Just how much is more safety worth?

That’s a question insurance actuaries consider on a daily basis, but now the Napa County Board of Supervisors needs an answer if it’s going to require installation of fire sprinklers on all new residential construction in the unincorporated parts of the county.

The county is trying to meet a state deadline to update building code standards by the start of the new year. Jurisdictions like Napa County have from July 2007 to January 2008 to add any local ordinances they think might be beneficial.

County fire officials think it’s high time the county passed an ordinance requiring fire sprinklers on all new residential construction — especially given that the average response time to a rural house fire is upwards of 20 minutes. The city of Napa passed such a law, American Canyon has one, Calistoga recently voted its support for one and both Yountville and St. Helena are taking up the issue.

Napa County Fire Marshal Gabrielle Maurino Avina said with limited resources and thousands of acres to protect, it makes sense to require fire sprinklers. “We have less than the recommended staffing resources,” she said.

In rural areas, sprinklers could be hooked up to wells or water tanks to provide water. Maurino Avina said four out five insurance companies she called provided a 5 to 15 percent discount on premiums to homeowners who have fire sprinklers.

The cost, however, would be borne by home buyers. Maurino Avina estimates that fire sprinklers installed for a 2,500-square-foot home could cost anywhere from $5,000 for a tract home to $8,700-$13,300 for a custom-built home. County officials estimate that amount to 1 percent to 2 percent of construction costs.

“Quite often more money is spent on flooring or countertops,” Maurino Avina wrote in a report to the Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Bill Dodd wasn’t so sure, wondering if the county was breathing too far down the neck of private property owners.

“I think at some point in time we’ve got to get real about the cost to society for taking care of every eventuality,” he said.

Supervisor Harold Moskowite agreed, saying it was the prerogative of people who live in the country to install fire sprinklers or not. Later Moskowite — a rural resident himself — said country residents assume the risks of living where they do.

“You want country living?” he said. “Put up with it.”

Supervisor Diane Dillon disagreed.

“It’s not just keeping safe those folks around us, It’s a real cost to us and I’m looking at millions in costs saved for fire service,” she said.

George Bachich, representing the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance, said absent emotional calls to save every life possible, fire sprinklers didn’t make financial sense in the long run.

“You have to put a price on life,” he said. “In the real world we have limited resources ... If this is really the right idea, all you have to do is give people the right information and let them decide.”

Bachich said mandating what he called a “non cost-effective solution” on property owners was bad government.

Michael Haley, president of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance, agreed, saying the supervisors might as well ban vegetarianism because he thinks vegetarians don’t get enough protein to ward off health problems.

“To me (fire sprinklers) seems to be a solution in search of a problem,” he said.

Unfortunately for Haley, the board majority leaned the other way, but not completely. Supervisor Mark Luce led a motion to have county fire officials come back with a cost-benefit analysis before the board could entertain thoughts of voting for a new ordinance. Supervisors Dillon and Brad Wagenknecht joined him, while Moskowite voted no and Dodd abstained.

Dodd said he would consider the ordinance if it could supplant planned million-dollar expenses in continuing fire service in the county. “Now you have my attention,” he said.