• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Water Purveyor Rejects Multipurpose Sprinkler Taps

Incog

I appreciate your unwanted and unfounded therapy for a crazed zealot like me

BUT

Before you hijack this thread with some tired old worn old rave that the HBA has schooled you on (You obviously don't think too much on your own) consider please that the entire intent of this post was to raise the question of governmental regulations that hinder a good system that was CHOSEN by the homeowner.

The entire point (for those as slow as ole Incog) is not a mandate (oh GOD I said the M word) but rather the work that must be done to help the purveyors understand that these systems are good for thier communities and their water departments as well.

There is not one word in this post from me indicating that I favor a mandate. I believe a mandate or code requirement is the worst way to bring any product to the market because of the backlash.

I would far rather spend my energy informing and educating the consumer because the homebuilders will never get it ...at least until their home burns

but hopefully it will be someone else to have the misfortune to be impacted by the results of the national bribe and campaign contribution scam that the HBA has perpetrated.

SHEESH
 
forensics,

First, NAHB did not "school" me. As soon as I got back from Minneapolis I contacted our local and state organization and let them know how the rfs vote turned out and why(fire service bought votes with funds from NFPA & NFSA). That actually worked to our benefit because virtually all elected officials were appalled by the fact that the fire service would engage in such tactics. Kind of tarnished their white hats a bit. In no way do I consider fire service my "own" and never will. They are just to self serving and do not possess the ability to question policy as set forth by NFPA & NFSA.

Water purveyors had their rules and operating procedures long before the Minneapolis vote. The sprinkler advocates just were not intelligent enough to do the research. Or more likely, they were so arrogant that they believed that no one would throw up a roadblock to a system that they advocated. News flash--not everyone is as enamored with the fire service as much as the fire service is. In fact, if you bothered to go to Phoenix you may have noticed the only folks lamenting that virtually all jurisdictions have amended the rfs out of the residential code come from the fire side.

But you are 100% correct on educating consumers. If only that was the attitude of the entire fire service instead of just trying to shove it up everyone's ***** with a code requirement.
 
OFFICIAL TIMEOUT---

Forensics- go to your corner

Incognito- go to your corner

Gentlemen (used Loosley here) - Please refrain from posting slander against groups

These posts do nothing for furthering the education or providing information that an intelligent person would use ----

This type of behavior will turn people away from this BB ---
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, now,..let's be fair...

First, NAHB did not "school" me. As soon as I got back from Minneapolis I contacted our local and state organization and let them know how the rfs vote turned out and why(fire service bought votes with funds from NFPA & NFSA). That actually worked to our benefit because virtually all elected officials were appalled by the fact that the fire service would engage in such tactics.
[TR]

[TD]As reported in the March issue of EOC Perspectives, NAHB is at a critical point in its campaign to fight fire sprinkler mandates in single family homes in the International Residential Code (IRC). Your help is essential to the success of this effort.

Although NAHB was successful in defeating these mandates at the IRC code hearings this past fall, fire sprinkler advocates are conducting an aggressive campaign to overturn the defeated proposals at the International Code Council (ICC) Final Action Hearings, May 21-26 in Rochester, NY.

To prevent this from happening, we need to make sure there are enough ICC voting code officials attending the ICC Final Action Hearings in Rochester to vote against fire sprinkler mandates.

It is the state and local building and fire code officials from your area that will make the decision in Rochester. The only way to reach them is through you and your members.

If you want to prevent sprinklers from being mandated in your jurisdiction through the IRC, there are three critical actions that you and your members can take:




  • 1. Identify ICC voting representatives from your area.
    2. Contact them and lobby their support in opposing sprinkler mandates in the IRC.
    3. Encourage them to attend the hearings in Rochester and vote against the proposed sprinkler mandates (proposal RB-114).


Attached are two PDF documents containing all of the information you need to take each of these actions, including: guidance on identifying ICC voting reps, talking points, NAHB's offer to cover the cost of a temporary ICC membership for any EO (which is necessary to access ICC voting represntative information), and NAHB's travel grant program to assist building code officials with travel expenses, if permitted.

Additional information to assist you is available on www.nahb.org/sprinklers.

We realize this is not an easy effort to make, but it is extremely important to all of concerned about affordable housing and unjustified building codes. Advocates for mandatory sprinkler requirements in all new single family home construction are not relenting. Aggressively fighting this issue now, by getting building officials from local jurisdictions to vote at the national level, will stop these provisions from being written into the IRC and ultimately having to battle this issue at the state and local level all across the country.

Again, your actions are crucial to the success of this campaign. Any effort you are able to make is greatly appreciated and benefits the industry as a whole.

If you have any questions or would like further guidance, please reply to this e-mail or contact Steve Orlowski at 800-368-5242 x8303.

PLEASE NOTE: The attached pdf named "EO Sprinkler Info" contains several documents we've compiled into one pdf for your convenience. Please read the pdf "Table of Contents" which distinguishes them. The attached pdf named "Travel grant app" contains the travel grant program information and application.

Your help is greatly appreciated by all of us in the fight against unwarranted and burdensome building codes. Thank you,

Jeff Inks

Staff Vice President, Codes and Standards

1201 15th Street NW, Washington , DC, 20005-2800]
[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]
 
I agree with Builder Bob, reign it in, this issue has been beat to death. The OP was about a purveyor, not about any of these groups.
 
beach,

What a great deal that would have been. I could have gone to the code hearings in Rochester and NAHB would have paid my way. Why didn't ICC members get this info out so that more of us could have been there? No one can track how you actually vote at the hearings anyway.
 
I don't really care that some people have a major H_ _ _ -ON for the fire service, but at least get the facts straight.
 
I have repeatedly posted rate charts form my local water supplier showing that a meter large enough for RFSs costs $135,000 in higher income areas and $51,000 in our lower income areas and they don't pay any attention, costs in affluent areas are exponentially higher than in low cost areas, yet they keep repeating the lie that sprinklers only cost $1.99 a square foot, maybe they do in poor areas but that doesn't apply to the entire country. I've also repeatedly posted information showing that residential fires are 10 times more prevalent in poor areas than they are in higher income areas, since about 60% of home fires are cooking related it appears that the main cause is frying food, it would be better to educate the population as to the health dangers as well as safety of not cooking and eating fried foods.


View attachment 508

View attachment 508

/monthly_2011_12/ebmud2.jpg.d15123d67e37455cb33e4bf09a920aa1.jpg
 
Where ya been CONARB?

We can beat this horse a little bit for the newcomers......

Here's some food for thought....just one mans opinion, bring your own popcorn!

Having been involved with the discussion regarding residential sprinklers, I think back to my days in the military. They say that the first thing to die in a war is “the truth.” For that reason, those of us that have supported the mandate of residential sprinklers have tried to get out the truth so everyone can decide.

Let me answer some questions on cost. You will hear all ranges of cost from $0.30 per square foot to $10.50 per square foot. The truth is that most numbers that are quoted have been paid by someone. That doesn’t mean that they are the norm, or the average, or anything. What is the average cost of an automobile? You get the idea.

The lowest cost system that I designed and helped to install cost -$8,000 for a 6,000 square foot home. That translates to -$1.33 per square foot. This was my brother’s home, which could easily be featured in this fine magazine.

How did the cost result in negative numbers? He was planning to install his water piping in copper tube. My other brother the plumbing contractor had already purchased the copper. When I convinced my older brother to sprinkler his home, I told him we were switching to CPVC from copper. The cost of the returned copper tube paid for the cost of the CPVC pipe, including the extra pipe for the multipurpose piping system. It also paid for the sprinklers, and he still pocketed $8,000. Okay, the labor was free, since his brothers installed the sprinkler and plumbing system.

I have designed many residential systems. The lowest installed cost was around $0.55 per square foot. However, that is not what the builder paid. The builder paid close to $2 per square foot based on what the contractor charged. We call the difference profit and overhead.

When sprinklers are mandated, there are more contractors in the market installing the sprinkler systems. All of a sudden, the price drops. Many times, it drops significantly.

I live in an area where sprinklers are mandated in many wealthy suburbs. The average price of a system for these homes is around $8 per square foot. The reason it is so high is that they don’t install multipurpose piping systems and they add a lot of extras to the sprinkler system. Extra alarms are installed, steel pipe is often used, this requires backflow preventers, etc. Realize that these homes sell in the million dollar range. So, the price is not completely out of line. It is like adding the extras to an automobile. You will pay the price for the extras, however, they are not necessary nor required.

We recently had a demonstration of contractors installing residential sprinkler systems in approximately 1,100 square foot affordable homes. For one home, a two man crew from a top residential sprinkler contractor roughed in the entire residential sprinkler system in 40 minutes. That translates to less than 2 hours of labor. The only thing required after the rough in was to go back and screw in the sprinklers when the home was painted and ready for final installation. Pretty simple, and very inexpensive. This home had 9 sprinklers. So figure the cost of the pipe and sprinklers then add 2 hours of labor and you just determine the cost to install the sprinkler system. It worked out to $0.49 per square foot.

This may seem out of the ordinary, however, this crew does nothing but residential sprinkler installations. They had it down to a science and could beat their competitors in price. Others will figure out how to do it this quickly and easily.

As for all the comments on freezing, we currently install water piping in all homes. Plumbing contractors have to be concerned about frozen pipes. The same is true for residential sprinkler systems. It is matter of proper installation. They install residential sprinkler systems in homes in Barrow, Alaska. If they can address the concern for frozen pipes in Barrow, they can do the same for any other location in the United States.

For those concerned that the government is shoving residential sprinklers down our throats, that is not the case. The ICC is not a part of the government. All of us involved in codes and standards development participate in the ICC process. The ICC publishes the codes which are offered to the public to adopt. States and local jurisdictions than adopt these codes.

The mandate of residential sprinklers is an effort to end one of the major tragedies on the United States, the loss of life in residential fires. If 3,000 people a year died in airplane crashes, we would demand that something be done by the government. When approximately 200 people a year were dying from Ford Pinto’s exploding, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. When 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. So, why are we not demanding that the government do something about 3,000 innocent lives being lost to fire in residential buildings each year?

Some have claimed that people only die in older homes. That is not true. People die in homes of any age, including new homes. In 2007, seven college students died in a North Carolina beach front home fire. That home was new. The lawn sprinkler system, to protect the bushes, cost more than a residential sprinkler system would have for the home. But a residential sprinkler system was not offered to the owners.

In the 1920's, when the codes first started mandating indoor plumbing, there were concerns about cost and that it only applies to new homes. At that time, less than 3 percent of the homes in the United States had indoor plumbing. Out houses worked fine, why increase the cost of a home? Today, nobody complains that indoor plumbing is mandated by the government. In 90 years, the people will laugh that we argued against the mandate of residential sprinklers.

 
conarb said:
I have repeatedly posted rate charts form my local water supplier showing that a meter large enough for RFSs costs $135,000 in higher income areas and $51,000 in our lower income areas and they don't pay any attention, costs in affluent areas are exponentially higher than in low cost areas, yet they keep repeating the lie that sprinklers only cost $1.99 a square foot,....
That certainly makes the cost to install residential sprinklers ridiculous in your area. Even if you use 2500 ft² for the average size house in the lower income area it amounts to $10.00 per square foot just for the meter that including installation. That's a ridiculous additional charge to allow sufficient water flow for residential sprinklers.

beach said:
For those concerned that the government is shoving residential sprinklers down our throats, that is not the case. The ICC is not a part of the government. All of us involved in codes and standards development participate in the ICC process. The ICC publishes the codes which are offered to the public to adopt. States and local jurisdictions than adopt these codes.
You're correct the ICC is not the government but it's also not a representative of consumers. The majority of its codes and standards are developed by representatives of the building industry and they certainly have a vested interest in raising the price of construction so their profits rise. There's very little input from the consumer side regarding affordability and maintainability of systems that are installed.

I'm not even going to reopen the discussion regarding freezing of systems in cold weather climates other than to say it certainly is a point of contention by many.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s a shame that a water district would take advantage of people in that way. In our area a couple of districts tried to have fees in the 5-10,000 range and they were pretty much made to look like criminals in the community. They backed off, and are not even requiring a new meter where the service does not need to be resized. They admitted that the HBA pulled their strings to get them to announce those kinds of fees.
 
Beach your numbers only confirm why NFSA is so determined to sell this BS. Your numbers would seem to indicate that you could install the system, labor and material, for .49-.55 cents a square foot and then charge the customer $2.00 and call the difference profit and overhead. You have only illustrated what many suspected---the sprinkler folks are nothing but a bunch of thieves. With a mark-up of nearly 300% no wonder the NFSA wants this mandated. The example of your brothers house is hilarious. Lets use your numbers of .49 to .55 and since more sq.ft. is usually cheaper per sq.ft. lets use .50. 6,000 sq.ft. x .50 = $3000.00 but profit and overhead would mark it up to $12,000.00. But somehow using your "fuzzy math" that does not add cost to the project because his initial price was much higher and you found a way to do it cheaper. No wonder the state of California is in such a dire financial crisis.You folks think you can spend thousands more on a project than you need to and you think you have saved money because you could have spent more.

Conarb, those numbers are incredible. I am guessing that more than one project has been scuttled because of water fees alone. That is just plain crazy.
 
There is "fuzzy" math on both sides of the issue.

There is however no question that Water Purveyor's can make or break the residential sprinkler system that is why Water Purveyor's have been used by those who oppose to residential sprinklers.
 
It's beyond fuzzy math, on both sides. Just like the unemploymemt rate.

For those who remember, there was an uproar by the home builders when Smoke detectors were “required”.
 
I'm not even going to reopen the discussion regarding freezing of systems in cold weather climates other than to say it certainly is a point of contention by many. - Msradell

I will address the freezing issue

1) There are approved simple methods to prevent freezing (see NFPA 13D )

2) The IRC requires that speinkler piping be protected from freezing as required for plumbing piping

3) The PEX A type piping can survive freezing without bursting or leaking because of the features of the pipe and fittings

FREEZING IS NOT AN ISSUE ... PERIOD
 
forensics said:
I'm not even going to reopen the discussion regarding freezing of systems in cold weather climates other than to say it certainly is a point of contention by many. - MsradellI will address the freezing issue

3) The PEX A type piping can survive freezing without bursting or leaking because of the features of the pipe and fittings

FREEZING IS NOT AN ISSUE ... PERIOD
frozen PEX piping will survive freezing ,but will it put out a fire if it is frozen solid? :mrgreen:
 
1) There are approved simple methods to prevent freezing (see NFPA 13D )
Fiberglass insulation will not protect water pipes from freezing over prolonged periods of cold tempertures (10 degrees or colder)

2) The IRC requires that speinkler piping be protected from freezing as required for plumbing piping
I have never seen plumbing supply lines installed in an attic or outside wall in this jusrisdiction. They run through the basement or conditioned crawl space to protect them from freezing.

3) The PEX A type piping can survive freezing without bursting or leaking because of the features of the pipe and fittings
PEX-A is the most expensive of all 3 types and each manufacturer typically requires using their own proprietary connection system. Because of that, tools and fittings can also be very costly. Other than slightly greater flexibility than of the other (2) types, there are no significant advantages of this type over the other two. If fact, it has been reported by many contractors that the expansion connection system used with PEX-a may be very inconvenient to use in colder climates.

http://www.pexuniverse.com/content/types-of-pex-tubing
 
Ummmm......INCOGNITO, I guess I should have put that in quotes.... when I wrote "this is just one mans opinion" it was a man other than myself, who, by the way, I don't believe is from California. Like I said, it's just one man's opinion, but thank you for the rant! Always amusing!!!!
 
CONARB,

It looks like they lowered their fee a little........ http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/C-284_combo_water-fire_residential-web-7-2011.pdf

Sample Calculation

Example 1

The cost to install a 1" meter for Dual Service at a 3/4" domestic demand to servea single-family residence in West Oakland under Paved Conditions would becalculated as follows:

Installation fee $5,378

System Capacity Charge Region 1, 3/4" meter 13,920

Wastewater Capacity Fee 1,235

Account fee 34

Total $20,567

Example 2

The cost to install a 1" meter for Dual Service at a 3/4" domestic demand to servea single-family residence in West Oakland under Unpaved Conditions would becalculated as follows:

Installation fee $2,621

System Capacity Charge Region 1, 3/4" meter 13,920

Wastewater Capacity Fee 1,235

Account fee 34

Total $17,810

 
Beach:

You wouldn't want to even go into District 1, there were 6 people shot to death there the other day. In the areas that I build in, Districts 3 and 3C, the surcharge is:

Installation Fee for Lateral Oversizing for Fire Flow CapacityThe installation fee covers the cost of installing a standard 1-1/2" service lateral and is based upon the meter size of the water meter.

Size Paved Cost............ Unpaved Cost

1"......... $5,378 ...........$2,621

1-1⁄2"... $5,484............ $2,706
I've never installed a service with less than 1-½" water main, in fact have installed several 2" and even one 3", the costs there have really gone up:

Single-Family Residential Accounts in Additional RegionsMeter Size Additional Regions (inches) 3-C................... 3-D

3⁄4"................................................ $74,040............ $82,230

1"................................................... $123,400.......... $137,050

11⁄2".............................................. $246,800.......... $274,100
So I guess in 3-D I'd add $5,378 to $274,000 to get a total meter cost of $279,478, I guess I'm lucky that I'm now building in an area on a well, if I had to have installed sprinklers the $200,000 cost would have been cheaper than on public water. I did run the water service 278' in 1-½" to the well, the copper alone complete with fittings cost over $6,000. No plastic allowed here, in fact there was an old inactive PVC yard sprinkler line that was buried in a footing, the only comment that the field inspector had when inspecting the footings was what the PCV was doing down in there, when I told him that it was an old sprinkler line he said get it out of there, no PVC allowed here, I had a guy grab a sawzall and cut it out and he signed me off to pour.
 
Top