Laserfiche WebLink
MINl1TES <br />City Council <br />~ ~ -Tan. 4, 19F34 <br />The Pire Chief's Association made two attempts at the State 1eve1 for <br />citi.es to be able to enact sprinkling legi.slation. These ef.forts fai.led. <br />1)evelopers were against it, <br />Cogland pointed out that developers are not the long-term hotders of a <br />building. The citizens are the ones LeLt with the cost of providing <br />fire protection to buildings. <br />Tcoo years ago the State authorized a committee to look into this <br />situati.on. T1~ere ~aas a feeling that some level of uni.f.ormity should <br />be achieved. llevelopers and the building trades were involved in the <br />process. The commi[tee wanted to keep the public cost of fire protection <br />down. <br />The committee achieved this and Appendix E was the result. <br />Cogland stated r.hat two questions usually come up about Appenctix F. The <br />f.irst is why does al.l of Appendix E have to be accepted, That is so there <br />will not be any social. red-Lininp, done, for example, excluding low income <br />housing. The second question is why is Appendix E so stringente Appendix <br />E is based on facts. The amount of ~vater needed to extinguish a fire <br />was calculaCed usi.ng square footage. Then the amount of fi.r.e personnel <br />needed was calculated. This i.s how the square foota~e requirements <br />were set in the Appenctix. <br />Co~land stated that many cities feel that if they have a force that can <br />handle a residenti.al fir.e, they are providi.ng fire protecti.on at an <br />adequate level. <br />Cogland also stated that he has seen no difference in [he amount of <br />building going on i.n ci.ties with Appendix E versus cities without it. <br />Fahey asked how the Appendix applies in the case of necv construction <br />versus the acldition t:o a Uuilding, Cogland st:ated that the intent of' <br />the committee ~aas that when a bui.lding is added on [o, the whole building <br />shoulct be sprinkLered. Cogland stated that about 80% of buildings <br />will be just as they are in tha year 2,000, <br />Cogland stated that Appendix E will nor. decrease the cost of Lire <br />protection, but wiJ.l keep it from going up and hopeful7.y will level <br />it off, <br />Scalze asked how the situation is handled cahere there is a garage that is <br />not sprinklered and the use changes to one that should be sprinklered. <br />Mr. Coglan<t stated that they malce annual inspections of buildings and <br />this will determine whether the use has chan~ed. <br />Mr. klanson aslced about Richfield's adoption of Appendix Is< Mr. Cogland <br />replied that he does not anticipate any problem with the adoption. <br />Richfield has been requiring sprinklers in the past through the special <br />use permit process. <br />Page -2- <br />