This document was scanned from hard copy to portable document format (PDF)

and edited to 99.5% accuracy. Some formatting errors not detected during the

optical character recognition process may appear.
NOTICE

This report was produced for the United States Fire

Administration and the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Dcvclopmcnt as an account of work

conducted under Cooperative Agreemcnt No. 12963. The

contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views

or policies of the U.S. Government.

Neithcr the U.S. Government nor the NAHB National

Research Center endorses products or manufacturers.

Manufacturers’ and trade names that appear herein were

retained because they were considered important to the

understanding of the report.
FINAL REPORT

RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS

RETROFIT DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT

Phase II: Single Family Structures

Cooperative Agreement No. HA-12963

Submitted to:

U.S. Fire Administration

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

Prepared by:

NAHB National Research Center

400 Prince George’s Boulevard

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-8731

Project No.: 2091

June 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1

BACKGROUND ............................................... 2

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ....................................... 5

OTHER PHASE II COSTS .......................................

Design Costs .................................................

Mechanical Systems Costs ........................................

Water Department and Other Fees .................................

Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO BUILDING OWNERS INSTALLING

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Property Insurance Discount ......................................

Reduced Property Damage Costs ...................................

Construction Alternatives ........................................

Improved Marketability of Units With Sprinklers .......................

PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS .....................

15

15

17

17

18

20

20

21

22

22

23

.i
INTRODUCTION

The goal of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) is to reduce the number of fire deaths and

injuries occurring annually in the United States. They recognize, and statistics show, that

certain populations face disproportionately high risk of death and injury due to fire. Those

“high risk” groups include children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and low income

households. Furthermore, most residential fire fatalities in the U.S. occur in older structures

rather than new homes. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

has a common interest in the older housing stock, particularly the thousands of low income

units that undergo rehabilitation with HUD subsidies. The USFA and HUD believe that by

retrofitting fire suppression systems in existing high risk dwellings, significant reductions can

be made in the loss of life and property.

In September 1989, the USFA released a report entitled ‘Residential Fire Sprinklers Retrofit

Demonstration Project - Phase I: Multifamily Structures.” That document reported findings

from a cooperative technical assistance project between the USFA, HUD, and the NAHB

National Research Center (Research Center). The primary objective of the project was to

investigate the technical and regulatory barriers to including residential fire sprinklers in HUDfunded multifamily rehabilitation projects. Phase I successfully installed fire sprinkler systems

in 51 occupied units. As reported in the Phase I Final Report, a second Phase was in progress

which focused on single-family units in other jurisdictions around the U.S.

This Final Report represents a summary of the information gathered and lessons learned by

the Research Center during Phase II of the project. It includes both qualitative and

quantitative information, as well as closing recommendations. Some information from Phase

I has been repeated so comparisons could be made between single- and multifamily buildings.

In addition, the Research Center has compiled site-specific information into Case Studies for

each of the participating communities. The Case Studies are the companion document to this

report and detail on a site-by-site basis the project history, community characteristics, sprinkler

system design, installation, and costs, as well as local Outreach efforts. Copies of the Phase

I and Phase II Case Studies as well as the Phase I Final Report are available from the USFA

as separate publications. Fact Sheets for each of the sites are included at the end of this

report. They provide names and phone numbers of key persons, building photographs, and

other site-specific information for each of the participating communities.

1
BACKGROUND

Communities participating in Phase II of the project were: the City and County of Denver,

Colorado; the City of Seattle, Washington; the State of Florida; and the State of Ohio.

Installations were successfully accomplished in three of these jurisdictions. Ten structures

comprising a total of 19 households were retrofitted with NFPA-13D systems; nine of the

structures were single-family detached homes. The Seattle building was a large Victorian house

which had been converted to a IO-unit apartment house. All the buildings were undergoing

rehabilitation when the systems were installed, and all except the apartment house were owneroccupied. Each of the structures engaged for the project was rehabilitated with financial

assistance from HUD, provided through the local community development agency. In addition,

the participating sites received separate grants from USFA for funding of the actual fire

sprinkler system installation. The USFA grants were comprised of two parts: monies for the

actual sprinkler system installation; and, a smaller part earmarked for a local public education,

or Outreach effort. The type of Outreach program done at each site was largely at the

discretion of the local grantee, and included such things as fire sprinkler brochures, workshops

and training sessions, slide shows, videos, and local media events.

To make a logical comparison of single- and

multifamily buildings, some Phase I and Phase II

data is intermingled in the tables and charts that

follow. That is, though Austin was a Phase I site,

the buildings selected there were actually singlefamily attached units (duplexes). Similarly, Seattle

was a Phase II site but the building selected was

a large Victorian style mansion which had been

converted to apartments; thus, it will be classified

as a multifamily building. Table 1 is a summary

of the class of buildings that participated in Phase

Table I. Classes of Buildings in Phase I and

Phase II.

I and Phase II of the project. For the bar charts and computed average costs, Austin and

Seattle were classified accordingly.

Three NFPA sprinkler standards were used as reference through the course of the four-year

project. They were NFPA-13: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems; NFPA-13D:

2
Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile

Homes; and NFPA-13R: Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies

Up To Four Stories in Height. In general, interpretation and compliance to these standards

were at the discretion of the authority having jurisdiction. Installations were done by

experienced local fire sprinkler contractors. Permits, plan reviews, and inspections were

conducted according to local practice.

The “quick response” sprinkler heads used in all these installations and required by NFPA13D differ from commercial sprinkler heads in the properties of the fusible element. The time

required for the sprinkler head to be exposed

to the activation temperature before flow is

initiated has been significantly decreased in

quick response heads. Also, the physical

appearance of the residential heads is designed

to be less obtrusive. Figure 1 shows a typical

quick response head for residential

installations. Most sprinkler head

manufacturers now offer quick response heads

for residential and light commercial

applications. The design premise of NFPA13D residential fire sprinkler systems utilizing

quick response heads is to control incipient

fires in the room of fire origin for up to 10 Figure 1. Typical Quick Response Pendent Sprinkler

minutes. Head for Residential Applications. (Courtesy of the

Central Sprinkler Company).

The Research Center’s primary role in the project was to provide technical assistance to the

grantees, facilitate the incorporation of residential fire sprinkler systems (RFS) into the selected

buildings, and document all pertinent information for reporting purposes. Local fire and

community development departments selected the buildings and contracted with local sprinkler

installers. Research Center staff provided on-site assistance to these activities on an as-needed

basis. Typically, the Research Center activities included moderating between local government

agencies, resolving administrative obstacles, reviewing bids and cost estimates, and generally

3
providing impetus for successful completion of the project. The Research Center also provided

administrative support to the sites on all matters regarding the FEMA/USFA grants.

When comparing buildings that are similar, the cost of RFS is best expressed as the cost persquare-foot of included area. “Included area” covers not only areas that are sprinklered, but

also areas that were allowed to remain unsprinklered by the local authorities; or, the total area

subjected to and approved by the fire department plan review.’ In most residential systems,

this includes the total interior space. For example, a bathroom or closet in a sprinklered

building would be considered “included area” even though it was not required to be sprinklered.

It was on this basis that the “per-square-foot” costs are computed in this report.

1

 In the Phase 1 Final Report, we referred to this area as “protected” area. The

nomenclature has been changed here for clarity.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The variety of characteristics encountered, such as size, construction, existing conditions, and

uses of the buildings, provided a broad range of experience and information about retrofitting

fire sprinklers in residential buildings undergoing rehabilitation. Useful information was

generated regarding the technical and regulatory issues, design criteria, costs, and other

practical aspects of retrofit systems. In many cases we found that day-to-day obstacles were

administrative in nature, rather than technical or regulatory. Information from these

installations may be useful to USFA and HUD when formulating future strategies to address

the fire problem in existing residential structures. The costs of the systems and other key

observations from the project are summarized below.

Total Installed Costs: Single vs. Multifamily. The multifamily buildings were sprinklered

for an average of $2.23/square foot, while single-family buildings averaged $3.17/square

foot. The lowest costs incurred on a square foot basis were single family installations

in Orange Park (FLA-l), Quincy (FLA3), and Tampa (FLA-7) at $1.50, $1.42, and

$1.50, respectively. Prince George’s County, the second largest building in the project

at 16,660 square feet, nearly matched these with an installed cost of $1.51 per square

Figure 2. Total Installed Costs for Multifamily

Buildings.

Figure 3. Total Installed Costs for Single Family

Buildings.

5
foot. The fixed costs of sprinkler systems, such as contractor start-up costs, plan reviews,

and water hook-ups, have a greater impact on the cost per-square-foot in smaller

buildings than in larger buildings. These costs are more easily absorbed in the costs of

sprinklering large buildings. Figures 2 and 3 shows the total installed costs per-squarefoot for both classes of buildings, and illustrate this economy of scale.

In general, the systems in Florida were the most economical of the single-family

buildings - all but one were installed for less than $2/square foot. The cooperation of

the Florida Fire Sprinkler Association and the State Fire Marshal’s office in all seven

installations had a decided influence on the final costs of these systems. Coordination,

logistical, and administrative issues were less a problem in Florida than in some other

sites where only one or two systems were installed. FLA-4 in rural Jefferson County

was a system utilizing a booster pump and storage system and was the only one of its

kind in the project. As indicated in Figure 3, its cost was nearly $4/square foot. The

Denver systems, installed by a commercial-based contractor, had the highest per-squarefoot cost of all sites and clearly drove the average cost for the single-family homes

upward. At the time of this reporting, additional work was required at the Denver sites,

so the costs were adjusted accordingly based on estimates made by the contractor and

Research Center staff for completion of work. We observed that the relatively high

fixed costs and low profit margin associated with small buildings served as a disincentive

to contractors for such work. In fact, the project team had difficulty securing bids to do

the work in Denver.

The Seattle system was particularly expensive at $3.72 per square foot due to the

architectural constraints of the building. These costs reflect, in part, the influence floor

plan complexity and room size can have on the total cost. Also, because the system

piping could not be concealed without major additional expense, copper piping was used

throughout for aesthetic and durability reasons. This may have been at least partly

responsible for driving this cost upward.

Material Costs: Single vs. Multifamily. Figures 4 and 5 show the material costs for the

single- and multifamily buildings as reported by the contractors. Economies of scale are

evident here as the multifamily buildings had an average material cost of $0.83 per

6
square foot while single-family buildings incurred an average of $0.92 per square foot.

The high material costs associated with Seattle’s system are presumably related to the

copper pipe system installed there. Otherwise, the material costs per-square-foot for the

other four multifamily sites are in close agreement, between 50 and 65 cents per-squarefoot.

FLA-4 on Figure 5 was a rural installation without city water that employed a packaged

booster pump and storage system. The cost of the package alone was reported as

$2,250, which accounted for 50 percent of the total installed cost of the system.

Although two fire departments expressed the need for sprinklers in outer rural areas

Figure 4. Materials Costs at Multifamily Installations,

Dollars Per Square Foot.

Figure 5. Materials Costs in Single Family Structures,

Dollars Per Square Foot.

where engine company response times can be high, these costs suggest that more

economical solutions must be sought. At a total installed cost of $4,542 for the booster

system, few home owners would be willing or able to make this kind of investment.

There was no clear evidence as to why the cost of materials at the two Denver

installations was so high.

Labor Costs: Single vs. Multifamily. Costs for labor in the multifamily buildings

averaged $1.07 square foot, about 48 percent of the total. Figure 6 shows that labor

costs among those five sites varied between $0.84 and $1.36 per-square-foot. These

costs are in reasonable agreement considering the diversity in geographic location. As

7
with materials, the costs for labor suggests an economy of scale with the single-family

projects reporting labor costs of $1.51 per square foot (Figure 7), 41 percent higher than

the multifamily buildings on a square foot basis.

Austin and Florida were in relative agreement on labor costs around $1 per square foot

while costs in Denver of $3.41 and $5.07 per square foot were 2 to 3 times the average

for single family homes. Again, there was no clear reason why costs in Denver were so

high. However, there was difficulty in

finding interested bidders for the work,

and the Community Development 1.20

Agency had only two bids from which

to select. Labor costs exceeded

material costs by 64 percent in all the 0.70

0.30

Phase II single-family homes.

(l.Q

4 0.30

a.30 Cost Sensitivity. As reported in Phase o,,D

I, some installation costs are avoided o.m

when systems are installed during “gut” Figure 6. Labor Costs At Multifamily Buildings,

rehabs. Gut rehabs lend themselves to

Dollars Per Square Foot.

easier installation because of easy access to inner wall cavities. If wall cavities are not

exposed, additional work is typically required to protect the piping or make it more

aesthetically acceptable. Total cost is also sensitive to the geometry of the protected

spaces. Irregularly shaped areas, or

“compartments”, tend to require

supplemental sprinkler heads to achieve

the coverages specified by NFPA

standards, thus driving costs upward.

This was the case in Seattle, where the

floor plan was complex and the existing

plaster walls were left in place.

Figure 7. Labor Costs At Single Family Buildings,

Dollars Per Square Foot.
In the Phase I Final Report, we reported on the “coverage efficiency” of the installation, i.e.,

square feet of protected area per sprinkler head. This information is repeated in Table 2, and

compared with coverages achieved in single-family dwellings. For a single quick response

sprinkler head, NFPA-13D allows a maximum coverage of 144 square feet, unless the head is

certified for extended coverage. Some extended coverage heads will sprinkle an area as large

as 20’ x 20’ if adequate pressure is available. The table suggests that 144 SF per head is rarely

achieved in actual residential installations.

potential demands of the sprinkler

system continued to be an issue in the

Phase II buildings. In many of the

homes enrolled in rehabilitation

programs around the country, including

some of those in this project, either the

capacity or condition of the water service

is antiquated, especially when additional

bath and kitchen fixtures are added

during the property remodeling. Typical

water service size for a single family

home is 3/4-inch. Depending on

hydraulic conditions at the site, RFS

Additional Water Capacities. Providing Table II. Comparisons of Single and Multifamily

Coverage Efficiencies.

new or upgraded water service to meet 

installations may require an increase in total flow capacity or reduction of friction losses.

This can be accomplished by adding a new dedicated tap off the city water main, or

increasing the size of the existing water service. Again, the economy of these systems

in single-family homes is considerably more sensitive to the costs of these upgrades than

the larger buildings.

The engineering and construction requirements for this work are ordinary, but the water

department fees can be significant. Most “tap fees” vary with the size of the new

connection, and the additional connections to city water may or may not be metered,

depending on local policy. In Prince George’s County, for example, the local water

9
department’s current policy is not to charge for water used to fight fires; thus, sprinkler

systems can be unmetered. This is beneficial to the engineer too, since the pressure

drop through a water meter is typically about 5 psi. The current policy applies to

multifamily sprinkler systems, and is expected to extend to single-family homes as well

when their single-family ordinance goes into effect in January 1992.

In lieu of metered usage, fixed monthly stand-by fees are sometimes charged for an

additional sprinkler service connection. This project was directly responsible for

initiating consideration of a new water department policy for residential sprinkler

systems in Denver where water use is a sensitive political issue. In this case the water

department yielded to pressure from the fire department to waive a substantial tap fee

for the sprinkler installations in the two single-family homes there. As of February

1990, the Denver City council is considering a new policy for water charges for

residential fire sprinklers, based on the experiences from this pilot project.

When the project commenced, a letter from the Denver water department summarized

its policy on residential fire sprinkler systems as follows:

"... there are two methods of providing fire sprinkler protection to

residential structures. The first requires a new fire sprinkler

connection to the water main. This connection must be minimum size

of 2 inches, will not be metered, and will not require the payment” of

tap fees. “A monthly standby charge is assessed for fire line

connections,” equal to $4.75 for connections under 4 inches in size.

Secondly, a fire sprinkler connection can be made to the service line

downstream of the meter. After exiting the meter pit, the service line

can be upsized to reduce excessive friction losses without incurring tap

fees. If the water main tap, supply line between the tap and the

meter, and the meter (which must all be same size) is upsized, the

following charges will be assessed:

Increase service from 3/4 to 1 inch - $ 2,730;

Increase service from 1 to l-1/2 inch - $ 5,460;

Increase service from l-1/2 to 2 inch - $10,920.

The charge “is based on the amount of potential flow to the structure,

and as such is established by the size of the tap. Increasing the

domestic tap size, for whatever reason increases potential flow to the

structure and hence increases the need for additional raw water,

treatment, pumping, storage, and delivery capacity.”

10
As a matter of policy these fees, which do not include the actual construction costs, are

not extraordinary; but the exemption for sprinkler systems is based on commercial

sprinkler systems requiring a 2-inch service. No exemptions were given to small NFPA13D systems, and until now none was requested. To summarize, the contractor’s first

option in this case was to install a dedicated 2-inch fire line to the single-family home

with no tap fees. Now, the installation of a 2-inch water service to a single-family home

would have been acceptable for this one-time demonstration, but would not be costeffective as a common practice for future systems. The second option was a l-inch tap

downstream of the meter pit with no tap fees. A tap downstream of the meter would

not resolve the hydraulic flow and pressure inadequacies at that site. Finally, the third

option was to upsize the complete water service from 3/4 to 1 inch at a cost of $2,730

plus construction costs. To ensure adequate pressure head to the sprinkler system, the

subcontractor selected the third option, although under ordinary circumstances a $2,730

tap fee would render this or any single-family RFS system uneconomical. Effectively

doubling the cost of the system, the fees certainly put the cost of an RFS system out of

reach for most home owners. Meanwhile, the fire department was interested in using

this opportunity to pursue water department policy changes so as not to discourage

future installations of systems of this type. After notification to the water department

of the nature and purpose of the project and some negotiations with the fire department,

the tap fees (for these two houses only) were reviewed and replaced with a stand-by

charge of $l.OO/month to be paid by the home owners, plus construction costs. This was

a special arrangement and it was not suggested that this would become permanent

policy.

These kinds of circumstances may exist in other jurisdictions. Because the installation

of residential sprinkler systems is not a common practice, the procedures and policies

are only just evolving to provide these system with the exemptions that are necessary to

make them economically viable. However, as this case shows, cooperation among the

various local departments is vital to resolving administrative issues.

In St. Petersburg, the water department was unwilling to waive their monthly stand-by

fee for an upsized service line. Therefore, rather than burden the home owners with

a monthly fee, the project team installed a new dedicated line for the sprinklers which

11
was not subject to fee. In this case, the construction costs to do this were paid by the

grant, though such a subsidy would not be available to other home owners considering

fire sprinklers. Several other jurisdictions either waived or discounted stand-by fees for

the sprinkler systems citing the low likelihood of actual water use.

Skill Requirements. RFS installations can be divided into two basic parts: design and

installation. Skill requirements for these are different but often overlap. Skills needed

for installation of RFS are within the capability of most professional plumbers; for the

most part, materials and techniques are ordinary, and typical of other fluid systems they

routinely install.

In general, plumbers do not lack the pipe and fitting know-how to install RFS systems,

but rather they lack a working knowledge of the RFS design criteria, such as sprinkler

location, spacing, and hydraulic requirements, as specified in the NFPA-13D and 13R

standards. Some jurisdictions require specific licensure of fire sprinkler installers, while

others do not. The USFA regularly sponsors workshops at many locations around the

country which provide training on the various sprinkler standards. These workshops are

expected to continue through fiscal year 1990. The actual attendance of licensed

plumbers at these workshops was not investigated in the course of this project. Their

level of participation in these workshops may be a measure of their awareness of the

business opportunities that exist in RFS installations. However, licensing requirements

are generally governed by state or local ordinances, and individual inquiries should be

made at the local level.

We found that the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems during building

rehabilitation is generally not more complicated than installation of standard residential

plumbing systems. Complexity can vary according to building size and use, but when

incorporated into rehabilitation plans the installation of fire sprinkler systems is unlikely

to complicate the overall rehabilitation of the building. Fire officials believe that as

more information is available to the general public regarding the relative simplicity of

these systems, interest will grow among single-family home owners. We observed

considerable unawareness and misunderstanding of RFS among the occupants and

homeowners participating in the project. Reluctance to participate was not uncommon,

12
despite the USFA grants to pay for all construction costs. One fire chief related his

feeling like a “rug salesman” when soliciting participation in this project among local

home owners.

Standard and Codes for Residential Systems. It was during the course of this four year

project that NFPA-13R was accepted and published. NFPA-13R addresses the gap that

previously existed between NFPA-13 and NFPA-13D; that gap being represented

primarily by low-rise multifamily dwellings characteristic of the buildings in Phase I of

this project. Prior to that publication, NFPA-13, which was developed for commercial

sprinkler systems, was often used by local authorities as the basic criteria. Since 13R

did not formally exist during Phase I, some of the completed systems represent a hybrid

of NFPA-13 and NFPA-13D. However, the modifications, uses, and interpretations of

the standards varied. In some jurisdictions, we observed that there was unfamiliarity and

uncertainty in how the sprinkler standards should be applied to the types of rehabs

involved in this project.

Building Owners’ Criteria. In the decision-making process leading to installation of

sprinkler systems, building owners, especially those that do not reside at the building,

generally use economic benefits as the primary criteria. Possible benefits included

reduced property insurance costs, higher rents and/or shorter vacancies, flexibility of

building code requirements, and reduced probability of uninsured fire losses.

Unresolved Issues and Misconceptions. In the course of the project, some reluctance to

be involved with the project was experienced at various levels. Homeowners were wary

of system failures and future costs that they would incur, even though initial installation

was at no charge to them. Community development and rehab specialists had

reservations related to the value of the system in comparison to the frustrations added

to the normal rehabilitation process. Local governments expressed uncertainty over

incomplete information on several issues. In fact, one of the project sites discontinued

participation in the project for reasons explained in the following excerpt from the

minutes of a meeting of the local non-profit rehab agency’s board of trustees.

“A proposed agreement between the State Fire Marshall’s Office, the Ohio

Department of Commerce, and Rehab Project was discussed. If signed, the

agreement would make available money to fund a demonstration project where

13
residential sprinkler systems would be installed. Reservations were expressed on

three general levels: 1) There was concern over the burden with excessive water

or maintenance fees. It was cited that this could possibly be negotiated with the

Utility Department if some payment stipend was made available through the

Grant; 2) The excessive cost of the sprinkler system in relation to the overall

improvements was cited as inconsistent with our objectives to produce affordable

housing; 3) Liability and expense arising from the installation of the system

either through failure or malfunction is unknown.

“Recognizing these concerns,” a motion was presented to discontinue the pursuit of the

project and reject acceptance of the current grant. The motion was seconded and

passed.

14
OTHER PHASE II COSTS

The variety of sizes, types, and conditions of the 5 multifamily and 11 single-family buildings

sprinklered during the project created a broad range of information on the cost factors of

residential fire sprinkler systems. In Phase I we reported that the decisions of local officials,

vendors, and building owners all affected the turnkey costs of RFS in multifamily buildings.

In single-family homes, this is generally not the case? The NFPA-13D systems in single-family

structures were predictable in terms of required engineering and construction. While there are

still unknowns in the smaller jobs, they are fewer in number and not as likely to have

significant cost impact. However, these installations show that some unexpected costs can be

substantial, usually related to work done outside the boundaries of the house itself.

Regarding the costs reported herein, some comments are in order. In some installations,

manufacturers donated materials to the project. The objectives of the project required that the

Research Center engineers estimate the retail costs of the donated materials in order to give

a true representation of the costs of the sprinkler systems. In the costs reported here, all

donated materials have been accounted for and included in their respective categories.

Secondly, because the Seattle building was of a different type than the other Phase II

structures, it has been separated from the others in these bar charts and not included in the

computed averages. For detailed information on the other multifamily buildings not included

here, the reader is encouraged to refer to the Phase I Final Report, available from USFA.

Table III provides a complete breakdown of the system costs for the Phase II sites. The

dollars shown are as reported by the design/installation contractors on cost sheets provided by

the Research Center. Material and labor costs were requested for six major categories: Design

Fees; Mechanical; Architectural; Electrical; Water Department and Other Fees; and Permits,

Plan Reviews and Inspections. The totals given on the table represent the total installed cost

.

that would have been charged to the home owner had the systems not been paid for by the

USFA.

Design Costs

At all the Phase II sites, sprinkler system design was performed by local contractors. Generally,

sprinkler installation could not begin at any site until after a plan review by the local fire

department. Figure 8 shows the dollars charged for design of the system. At about 21 cents

15
MECHANICAL 

(Includes pipe, fittings, 

valves, sprinkler heads, 

flow switch, etc.) 

ARCHITECTURAL 

(Includes sheetrock repairs, 

framing, carpentry, etc.) 

ELECTRICAL 

MATLS. & LABOR 

SUBTOTALS 

DESIGN FEES 

WATER DEPT. & 

OTHER FEES 

PERMITS, 

PLAN REVIEWS & 

INSPECTIONS 

TOTAL SYSTEM COST 

DENVER-1: 3145 Gaylord St.; 

FLA-1: Miller St. Orange Park; 

FLA-5: 16th Ave., St. Petersburg; 

DENVER-2: 3713 Gaylord St. 

FLA-2: Floyd Circle, Orange Park; FLA-3: Quincy: FLA-4: Jefferson County; 

FLA-6: 11th St. South, St. Petersburg; FLA-7: Tampa. 

Table III. Summary of All Phase II Costs as Reported by Installers. 

16 
per-square-foot, the average design cost for the

single-family structures represents a relatively

small share of the total. In Seattle, the cost

for design of the system was even smaller at

less than 12 cents per-square-foot although the

design fee was the highest of all these

buildings at $622. Structural characteristics

can influence design fees, although to a lesser

degree than they affect installation costs.

Mechanical Systems Costs

Figure 8. Design Costs for Phase II Structures,

Dollars Per Square Foot.

Mechanical systems basically includes most of

the installation - all plumbing, water service

connections, sprinkler heads, flow switches, etc.

as well as installation labor for these

components - hence, the largest share of the

reported costs fell into this category. Figure 9

shows that about $2.5O/square foot was the

average dollars paid for mechanical systems for

the Phase II sites (excluding Seattle). While

the construction costs for providing new water

service at the Denver sites may have accounted

for their high figures, new service was also

installed ‘at FLA-5 and FLA-6 without major

expense. The average cost for mechanical Figure 9. Costs for Mechanical Systems in Phase II

services in Florida was $1.58 square foot.

Buildings, Dollars Per Square Foot.

FLA-4 was a pump and storage installation at a rural home not on the city water system, which

raised the mechanical systems cost.

Water Department and Other Fees

Despite nonexistent or trivial fees in five-of the Florida sites, the average water fee imposed

for the Phase II sites was nearly $300, excluding Seattle. The sprinkler water supply in Seattle

17
was tied in to the existing domestic water

service downstream of the meter, so the

reported $2,237 in fees was reported to be for

purposes other than water. Similarly, as

discussed in detail earlier, water department

fees for the Denver projects were renegotiated.

Reported fees of $678 and $805 at those two

sites were not related to water service. Figure

10 summarizes the costs for various fees, as

reported by the contractors.

Permits, Plan Reviews and Inspections

Average cost of the permitting and plan review

costs reported was $79 as indicated in Figure

11. Seattle reported costs in this category of

$281. No costs were reported in this category

by FLA-3 and FLA4.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Buildings equipped with fire sprinklers can be

subject to various costs whether or not a fire

actually occurs. Operational costs may include

water department fees, yearly inspections,

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 when borrowed funds are

Figure 10. Water Department and Other Fees for

Phase II sites, Dollars.

Figure 11. Costs For Permits and Plan Reviews for

Phase II Buildings, Dollars.

used to pay for the sprinkler system. Further, in the event of sprinkler activation there will

18
be costs for replacement of heads, metered water consumption (if applicable), and any

necessary repairs due to water damage.

Nominal operating costs were known to exist for three of the Phase II buildings. In Denver,

the home owners will be charged a $l/month standby fee for dedicated water service to the

sprinkler systems. In Jefferson County, Florida, the pump and storage system installed there

should receive annual maintenance and inspection. This is estimated to be on the order of

$5O/year for one l-hour service call each year, not including materials. This was a concern to

the home owner and project staff. Inevitable service calls on the booster/storage package for

yearly testing and occasional repairs would entail expenses that the homeowner may not be

able or willing to pay, especially on a recurring basis. We expect that annual inspections will

be required on most or all NFPA-13D systems and the exact cost to the home owners for this

will probably vary according to local jurisdiction.

While the rehabilitated condition of the buildings may cause a reassessment and subsequently

higher tax bill, none of the owners could estimate what, if any, property tax increase was

directly attributable to the presence of the fire sprinkler systems. The federal grants that paid

for the installations precluded any significant interest or financing charges for these systems.

19
ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO BUILDING OWNERS INSTALLING FIRE

SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

The principal economic benefits from any residential fire protection strategy result from the

reductions or potential reductions in fire losses. The economic benefits may be reflected in

reduced property insurance premiums, reduced property damage costs, and construction

variances that may accompany a sprinkler system. Based on information gathered in the course

of this project, the financial returns on fire sprinkler systems are generally more substantial for

multifamily building owners than owners of private homes.

Property Insurance Discount

Table IV has been repeated from the Phase I report for information purposes and includes only

those multifamily buildings; Seattle has been added as well. All five buildings received some

degree of savings on property insurance premiums ranging from 5 to 50 percent. In some cases

updated policies on the rehabilitated buildings were less expensive than the original policy;

these insurance premium reductions were due, in part, to the improved general conditions of

the dwelling, and in part to the installation of fire sprinklers.

Table IV. Property Insurance Information As Reported By Building Owners And

Insurance Agents.

Conversely, no significant reductions were reported by the single-family home owners. A

pending insurance premium reduction was reported by the home owner in St. Petersburg. In

Austin it was learned that the Texas State Board of Insurance does not currently recognize

2 0
NFPA-13D systems as property-protection systems, thus does not enforce rate discounts on

home owner insurance policies. The justification for this policy is a literal interpretation of

NFPA-13D that the standard is based on life safety criteria rather than property protection.

Hence, NFPA-13D does not apply to home owner policies that insure against property losses.

(They do however endorse premium discounts for NFPA-13 sprinkler systems.) The Board, as

in many other states, issues compulsory maximums for insurance premiums. It was noted that

they would not prohibit underwriters from offering discounts for NFPA-13D systems if they

elect to do so.

In general, rate decisions in the insurance industry are guided by the Insurance Services Office

(ISO), strictly an advisory organization. IS0 has recommended that companies offer discounts

of up to 10 percent on fire insurance policies for 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 within their local regulatory guidelines. The discount

on any individual policy is determined on a case-by-case basis, particularly for large policies,

and is dependent on the evaluation of an underwriter. An underwriter bases actual rates on

the reliability, maintainability, and expected performance of a 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.

Reduced Property Damage Costs

Many fire insurance policies provide only partial coverage. That is, an owner may get only

partial reimbursement because of a deductible, low policy limits, or the type of coverage (e.g.,

full replacement cost or less). An owner with only partial coverage will benefit from any

system that reduces the likelihood of property damage from fire. Table IV shows that in three

of the jurisdictions the building insurance policies cover full replacement value. The exception

was St. Louis where the insurance policy only covers the value of the rehabilitation, estimated

to be 65 to 79 percent of the replacement cost of the building. The table also provides the

deductibles applied at each site.

21
Construction Alternatives

Construction variances were granted in St. Louis and Seattle as a result of the installation of

fire sprinklers. St. Louis uses the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) model

building code, which requires emergency egress from the third floor of three-story buildings as

well as 60-minute fire wall construction in stairways. For the sprinklered building at 2102

Lafayette Avenue, the building commissioner waived both requirements. The Research Center

staff has estimated that $4,650 was saved by these exceptions: $4,500 by omitting the egress,

and $150 by the reduction in stairwell wall rating. In Seattle, an attic space was allowed as

a rentable space by building inspectors because the space was sprinklered. Because the space

had only one means of egress, the space was not deemed habitable otherwise. That unit

currently rents for $400 per month, providing additional annual income to the owner of up to

$4,800.

Improved Marketability of Units With Sprinklers

The fact that occupants of units with fire sprinklers are exposed to a reduced probability of

death or injury from fire may be a marketable benefit. In communities participating in this

project, fire losses tended to be disproportionately larger than the percentage of the population

that actually reside in those neighborhoods. In four communities, the population residing in

those neighborhoods suggested an adequate market base for “selling” the “reduced probability”

feature. Some renters, may qualify for more tangible benefits through reductions in their own

personal property insurance, or “renter’s insurance,” due to the presence of fire sprinklers in

their unit. The benefit of reduced probability of death or injury to tenants resulting from

presence of fire sprinklers may accrue to building owners through increases in rental income.

The incremental increase in rents that can be justified by the sprinkler system was not studied

in this project and is not clearly known.

Multifamily building owners often cited the inherent need to keep rents down in low-income

neighborhoods. Further, they argued that the presumed marketing advantages gained from the

fire sprinkler system, those discussed above, were largely intangible and could not be reliably

predicted. Thus, the fire sprinklers represented an additional payout, with an uncertain rate

of return.

2 2
PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

Based on the experiences and knowledge gained in Phases I and II of the project, the Research

Center observed several recurring technical and regulatory barriers that impeded the

installation of RFS in these rehabilitation projects. Below is a summary of the problems

encountered with recommended approaches to alleviating those barriers.

Problem: Lack of Interdepartmental Familiarity and Framework for RFS Implementation.

The installation of fire sprinklers in HUD-funded rehabilitations typically involves at

least three municipal authorities: the community development, fire, and water

departments. All of these agencies have a role in planning the installation of fire

sprinklers in federally subsidized rehabilitation projects. Sometimes nonprofit

construction organizations are involved too. A lack of familiarity with the procedures

and regulations of the various municipal departments often impeded the timely

installation of RFS in the selected buildings. Often the inclusion of RFS in rehab

projects was unfamiliar ground for those involved with the construction and inspection

process. It was observed, in some jurisdictions, that interdepartmental communication

was not usual practice, or effectively nonexistent.

Recommendation: Municipal departments should review and understand the appropriate

procedures for installation of RFS in rehabilitation projects in their jurisdictions.

Opportunities should be made available for city employees to become familiar with the

personnel and procedures of other city departments that are involved in RFS installation,

In addition, local administrators and construction personnel involved with rehab

programs must be made familiar with basic technical issues involved in RFS systems.

Initiatives by local fire departments are most appropriate in this regard. At these nine

sites, for example, this project was instrumental in establishing the needed

interdepartmental relationships. Hence, in future installations the process will be more

familiar to those involved and should move more smoothly. Other local fire departments

may consider sponsoring similar pilot projects so that appropriate procedures can be

“walked through”, understood, and adopted.

23
Problem: Shortage of NFPA-13D Installers. The affordability of RFS in residential

dwellings depends on reasonable installation costs. Experiences in this project suggest

that the fire sprinkler industry is comprised predominantly of contractors who specialize

in large NFPA-13’commercial systems; those that customarily do 13D systems are much

fewer in number. Either the profit margins or level of activity in small NFPA-13D

residential systems are not adequate to attract the large operations into the residential

market, or their overhead costs do not allow them to deliver the small jobs at reasonable

prices. For whatever reasons, it was apparent that many sprinkler installers are not

enthusiastic about single family RFS systems. The relative shortage of 13D installers in

some localities creates a noncompetitive environment. Lack of competition neutralizes

a key mechanism responsible for holding prices down.

Recommendation: Make the opportunities that may exist in residential RFS available

to a wider range of installers. Licensed plumbers, for example, possess the mechanical

skills for installing NFPA-13D and 13R systems but lack design expertise. Plumbers

should be made aware of the opportunities for business expansion that may exist in RFS

installations. Municipal authorities could offer and promote training programs to bring

plumbers into the RFS arena, or work with sponsors who have already developed

programs. Activity in this direction has been seen, particularly in the state of Florida

where a limited certification has been established for 13-D installers. Jurisdictions might

consider a certification “option” in their ordinary master plumber licensing procedures,

whereby an NFPA-13D adjunct is added to the licensing requirements. Plumbers who

select the option, receive the necessary training, and pass local testing requirements

would then be licensed to do NFPA-13D installations.

Problem: Inadequate Existing Water Service. In single family homes like those

participating in Phase II of this project, the existing water service is typically 3/4 inch.

While this may be perfectly adequate for even new homes, a 3/4-inch service very often

cannot provide the water volume and pressure requirements of a water-based fire

suppression system, especially when city water pressures in the neighborhood are low or

borderline, or if buildings are multistoried. A simple 2-story single family home can be

difficult to sprinkler if local pressures are below about 50 psi. Ordinarily, the design of

a sprinkler involves constant trade-offs between pressure losses and pipe sizes. When

2 4
pipe sizes are reduced to bring costs down, higher pressure losses are the result. In

many cases, reasonable increases in pipe sizes are not enough to provide the hydraulic

requirements of the system; then upgraded water service is necessary.

At these sites, installation of RFS required additional connections to the water main, or

upsizing of the existing connection. This process can be expensive due to water

department policies and fees that accompany those hook-ups. Water department fee

structures as they pertain to new taps and upgraded service can render residential

sprinkler systems uneconomical, particularly in smaller buildings where those costs

represent a larger proportion of the total cost. In addition, water departments lacked

experience in dealing with retrofitted RFS, especially in single family detached homes.

The uncertainty of all parties with respect to fees and procedure required that the sites

be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Recommendation: Local water departments need to reconsider the impact of policy and

fee structures on the retrofitting of RFS in residential buildings occupied by high-risk

populations. Some water departments expressed a willingness to do so, but were

awaiting opportunities to formally study proposals. The local fire departments are best

positioned to initiate that activity or renegotiate those policies, and set an appropriate

course of action in their jurisdiction.

Problem: Unbalanced Priorities. Within some fire departments, there are policies based

on the assumption that some protection in domestic dwellings is not better than no

protection. This policy can intimidate building owners that may otherwise have

considered adding fire suppression systems to their rehabilitation plans. The use of

plastics in residential systems, for example, is still not recognized by some jurisdictions.

The policies of insurance regulators may be a contributing factor.

Recommendation: Fire officials and local governments should consider the need to the

affordability concerns of building owners and the fire protection concerns of their

communities when legislating sprinkler standards. This is particularly relevant in the

rehabilitation of low-income housing where profits from rents may already be marginal,

and building owners lack sufficient incentive. If the costs of these systems decrease over

25
time, the need to rely on financial incentives for cost effectiveness will diminish. But,

when the major cost drivers remain inflated, incentives will continue to be necessary in

order to make RFS a voluntary addition to rehabilitation work plans.

26
COMMUNITY: Denver, Colorado

CONTACT: Susan Spine11

Planning and Community

Development Office

200 West 14th Avenue

Denver, CO 80204

(303) 575-5733

Tom McManus

Denver Department of Fire

Fire Prevention Bureau

745 N. Colfax Avenue

Denver, CO 80204

(303) 575-5522

BUILDING

LOCATIONS: 3145 Gaylord Street

3713 Gaylord Street

Denver, CO

BUILDING

OWNER: Owner occupied homes

BUILDING

DESCRIPTION: Woodframe, single-family

l-story detached house

with basement

SPRINKLER

SYSTEM: NFPA 13D

SYSTEM DESIGN &

INSTALLATION

CONTRACTOR:

AAA Fire Sprinkler, Inc.

355 East 55th Avenue

Denver, CO 80216

Contact: Pete Froyen

(303) 293-9202
COMMUNITY: State of Florida

CONTACT:

BUILDING

LOCATION:

BUILDING

OWNER:

BUILDING

DESCRIPTION:

SPRINKLER

SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN &

INSTALLATION:

Rick Ruh

Division of State Fire Marshall

Bureau of Fire Prevention

Plans Review Section

J. Edwin Larson Building

Suite 591

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

(904)488-2449

Cities of Quincy, Tampa, St. Petersburg,

Orange Park, and Jefferson County

(Seven Buildings, Total)

Owner occupied homes

All single-family, detached homes,

wood frame; six l-story, one 2-story;

All NFPA-13D;

Including one well-water system

Members of Florida Fire Sprinkler Association

Headquarters

Tampa, Florida

Contact: Mr. Chuck DUnn

(813) 932-7811
COMMUNITY:

CONTACT:

Seattle, Washington

Chief Gregory M. Dean

Seattle Fire Department

301 2nd Avenue South

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 386- 1450

Janet W. MacKenzie

Seattle Department

of Community Development

400 Yesler Way

Seattle, WA 98104

(206)684-0350

BUILDING

LOCATION: Victoria Apartments

Denny Way &

14th Avenue East

Capitol Hill

Seattle, WA

BLDG.

OWNER &

DEVELOPER:

Mr. Randy Martens

Mr. William Chan

TENANTS: Moderate Income

BUILDING

DESCRIPT.: Woodframe, 10 unit, single-family conversion, 4 stories and basement

SPRINKLER

SYSTEM:

DESIGN &

INSTALL.:

NFPA-13D. All Copper.

James Buchanan; and

Ms. Audrey Vanhorne

Van Horne & Van Horne Architects

Seattle, WA

(206) 324-1980

Larry Meyers

LNW Fire Protection System

Redmond, WA

206-867-1861