Agenda Packets - 1997/02/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 January 13, 1997 State Building Official Steve Herrick and State Fire Official Jon Nisja none of them are aware or have heard of this exception. Fire Department Position: While life safety is an issue,property preservation is of utmost importance. Sprinkler systems address both and represent the single most effective tool in controlling fires in the history of mankind with a 98%plus success rate. Fighting fire in a 1,000 square foot house is extremely dangerous much less a ten to fifteen thousand square foot building. The uniform fire code places (expressed opinion) little confidence in detection systems as they do not require outside monitoring thereby allowing significant fire growth during unattended hours. Furthermore, the department has changed response to detection calls based upon considerable national and local research revealing emergencies in less than 1/2 of 1%of all calls received. Detection systems are notorious for malfunctions, detecting human error, and not being maintained. Additionally,their purpose is to detect and warn occupants which is wholly different from the fire control and extinguishment goal of sprinklers. Since the code does not allow for a substitution a full repeal of the sprinkler amendment would be required in order for the church to be relieved of the requirement. The department provided Commercial Risk Service(ISO)numbers to the church prong a twelve to twenty year payback on insurance premium savings dependent upon premium growth due to inflation. Further documentation was offered from the State Fire Marshal shoe assembly occupancies having arson as the leading cause of fire with significant dollar loss differences between church arson fires in which sprinklers were present versus where they were not. Information not provided to Mr. Olson was the fact that lacking a automatic sprinkler suppression system the church would need to provide an access road and on-site hydrant due to the distances encountered and as provided for in the fire code. Past experience has proven the access road construction costs accompanied by the on-site hydrant costs to exceed the sprinkler cost. Under the philosophy of obtaining compliance versus mandating compliance, we do not advise applicants of this provision and who have not been provided this information by their architect(who should know) unless we reach a point where we feel this is needed. The down side of this is revealed in the present situation as Mr. Olson, and the Church agreed to the condition thereby negating the need for this action. Subsequent repealing of the code would then require them to comply with this section. Mr. Olson has now been advised of this condition.