Agenda Packets - 1997/02/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 13, 1997 Executive Summary of Code Change Request- Cross of Glory Background: Cross of Glory is adding approximately 6,166 to their present structure of approximately 8,000 square feet. The City of Mounds View adopted the Uniform Fire Code Appendix E back in 1983 requiring additions and existing buildings to be sprinklered. The Church has signed a construction agreement with the city that has the sprinkler requirement included. Fire Code Authorization and Appeals Process: The fire code places final authority with the local fire chief and requires a local and state appeals process. The council has appointed themselves as the local appeals board with either party having the right to appeal the local opinion to a state board. Mr. Olson has submitted a written request to pursue a code change specific to a substitution of a detection system in place of a suppression system and has inferred a possible desire to repeal the code. The City Municipal Code does not reflect the adoption of the sprinkler requirement due to an oversight omission by the codifiers. Attorney Long prepared and delivered a written opinion that the code is in effect despite it's absence from the Municipal Book. 111) Issues: The fire code does not allow a substition of a detection system for a sprinkler system thereby forcing the council to conduct an illegal or non-allowable act. Rather,to relieve the Church of the requirement they would have to repeal the code as provided for in the charter when repealing codes. Additionally, City Hall is in violation of this specific code requirement,however,plans that include a funding component are in the process of being finalized. (Estimated cost$35,000) Fire Department Position: Fire Department recommends denial of the request and any subsequent request to repeal the code as the sprinkler code has allowed continuation of a volunteer force at substantial cost savings. This is evidenced by the fact that for comparable cities, Mounds View realizes some of the lowest per capita fire protection costs in the State. Additional benefits include significant improvements in life safety and property protection. Summary: Sprinklers return their initial cost in all cases through insurance premium savings. The cost of fire protection is borne by the actual recipient. Documented cases of head activation's in the fire district, as compared to unsprinklered buildings, show savings on a regular basis in the millions of dollars. Potential injury to occupants and emergency responders is negated when fire is extinguished or controlled by sprinklers.