family $124.000.00 
Resale Price Single Familv $108,900.00 
Efficiency/ Studio Rental $ 443.00 
1 Bedroom Rental $ 509.00 
2 Bedroom Rental $ 587.00 3 
Bedroom Rental $ 670.00 
Overall Vacancy Rate (1985) 4.9% 

Source: Prince George's County Department of Housing and Community Development. 

"A Fire Line" hosted by Chief Estepp. The theme of the pilot show will be 
residential fire sprinklers and include a presentation on the Lodge Apartments 
sprinkler project.

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY: THE COUNTY AND ITS HOUSING MARKET 

Population 

The population of Prince George's County was 665,071 in 1980 according to the U. 
S. Census and is expected to grow 4.4 percent, to 694.103, by 1990. An important 
trend is revealed when the population is segmented into three age groups: under 
five years old, between five and 54 years old, and over 55. The middle group, 
constituting the vast majority of the population (80 percent in 1980), is 
predicted to increase by less than 1 percent by 1990, whereas the over-55 age 
group is predicted to increase by 30 percent and the under-5 age group by 10 
percent. As a result of these projected increases, the under-five age group is 
predicted to increase from 6.9 to 7.3 percent of the total county population, 
the over-55 group will increase from 12.7 to 15.9 percent, and the 5-54 group 
will decrease from 80.2 to 76.8 percent of the county's population between 1980 
and 1990. In addition, an estimated 6.7 percent of county residents lived below 
the poverty level in 1980, a figure not expected to change significantly by 
1990. County planners will consider trends in high-risk populations when they 
formulate housing plans and programs for the 1990s.

Housing 

According to the 1980 Census, the county reported 236,465 housing units (2.8 
people per housing unit), of which 225,824 were occupied; a vacancy rate of 4.5 
percent. Single-family units constituted 52 percent and buildings with five or 
more residential units accounted for 43 percent of the total living units in the 
county in 1980. In 1987 the median sale price of a new single family home was 
$124.000. median resale price of an existing single family home was $108,900, 
and median monthly rental for a three bedroom apartment was $670.

The Multifamily Housing Rehabilitation Program 

In order to assist construction or rehabilitation of multifamily and\ or special 
needs housing units, the Department of Housing and Community Development (CHD) 
administers five state funded programs.

CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 55 

Rental Housing Production Program 

In this program, funds are available to private developers, non-profit 
organizations, and local governments for the acquisition, construction, 
rehabilitation, or operating costs of buildings to provide rental housing for 
low-income households. The funds are either in the form of deferred payment or 
below market interest loans.

Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program 

This program makes funds available specifically for rehabilitation of rental 
housing for low-and moderate-income households. Interest rates are determined by 
the incomes of the tenants to be served and range from 0 percent to 7.3 percent. 
Water and Sewer Assistance Program This program makes funds available to provide 
running water, and septic and sewer services to properties owned and/ or 
occupied by low-income households. Funds may also be used to pay "hook-up" fees 
where such fees are required.

Handicapped Grants for Structural Modifications 

Physically disabled residents are eligible for grants up to $3,000 to effect 
structural modifications enhancing accessibility. Elderly Rental Housing Program 
This program provides funds for new construction or substantial rehabilitation 
of housing units specifically for elderly households. The funds are used in 
tandem with other monies and are provided in the form of deferred payment loans. 
The CHD is also the county administrator of federal programs funding housing for 
low-and moderate-income households such as Section 8, Section 312, Rental 
Rehabilitation Program.

Community Development Block Grants, and Urban Homesteading Program. 

In addition to direct financial assistance, HCD has bond authority for tax-
exempt financing for rehabilitation and\ or acquisition of multifamily u n i t s 
. Although there are no programs specifically concentrated on fire safety, the 
county enforces its new fire sprinkler ordinance in addition to requiring smoke 
detectors be present in all residential buildings.

56 CHAPTER 4 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 

LOCAL FIRE EXPERIENCE 

High-risk populations include the elderly, the very young, and people with 
limited ability to move without assistance. In St. Louis, 18.7 percent of the 
population is 55 years old or older and 3.7 percent is four years old or 
younger. Physical handicaps limit the mobility of 1.1 percent of the population. 
To respond to the firefighting needs of the city, the St. Louis Fire Department 
maintains the forces listed in Table 5-1:

TABLE 5-l ST. LOUIS FIRE DEPARTMENT 

Stations (engine and ladder) (average coverage of 1.3 square miles per station) 
30 
Heavy Duty Rescue Squads 2 Firefighters 641 
Firefighters on duty during each of 3 shifts 162 
Fire chiefs 24 
Fire chiefs on duty during each of 3 shifts 8 
Fire Districts (average of 6.3 square miles per district) 6 
Fire hydrants 15,484 

Source: St. Louis Fire Departmen t, Office of Fire Investigations 

Any city as large as St. Louis is almost certain to experience residential fire 
fatalities each year, and a disproportionate share of victims will be either 
elderly or very young. Although the over-55 and under-4 population combined 
represent only 22 percent of St. Louis's population, these groups accounted for 
56 percent of the fire fatalities during a 3 l/ 2 year period. Further, fire 
deaths are more likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods defined as 
neighborhoods where property values are lower than average and a higher than 
average proportion of people live in poverty. The central residential district 
(CRD) of St, Louis, site of the sprinkler project, encompasses nine postal zip 
codes classified by St. Louis city officials as low-and moderate-income 
neighborhoods. These neighborhoods (including Lafayette Park) accounted for 66 
percent of St. Louis's fire fatalities between 1985 and July, 1988. even though 
only 55 percent of the city's population resides there. Table 5-2 shows the 
recent trends for both the city as a whole and for the central residential 
district while Figure 9 plots the location of the fatalities in the CRD (by zip 
code) on a map of the city.

TABLE 0-2 RESIDENTIAL CIVILIAN FIRE FATALITIES-ST. LOUlS 


YEAR  NO. OF CIVILIAN FIRE DEATHS (RESI) 55 & OLDER OR 4 & YNGER # % 1IN LOW-
INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS # %

1985 14 7 50 10 71 
1986 18* 7 39 12 67 
1987 12 10 83 8 6 7 
1988 12 8 67 7 58 ( Through July) 
TOTAL 56 32 57 37 66 

* One fire with 4 deaths 

Source: St. Louis Fire Department, Office of Fire Investigations 

PROJECT INITIATION 

The National Research Center's tentative selection of St. Louis led to an 
invitation to CDA to participate in the (federally-funded] technical assistance 
program, The National Research Center notified CDA of availability of federal 
money to enhance fire safety among urban low-income populations, though the 
funding sources (USFA and HUD) required the funds to be used in conjunction with 
other CDBG funds allocated to rehabilitation of low-income housing. Therefore, 
the National Research Center informed CDA of its responsibility to identify 
buildings imminently scheduled to undergo CDBG-assisted rehabilitation and 
occupied (or scheduled to be) by low-income tenants. In addition, the National 
Research Center assisted CDA in evaluating buildings for technical feasibility 
with fire sprinkler installation before final selection of the subject building. 
Further, CDA staff contacted other city departments relevant to fire safety. CDA 
communicated with the St. Louis Fire Department, the St. Louis Water Department, 
and the St. Louis Building Commissioner. The decision of Mayor Vincent C. 
Schoemehl, Jr., formally activated St. Louis participation in the fire sprinkler 
technical assistance project.

In an orientation meeting in St. Louis on December 17, 1986, National Research 
Center staff met with the following city officials:

St. Louis Fire Department: Fire Marshal George Jenkerson and Sprinkler Inspector 
Les Jenkins 

CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 57 

FIGURE 9 
LOCATION OF BUILDING, CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FIRE FATALITIES 

5 8 CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Building Department: Acting Building Commissioner Ray Dailey and Assistant to 
the Commissioner John Soell 

Water Department: Chief Engineer Frank Herron 

Community Development Agency; Project Managers Jim Sackett and Don Bollinger 

In attendance also were Dave Gagen and Bob Weinschenker, head of the apprentice 
program and the residential chairman respectively, of the Sprinkler Fitters 
Union, and Bill Varone, representative of Grinnell Fire Protection Systems 
Company, Inc., and of the Executive Council of the Sprinklers Contractors Union. 
The non-city personnel were invited by Fire Marshal Jenkerson to help plan the 
project. As one of the largest sprinkler contractor companies in the world, 
Grinnell was in the opinion of the St. Louis Fire Department well qualified to 
install the sprinkler system. The National Research Center concurred with the 
fire department's selection of Grinnell owing to Grinnell's experience in design 
and installation of sprinkler systems and credibility with the St. Louis Fire 
Department, Building Department, and Water Department.

National Research Center staff outlined the project and in the ensuing 
discussion, highlighted ambiguities in application of NFPA 13 and 13D in 
multifamily buildings. Even though ambiguity over application of NFPA 13 and 13D 
could be resolved through design of a system using a modified NFPA 13D standard, 
the parties agreed that the St. Louis project should in part focus on 
development of a new sprinkler standard for multifamily residences. Any new 
standard would have to balance adequate fire protection with affordability 
concerns. Chief Jenkerson stated that the fire department was in favor of 
installing sprinkler systems in multifamily buildings, noting that the 
department would encourage use of sprinklers.

In the months following the meeting, CDA staff identified buildings as potential 
sites for sprinkler installation. The CDA received building selection criteria 
from the National Research Center and then added the agency's requirements for 
participation in subsidized rehabilitation. Primary among the city's criteria 
are the need for site control on the part of a developer, location in a targeted 
neighborhood, projects affordable to moderate-income families, units of three or 
more bedrooms, and projects encouraging stability of neighborhoods. The city can 
reject an application to the subsidized rehabilitation program for failing to 
meet any one of these criteria as well as for a lack of financial feasibility. A 
part of the building selection process included hydraulic calculations for each 
candidate site to determine the adequacy of the water supply to support a 
sprinkler system.

Developer Stephen Beyer of The Pride Organization (Pride) responded to a routine 
request for proposals. In compliance with city ownership requirements Mr. Beyer 
formed Lafayette Avenue Limited Partnership as the owner of a building Pride 
would rehabilitate. The building was scheduled for major rehabilitation and 
satisfied the other selection criteria for sprinkler installations.

In September 1987, Brian A. Murphy, Housing Section Supervisor, for the St. 
Louis Community Development Agency, sent a letter to Mr. Beyer to formally 
notify him that his building had been selected for participation in the fire 
sprinkler system technical assistance project. The building, located at 2102 
Lafayette Avenue has three stories and a basement and contains four units that 
range in size from 800 to 1750 square feet. It is a free-standing masonry 
structure built around 1880, situated on a corner lot. Total area is 
approximately 8.000 square feet. Prior to rehabilitation. the building was 
unoccupied and in deteriorated condition. The adjacent neighborhood known as 
Lafayette Park contains mostly townhouses built in the late 19th century, and 
recently has been the site of much housing rehabilitation. [See Figure 9 for 
location of the building).

The letter from CDA stated the department's willingness to reimburse Mr. Beyer 
for the costs of installing a fire sprinkler system, including design and site 
work. Funds for reimbursement would come from a grant to CDA from USFA. 
contingent upon execution of a written agreement between CDA and Mr. Beyer. 
Costs were to be in accordance with the budget approved by USFA, with fire 
sprinkler installation costing up to $12,800 and site work up to $5.000. Site 
work included water taps, water lines, and trenching. In addition, the fire 
department and CDA agreed to a USFA request to conduct a public outreach program 
for the project budgeted at $5,000. Mr. Beyer agreed to pay any additional 
sprinkler installation costs above the budgeted amount. Grant provisions 
disallowed transfer of funds in excess of 5 percent between cost categories 
without approval from FEMA. Other conditions contained in the letter included: 
compliance with all rules and regulations of the funding source for the project, 
including but not limited to inspection of the subject building prior to funding 
commitment;

CHAPTER 8 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 59 

CDA approval of the project: execution of a third-party agreement for system 
work: submission of all required documents; and compliance with any other 
requirements of CDA. In response to the letter, Mr. Beyer wrote to Jim Sackett, 
Project Manager with CDA, to acknowledge his formal participation in the 
project.

All participants agreed to communicate regularly during the design and 
installation phases, with meetings scheduled in St. Louis as necessary and, if 
possible, in conjunction with site visits by National Research Center personnel. 
The parties also agreed that telephone conversations and/ or written 
communication would be necessary to secure input regarding system design. 
Photographs of the rehabilitation of the building would be taken by the National 
Research Center including installation of the sprinkler system, together with 
"before and after" views of construction.

After informing all participants of their roles and of the overall goals of the 
program, National Research Center began the design phase of the sprinkler 
system. Frontal view of 2102 Lafayette Avenue prior to rehabilitation.

Frontal view of 2102 Lafayette Avenue prior to rehabilitation. 

Side view prior to rehabilitation. 

60 CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Portion of Lafayette Avenue with "For Lease" sign in front of No. 2102. 

Exterior of 2102 Lafayette Avenue during rehabilitation. 

BUILDING REHABILITATION 

The subject building was substantially rehabilitated including new floors, 
walls, ceilings, doors, windows, and utilities. Total cost for rehabilitation 
design and construction (excluding the fire sprinkler system) was $405.000. 
Further, HUD asked the National Research Center to identify ways the building 
could be made more energy efficient. National Research Center staff engineers 
made the following recommendations that were included in the construction: 

insulation in walls and ceilings (R-l1 and R-30 respectively) 

installation of double glazed windows 

replace kitchen appliances 

SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 

Early in the project, the city brought in Code Consultants. Inc., to design the 
system. The firm had volunteered to develop the design free of charge as a way 
to gain publicity in what they saw as a lucrative and expanding residential 
sprinkler market. At the same time, the fire department selected Grinnell to 
install the system. As design and planning proceeded, Code Consultants withdrew 
from the project and Grinnell proceeded with system design. The sprinkler system 
final design was a coordinated effort between the National Research Center, 
Grinnell, and Steve Beyer, building owner. An overview of major issues in 
designing sprinkler systems is presented in the Introduction.

Water Service 

The hydraulic calculations and subsequent tests were based on two heads open 
simultaneously, a "two-head design." (See Appendix F for an example of the 
hydraulic calculations for the building). The St. Louis Fire Department 
determined that the planned installation of a new one-inch water line would need 
to be upsized to 1 l/ 2 inches for provision of pressure necessary for the 
sprinkler system. This meant one-third of the new water service to the building 
was installed solely for the sprinkler system. Local authorities required 
installation of a control manifold with single check valve back-flow prevention 
to stop water in the sprinkler pipes from mixing with the domestic water supply. 
Friction loss in the back-flow preventer is likely to cause a 5-10 pound per 
square inch reduction in the water pressure of the sprinkler system,

CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 61 

FIGURE 10 
FLOOR PLAN AND SPRINKLER CONFIGURATION 

62 CHAPTER 6 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 

and this loss has been factored into the design delivery of the sprinkler heads. 
The control manifold has a pressure gauge, drain and test valve, and a flow-
activated alarm switch connected to an electric warning bell. In addition, a 
shutoff valve operable without special equipment was not allowed by the fire 
department on the sprinkler water supply to prevent a potentially disastrous 
disabling of the sprinkler system. External connections were provided making it 
possible to supply the sprinkler system with water from a fire department pumper 
truck (or other external source) in the event of disrupted water supply.

The additional water supply to the building cost $5,000 to design and install, 
of which the National Research Center estimates that $1,500 was attributable to 
the requirements of a residential fire sprinkler system. This expenditure 
included piping and fittings, trenching equipment, and labor. Because the 
sprinkler system is fed from the metered domestic water supply, sprinkler system 
water use also will be metered. Friction loss within the meter is likely to 
cause a 5-10 pound per square inch drop in the water pressure, although to a 
level still adequate for operation of sprinklers.

Old water system prior to rehabilitation. 

Coverage. Location, and Activation of Sprinkler Heads 

In the building at 2102 Lafayette Avenue a total of 107 quick-response heads are 
located, as per spacing requirements found in NFPA 13D (Section 4-1 4.2). 

In the subject building, sprinklers were installed per the requirements of NFPA 
13D. in one large bathroom only and not in closets or other areas not required 
by the code. The sprinkler heads are a pendent type that protrude through drop 
ceilings. The use of drop ceilings simplifies installation because of the 
flexibility of raising or lowering the ceiling for sprinkler installation. Drop 
ceilings however, are less sturdy and often lower the aesthetic quality of the 
room when compared to drywall ceilings (see Figure 10 for location of pipes 
and heads on a floor plan of the building).

In the subject building, the heads are designed to discharge at 165 F. The 
heads were produced by Grinnell (Model F991 in the living units, and Model F954 
in the basement).

Spinkler Svstem Plumbing 

The pipes and risers in the subject building are made of CPVC (brand name 
"Blazemaster"). Although CPVC is fire rated, for aesthetic purposes the piping 
in the subject building is concealed. The new water connection to the building 
from the city main is made of CPVC plastic (other than "Blazemaster") and has no 
fire rating. Due to potential freezing the pipes in the top (third) floor are 
covered with R-30 fiberglass BATTS insulation.

Sprinkler system riser. laterals, and heads "Blazemaster" CPVC Piping-CHAPTER 

5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 63 

INSTALLATION AND TESTING 

After a series of meetings among city officials, Mr. Beyer, and staff from the 
National Research Center, Grinnell began installation of the fire sprinkler 
system at 21O2 Lafayette Avenue in late September 1987, and completed 
installation in early October 1987. A dry static-test using compressed air to 
detect leaks was performed by Grinnell and Mr. Beyer in early October. The 
building rehabilitation construction was completed in early 1988. The 
escutcheons retaining the sprinkler heads were installed after the drywall and 
painting were completed. The units were advertised for rent and three of the 
four units had lease commitments before construction was completed. The fourth 
unit was rented shortly thereafter.

Sprinkler heads in basement ceiling. and Don Bollinger of St. Louis Community 
Development Agency. 

Multiple systems. conditioned air. drain-waste-vent, communication, and fire 
sprinkler. 

Sprinkler system through joists. 

Adjacent water systems--domestic and sprinkler during rehabilitation. 
64 CHAPTER 6 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 

SYSTEM COSTS 

DESIGN AND INSTALLATION COSTS 

Table 5-3 lists the costs for the design and installation of the sprinkler 
system. Total costs for design and installation and the costs per square foot 
were significantly affected, by the costs of increasing the water service. The 
increased water service necessary to operate a sprinkler system, as determined 
by hydraulic calculations, while required in this case may not be in other 
cases, and added an additional 10 percent to the cost of the sprinkler system.

TABLE 5-3 
SPRINKLER SYSTEM COSTS FOR 2102 LAFAYETTE AVENUE 

Engineering and Design $1,500
Material  $ 4,900 
Labor $ 9,168 
Water Service Upgrade for Sprinkler Portion of New Water Service $ 1,500 
TOTAL $17,068 
COST PER SQUARE FOOT $2.13 
COST PER LIVING UNIT $4,267 

Operation and maintenance costs 

Mr. Beyer estimates that his costs for routine inspection and testing will total 
approximately $200 per year. As part of the CDA program to target rehabilitation 
to specific neighborhoods, Mr. Beyer will receive a property tax abatement for 
ten years, that freezes the tax for 2102 Lafayette Avenue at the amount it was 
before the building was rehabilitated. It is too early to assess costs from 
leakage and/ or false activation. As mentioned above, the owner incurred no loan 
financing costs and the sprinkler system water supply is metered along with the 
building's domestic water. There is no monitoring and summoning service.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

Improved Life Safety -Positive Effect on Rental Income 

Mr. Beyer reports rent increases of approximately 6 percent after the building 
was rehabilitated. He recognizes the high rental vacancy rate in St. Louis 
places a ceiling on rents and indicates that any increase in rent directly 
attributable to the presence of sprinklers was minimal.

Property Insurance Discount and Reduced Property Damage 

Mr. Beyer reports that his insurance carrier reduced the annual premium for 
property insurance on 2102 Lafayette Avenue from $2,250 to $1.800, a reduction 
of 20 percent, as a direct response to sprinkler installation. The policy on 
2102 Lafayette Avenue covers up to $425,000 for property loss, essentially 
covering the cost of the rehabilitation and only 65 to 70 percent of replacement 
value. The deductible is $500. The deductible amount as well as the uncovered 
portion of replacement value, approximately $200,000, are sums whose likelihood 
of being lost by Mr. Beyer is reduced by the presence of the fire sprinkler 
system. Further, tenants with individual insurance policies benefit from reduced 
risk of uninsured losses.

Construction Alternatives 

St. Louis uses the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) building 
code. The code requires emergency egress from the third floor of a three-story 
building as well as use of material with a 60-minute fire suppression rating in 
walls separating individual units and in stairwells that serve as emergency 
egress. Due to installation of sprinklers, the building commissioner waived both 
requirements for the building at 2102 Lafayette Ave. National Research Center 
staff has estimated that omitting the egress saved $4,500 from the cost of 
rehabilitation, and the reduction in fire suppression rating saved $150. 
Conversely, in the absence of a BOCA requirement to install drywall on the 
basement ceiling, Mr. Beyer was required by the fire department to install 
drywall to prevent a fire from starting between basement joists. The drywall 
also serves to prepare the area for future installation of dwelling units. The 
dry-walled ceilings cost $1.225 though this amount should not be considered 
attributable to the fire sprinkler system.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

The National Research Center developed an illustrated brochure in conjunction 
with the St. Louis Fire Department and CDA. The brochure describes the function 
and operation of residential fire sprinklers and uses illustrations to support 
the copy. Common misconceptions about residential sprinklers are discussed and 
refuted. The original draft of the brochure will be available for either 
additional production for use in St. Louis or possible adaptation for use by

CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 65 

other jurisdictions. The brochure is being distributed by the fire department to 
building inspectors, engineering societies especially the Society of Fire 
Prevention Engineers, community groups, and the general public.

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, THE CITY AND ITS HOUSING MARKET 

In 1984, the population of St, Louis was 429,296, a decrease of slightly more 
than 5 percent from the 1980 Census total of 453,085. (The city experienced a 
population loss of 27 percent during the 1970s.) The 1980 Census reported 
202,113 units (2.1 people per housing unit), of which 178.000 units were 
occupied for a vacancy rate of 11.9 percent. The type of occupancy in the city 
is 45 percent owner-occupied and 55 percent renter-occupied.

Multifamily structures containing five or more residential units account for 21 
percent of all units. Much of St. Louis's existing vacant stock is in buildings 
of this type. The buildings are located in neighborhoods that experienced wide-
spread abandonment and population loss during the 1960s and 1970s.

Slightly more than 60 percent of St. Louis' 1980 housing stock was built prior 
to 1940. Further, in the period between 1970 and 1980, only 7,400 new units were 
built, representing 3.7 percent of the total stock as of 1980. In 1984, the city 
issued permits for only 444 new private housing units, 71.4 percent of which 
were for multifamily dwellings.

Whether compared to other large cities or to national averages, St. Louis has 
low housing costs. Median sales price for existing houses in the St. Louis 
metropolitan area was $65,700 in 1985; median rents for one bedroom apartments 
were $300 per month. Median city household income, however, was $11,511 in 1980, 
with 71,000 people (16.6 percent) below the poverty level. Housing affordability 
for low-and moderate-income households is a major goal of the city's residential 
rehabilitation programs.

The Structure of the Multi family Rehabilitation Program 

The city of St. Louis administers a comprehensive housing rehabilitation program 
through its CDA. City programs target the rehabilitation of single-and 
multifamily structures, both owner-occupied and rental. CDA also develops 
comprehensive plans to rehabilitate entire neighborhoods.

The private and public sectors in St. Louis have together undertaken substantial 
building rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization. Since 1975. St. Louis 
has received over $311 million in CDBG funds as a result of the federal 
allocation formula's strong emphasis on poverty levels and age of housing. Table 
5-4 presents a limited profile of the population and housing characteristics of 
the city.

TABLE 5-4 ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI COMMUNITY PROFILE 

Population (1985 estimate) 429,296 
Population below poverty level 16.6% 
Population 55 years old and older 18.7% 
Population 4 years old and younger 3.7% 
Population with limited mobiltty 1.1% (U. S. Census defined as persons with 
Iimited ability to use public transit) 
Population density per square mile 11,220 
Population density per housing unit 2.1 
Total Housing Units (1980) 202,113 
Multifamily (five or more units) 21% 
Multifamily (two to four units) 39% 
Single-family 39% 
Age of Housing Built before 1940 60% 
Built between 1970 and 1980 3.7% 
Median Price (1985) All existing units $65.700 
One-Bedroom Rental $ 300 
Vacancy Rate -overall (1980) 11.9% 
Rental vacancy rate 9.3% 
Subsidized housing vacancy rate 0% 

SOURCE: United States Census: St. Louis Community Development Agency. 

The city has used these funds to stimulate and leverage private sector 
investment by creating two innovative housing programs administered by CDA. The 
Housing Implementation Program (HIP) provides low-interest "gap" financing loans 
to rental housing developers investing in targeted neighborhoods. HIP has funded 
between 800 and 1,200 units every year since 1980. The For Sale Incentive 
Program (FSIP) provides financial incentives to buyers who occupy homes 
purchased through the program.

Together, these two programs have helped fund rehabilitation of over 10,700 
housing units since 1978. The development cost of all projects between 1980 and 
1986 totals $2.1 billion.

Each year, the city sets aside a portion of its CDBG funds for operation of HIP 
for rental housing rehabilitation. In addition, CDA pursues other federal and 
state funding sources to expand its resources. Annual adjustments to project 
funding criteria reflect prevailing rental market conditions and agency 
priorities.

66 CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 

In 1985, owners submitted proposals for 79 rental projects: of those, 38 were 
funded and 20 were completed, providing 800 rental units. Typically, the city's 
share of project funding fell between 20 and 35 percent of project cost. The 
rehabilitated buildings were typically 60 years old, made of masonry 
construction, and are situated in targeted neighborhoods. With much of the 
multifamily stock vacant, the city orders a "total" or "gut" rehabilitation of 
the individual units. A typical unit contains 800 square feet and two bedrooms. 
In 90 percent of the units, gas is the energy source for space heating, cooking, 
and domestic hot water.

As part of the agency's CDBG application cycle for the following calendar year, 
CDA publishes requests for proposals and advertisements every October to invite 
owner participation in city programs. CDA staff specialists perform real estate, 
financial, architectural, and fiscal evaluations of the proposals. They apply 
several criteria during review, including building/ site control: condition of 
units; experience and financial status of the owner; development cost 
feasibility: operating cost feasibility; conformance with city and neighborhood 
plans; unit size: affordability of completed units to moderate-income 
households; and incorporation of energy conservation features. The owner 
undertaking rehabilitation sets "fair market" rents based on projections of cash 
flow needed to make the project feasible. The city evaluates the proposed rents 
for comparability with existing rents in the adjacent neighborhood as part of 
the review process.

Upon completion of the evaluation process, CDA staff specialists make 
recommendations to the community development administrator who, in turn, submits 
a recommended list of properties to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, the city's 
legislative authority. Upon the boards resolution of acceptance, CDA staff 
specialists initiate negotiations with owners regarding final details of the 
proposal and the funding agreement. Negotiations may include revisions to the 
financing commitment and design details and a recalculation of the funding 
assistance.

Once rehabilitation of a structure is underway, CDA's involvement is minimal. 
The owner is responsible for initial inspection of the building to determine the 
scope of work. The owner is also responsible for selecting contractors and 
subcontractors to perform the work. In addition, the owner must obtain private 
project financing: the city offers no assistance in obtaining financing from 
private lenders. E n e r g y conservation is a priority in St. Louis' housing 
rehabilitation programs but fire safety audits are not a routine part of the 
initial inspection that precedes development of rehabilitation specifications. 
Although there are no programs specifically concentrated on fire safety, the 
city requires smoke detectors be present in all residential buildings.

CHAPTER 5 SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 67 

APPENDIX A 

SANDBERG FIRE PROTECTION OF TEXAS, INC. 
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER AND FIRE PROTECTION DEVICES 

HYDRAULIC (CALCULATION COVER SHEET) DESIGN 

PROJECT: USFA Fire Sprinkler Demonstration DATE: 11-24-87 

LOCATION: 3501 Pennsylvania Avenue Austin, Texas SYSTEM: 

BUILDING: Duplex Apartment CONTRACT NO.: 1430 
OWNER: Mike M. Leff DRAWING NO.: 2 of 2 

CALCULATED BY: CEILING HT.: 8'-0" 

CONSTRUCTION: Wood Frame on Raised Crawl Space Composition Shingle, GYP. BD 
interior 

OCCUPANCY: 2 Family Dwelling 

APPROVING AUTHORITIES: City of Austin Fire Marshal 

SYSTEM DESIGN 

SYSTEM TYPE: Wet 
DESIGN: NFPA-13D 
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: 
UNDERGROUND "C" FACTOR: 150 OVERHEAD "C" FACTOR: 150 
REMOTE AREA: 2 HEADS SPRINKLERS 
DENSITY: 13GPM/ HD MAKE: Central MAX. COVERAGE: MODEL: OMEGA "R-l" 
INSIDE HOSE ALLOWANCE: N/ A ORIFICE: 3/ 8" OUTSIDE HOSE ALLOWANCE: N/ A "X" 
FACTOR: 3.85 
RACK ALLOWANCE: N/ A TEMPERATURE: 160 
FLOW TEST 
DATE: 11-24-87 
TIME: 9: 00 a. m. 
STATIC: 75 
RESIDUAL: 47 
FLOW: 730 
ELEVATION: 
BY: S. F. P. 

PUMP DATA 
RATED PRESSURE: RATED FLOW: N/ A 
ELEVATION: 

TANK 
CAPACITY: 
ELEVATlON: N/ A 
OVERFLOW: 

COMMODITY STORAGE 

COMMODITY: 
CLASS: N/ A 
AREA OF STORAGE: N/ A 
STORAGE HT.: 
AISLE WIDTH: N/ A 

201 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78745 PHONE: 5124456198 

P. O. BOX 19172 AUSTIN, TX 78760 512-445-5438 

A-1 

FIRE PROTECTION PLUS, INC. 
33 THELMA ROAD 
FRAMI NGHAM, MA 01701-8019 
(617) 875-0772 

HYDRAULIC SPRINKLER CALCULATIONS for 
779 HUNTINGTON AVENUE 
BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 

This Sprinkler system is Iaid out in accordance with NFPA 13 Criteria, 
"INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, 1985", appropriate sections as applicable to 
this type occupancy. Specific sections are: Sections; 1-3 "DweIIing Unit', 2-2. 
1.2.8 "Exception", 3-16.2.9, 4-1. 1.2, 7-4.4 Thru 7-4.4. 5 and any other 
sections and/ or standards referenced by these sections. The designer has not 
been retained, at this time, beyond the basic compliance check of Hydraulic 
Calculations and assumes no responsibiIity for: Information Supplied, 
Construction, or Quality of Materials Supplied. It is required that the system 
be Hydraulicly Tested after instalIation. 

DESIGN DATA 

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: Light Hazard 
NUMBER OF SPRINKLERS CALCULATED: 4 
SPRINKLER HEAD: Central Omega 
MODEL: R-l Pendant 
"K" FACTOR: 3.85 
DENSITY: 0.09-0. 066 (GPM/ SF) 
APPLICATION AREA: 14 X 14= 196 SF (MAX/ SPKLR) X 4 = 784 SF TOTAL 
WATER REQUIRED: 36 GPM @ 21.9 PSI HEAD PRESSURE 
52 GPM @ 11.4 PSI HEAD PRESSURE 

DESIGNED FOR 
MR. CAREY LIVELY 
NAHB 
400 PRINCE GEORGES CENTER BLVD.  
UPPER MARLBORO, MD. 20772-8731  

DESIGNER 
FIRE PROTECTION PLUS, INC. 
33 THELMA RD.
FRAMAINGHAM, MA 01701-8019 
(617) 875-0772

OCTOBER 31, 1986 

B-1 

APPENDIX D 

COURSE OUTLINE 
RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER INSTALLERS 

I. Opening/ Introduction.

II. History of Sprinkler Systems.

III Fire Loss Record 

A. Grima Statistics. 
B. National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. 
C. Recommendations. 

IV. Evaluation and Technology of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems.

A. Previous Technology. 
B. Pioneers. 
C. Research. 

V. Concept.

A. Commercial. 
B. Residential 
C. Life Safety vs. Property Protection. 

VI. N. F. P. A. Standards 

A. NFPA 13. (Installation of Sprinkler Systems 1987) 

1. Covers Commercial properties and residential properties with three families 
and above. 

a. Sections covering residential properties. 
Sect. #l-3. Defines Dwelling Unit. 
#2-2.1.2.8. Sets Water Supply Requirements. 
[References Sect. #7-4.4] 
#3-16.2.9. Allows Residential Technology to be 
applied and references 13D. 
#4-1.1.2. Addresses positioning again 
references 13-D. 
#7-4.4 thru 7-4.4.5. Covers all aspects of 
the installation within 
dwelling Unit. 

B. NFPA 13-A. (Inspections Testing and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems.) 
C. NFPA 13-D. (Sprinkler Systems -One and Two Family Dwellings and Mobile 
Homes). 
D. Automatic Sprinkler System Handbook. 

FIRE PROTECTION PLUS INC. 
33 Thelma Road Framingham, Ma. 01701 (617) 875-0772 

D-1 

VII. Design and Layout.

A. Types of pipe that are acceptable. 
B. Water requirements. 
C. Calculation of friction loss and other system requirements. 
D. Alarming the System. 
1. Local alarm. 
2. Monitored. 

VIII. Installation Methods. 
 
A. Tip and Pitfalls. 

IX. Testing. 

A. Pressure and leak test pipe tree. 
B. Water flow test. 
C. Sprinkler head leak test. 

X. Permits. 

A. Local. 
1. Building Department. 
2. Fire Department. 
3. Water Department District. 
B. State. 

XI. Insurance Industry. 

A. Premium Reduction. 
1. 180 15% to 20% in at least 38 states. 
2. Travelers Insurance. 50% depending on building. 

XII. Public Relations. 

FIRE PROTECTION PLUS INC. 
33 Thelma Road Framingham, Ma. 01701 (617) 875-0772 

D-2 

APPENDIX F 
SPRINKLER SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Page 1 HOUSE 
Date: 06-24-1987 
JOA TITLE: 2102 LAFAYETTE AVE 

WATER SUPPLY DATA 

SOURCE NODE TAG STATIC PRESS.(PSI) RESID. PRESS.(PSI) @ FLOW (GPM) 
AVAIL.PRESS.(PSI)  @ TOTAL DEMAND (GPM) REQ'D PRESS. (PSI) 
 
11 45.0 34.0 1359.0 45.0 26.2 43.5 

AGGREGATE FLOW ANALYSIS: 

TOTAL FLOW AT SOURCE 26.2 GPM 
OTAL HOSE STREAM ALLOWANCE AT SOURCE 0.0 GPM 
OTHER HOSE STREAM ALLOWANCES 0.0 GPM 
TOTAL DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE SPRINKLERS 26.2 GPM 

NODE ANALYSIS DATA 

NODE TAG ELEVATION (FT) NODE TYPE PRESSURE (PSI) DISCHARGE (GPM)

1 46.0 K= 4.20 9.6 13.0
2 46.0 K= 4.20 9.8 13.1 
3 47.0 ----9.6 -------
4 47.0 ----9.9 ------
5 47.0 ----10.------
6 6 35.0 ----18.2 ------
7 21.0 ----26.3 ------
8 21.0 ----27.7 ------
9 7.0 ----36.0 ------
10 3.0 ----39.5 ------
11 0.0 SOURCE 43.5 26.2 

F-l 

APPENDIX Page 2 

SPRINKLER SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 
JOB TITLE: 2102 LAFAYETTE AVE 

F-2 

SPRINKLER SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS page 3 
JOB TITLE: 2102 LAFAYETTE AVE 
WATE'R SUPPLY CURVE