What would you do? Single system supply for multiple owners. 1

[chillylulu]

I am putting this out for discussion:

Yesterday I visited a site. The fire sprinkler system was installed in 1970, 6" riser with a flanged check and OS&Y, all screwed sch 40 pipe. The system riser reduces to 4" after the FDC tee, and has a 4" flow switch.

The issue is that there are 3 buildings, all built next to each other. Each building is less than 10,000 sqft. The riser is located in the north building. There is a 4" main that supplies all three buildings. Sometimes it is a feedmain, sometimes it is a crossmain.

Since it was originally installed, the ownership of the buildings has gone from 1 to 3 owners. There are actually 4 addresses, with 2 tenants in the north building.

My customer is in the middle building and I was not able to survey the end (southern) building, which has the inspectors test.

The problems are:

1. The two southern buildings, and the south tenant in the north building do not have access to the riser. If they have water flowing and the tenant with the supply isn't there, they can't shut the water off.

2. The riser doesn't have a backflow preventer. Modifications to the 2nd building will require that the backflow is upgraded. Who pays for it?

3. Although it looks like the building is fully sprinklered, there is no notification (alarm system) within the building. The only notification I saw was the outside light and horn, and I didn't test that.

The client bought the building to build and display custom motorcyles. He is adding a caretaker apartment inside his building. I think it is more of a "man cave" than a business. The contractor he has hired to do the work is a custom home builder, not a commercial contractor. I can only assume that the builder built his home or worked on it, and that is how they got to know each other. None of the people I am dealing with are necesssarilly familiar with commercial work, and a sprinkler system is not something they care to spend money on. The contractor told me that this project would be permitted under an "owner permit". That indicates to me that the contractor isn't licensed, or can't be licensed, in this jurisdiction. I have seen homeowners pull an owner permit, but I didn't think it was even allowed on commercial work. The job is currently tagged with a "stop work" order, because the new owner was demolishing without a permit.

My answer is that I think that I am going to provide an alternate price for adding a backflow preventer. I am also going to provide an alternate price to provide a zone control assembly to isolate my client's system. I am going to suggest that he has his system monitored seperately from the rest of the building. Since he will have someone living there, I am also including a price for alarm notification within his building.

He will have to work out any cost sharing of common upgrades with the other owners, who proably won't want to pay for it, or pay for all the upgrades himself.

Thoughts? Experience? Would you tackle it, or would you walk/run away from this mess? Can an owner of a commercial building generally pull an "owner permit" to do work like this?

 

[cdafd]

You might ask for a set down meeting with the building and fd

And point out this situation, that might get them involved to fix this mess

Why the buildings have different owners without dividing the sprinkler is one mess

I think the correct solution is to set an underground and riser for each building

 

[EGFPE]

Interesting legal situation. At this point who owns the sprinkler system and why didn't the buyers separate this into three sprinkler systems. As it presently stands, if one of the owners controls the sprinkler system, and their is a fire and it is found that the sprinkler system was turned off, then that building owner could be held responsible for the loss.

How do the other buildings know if there is a planned impairment?

Just too much to chance. My suggestion is to have each building have its own sprinkler riser and lead in from the street main. Thus each owner is responsible for their own system.

EG ESH Consultants Fire Protection Engineers

 

[stookeyfpe]

CDA offers a solution but I expect zero negotiations on this. The system was approved and it's an existing condition under the jurisdiction's fire code.

I dealt with this when I worked in Phoenix and its a pain in the a$$. I had a property with 5 buildings served by one fire pump and 9 different sprinkler systems. You can play the negotiator game but it was fruitless in my scenario.

My solution as a code official was to issue a NOV to the property with the violation, the property with the fire pump and the property with the private fire protection water main. They figured out after 3 of my inspections that it was a screwed up deal but developed their own pricing mechanism for maintenance and Tenant Improvements.

That was 6 years ago and I don't know it has worked out but it was a solution: lay Notice of Violation paperwork on all parties (just like corporate lawyers) and let God (and their legal counsel)sort it out. If your not an AHJ, walk away.

 

[chicopee]

If the owners share on sprinkler protection credit from their insurance carriers, then they should all bear a proportion of the cost.
Is there any contractual agreement between the owners on the costs of repairs, , maintenance, testing and upgrade?
Who pays for the water bill, assuming only one water main serves the building?