Adams County staff propose updating building and fire codes; commissioners debate residential sprinkler requirements

Adams County commissioners on Sept. 2 received a multi-department briefing on proposed updates to the county’s building and fire codes, with particular attention on residential sprinkler requirements and the state-required energy code update.

Staff said the county has traditionally adopted newer model building codes on a multi‑year cycle and must at least meet the state’s minimum energy-code adoption after passage of House Bill 22-1362. Justin Blair, the county’s chief building official, and Pat Conroy (assistant chief and fire marshal with Strasburg Fire Protection District and member of the county’s fire code advisory committee) spoke at length about proposed changes and public outreach.

Conroy and other fire officials emphasized life‑safety data, calling residential fire sprinklers an effective tool to reduce fatalities and property loss. "Residential fire sprinklers save lives," Conroy said during the presentation, explaining that modern lightweight construction and synthetic contents increase the speed at which fires produce toxic smoke. He said a typical residential sprinkler event uses on the order of a few hundred gallons total and noted that sprinkler systems are designed primarily for life safety in single‑family homes, not to fully extinguish large fires as commercial systems aim to do.

Adams County’s current local code includes three exemptions that allow many new single‑family homes to avoid sprinkler requirements: the home is less than 3,600 square feet, it is within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant that can deliver required fire flow, or it is located on an approved fire apparatus access road. Staff reported that since the 2018 amendment the county issued 1,793 detached single‑family permits, of which 792 did not meet the three exceptions and thus required sprinklers (about 44%).

The 2024 International Residential Code (IRC) contains prescriptive sprinkler language that, if adopted without the county’s existing exceptions, would expand the number of homes required to be sprinklered. Some commissioners expressed concern about costs: testimony from area fire districts and Commerce City contractors put installed sprinkler costs in different ranges — staff noted a common conservative industry estimate of roughly 1–2.5% of a home’s construction cost, while Commerce City reports contractor figures that average $4,000–$6,000 for installation with builder markups that can raise the buyer’s cost toward higher amounts in certain designs.

Commissioners asked for more granular, locally relevant information before deciding whether to modify Adams County’s current exceptions. Commissioner Julie asked: "What are we being asked to approve today?" and staff clarified that the immediate request was informational and that no change was being approved at the Sept. 2 meeting. Several commissioners urged additional analysis on: a map showing hydrant coverage and how the 1,000‑foot exception affects the county geographically; examples and counts of how many future homes would be newly required to install sprinklers; insurance impacts and whether homeowner premiums would be affected; and whether sprinkler‑related permit fees could help finance related inspection resources as some nearby jurisdictions have done.

Fire officials described operational practices used in counties that have adopted residential sprinklers, including community outreach, on‑site demonstrations and educational material for homeowners. Several fire districts said they use a modest permit fee that funds a dedicated staff position for plan review, inspections and outreach; Commerce City cited a $250 fee used to fund inspection capacity and community education.

On energy code issues, staff noted that HB 22-1362 requires jurisdictions to adopt at least the 2021 energy code and additional Colorado model electric and solar-ready standards. Adams County staff said the county plans to align with state minimums and will not propose exceeding the state baseline in this code cycle.

Next steps: staff will return with more detailed mapping and cost analysis, outreach results and a recommended path for any amendments. The county’s formal adoption timeline remains on a fall track, with public hearings and readings planned before a January 1 effective date if the board proceeds on that schedule.

Ending

No vote was taken at the Sept. 2 meeting; commissioners asked staff for further analysis — particularly maps of hydrant/coverage areas, granular cost estimates, insurance impacts and examples of how neighboring jurisdictions implemented residential-sprinkler policy — before they consider final code amendments.