Commerce City council makes residential fire sprinklers optional for new single‑family homes after close vote

Commerce City Council voted 5–3 on Nov. 17 to amend the city code so that residential fire sprinklers are optional — rather than mandatory — for new single‑family detached homes and duplexes.

The change to Ordinance 27‑32 came after hours of public comment and technical questions for staff and the South Adams County Fire Prevention Bureau. Supporters of keeping the mandate, including Division Chief Jay Wilmot and Patrick Haney of the National Fire Sprinkler Association, urged the council to retain the requirement for life‑safety reasons. Wilmot said the measure "is a growing trend" among Colorado jurisdictions and argued that "we can't afford to bring the level of public safety of the future down to the ways of the past." Haney warned that making sprinklers optional typically reduces installation rates “to almost 0” and cited statistics about escape time and fire fatalities.

Builders, the Home Builders Association of Metro Denver and several speakers urged repeal or an optional approach on affordability grounds. Morgan Cullen, representing the Home Builders Association, told the council the sprinkler mandate had added roughly $15,000–$20,000 to the price of a single‑family home and that the repeal ordinance would align Commerce City with most Denver‑area governments.

Councilmembers debated technical issues raised in staff Q&A, including the inspection regime (installation and final testing) and the exemptions tied to setbacks (homes more than 16 feet between structures or eight feet to property lines). Staff clarified that inspections occur at installation and final test; commercial systems have different inspection schedules.

Council members split on weighing safety versus housing costs. Councilmember Teeter, who said he has worked in fire service for decades, supported the optional approach to reduce barriers to homeownership. Several colleagues, including Councilmember Douglas and Mayor Pro Tem Noble, argued to retain the mandate for public‑safety reasons; Noble said optional rules often become effectively mandatory or never exercised by builders. Ultimately the council adopted the amendment to make the sprinkler requirement optional for single‑family detached homes and duplexes on second and final reading, by roll call vote 5–3.

The ordinance change applies only to new construction and contains setback‑based exemptions; additions to occupied homes were repeatedly clarified by staff as not triggering sprinkler retrofits. Council directed staff to record and communicate the implementation details to developers and homebuyers.

The council did not adopt any retroactive requirement for existing homes. The city manager and building staff indicated they will provide follow‑up details about permit and inspection practice.