My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC WORKSESSION 01292008
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Work Session
>
2008
>
CC WORKSESSION 01292008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2016 10:44:00 AM
Creation date
11/23/2016 10:39:48 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Fire Code & Pertinent Ordinance Adoption <br />Staff Report <br />While there will be costs of complying with the proposed MSFC (2007), these costs are <br />expected to be fairly limited. Again, the intent is to lessen the fiscal impact while still <br />maintaining an acceptable minimum level of fire and life safety. <br />The costs of not complying are just as difficult to identify. There are three main goals of the <br />MSFC (2007) and fire prevention in general: life safety, property protection, and protection of <br />the properties' mission (maintaining the continuity of operations). According to national <br />statistics, most businesses that experience a serious fire do not rebuild on the same site. In <br />addition, Minnesota state law allows such properties to be assessed taxes at a lower rate <br />(similar to undeveloped land). Based on these considerations, fire prevention also helps <br />prevent the erosion of the local tax base and keeps employers operating within the city. <br />Fire prevention efforts must be looked upon as a long -term investment and measured over <br />time. Comparisons can be made to other health and safety campaigns that have taken <br />decades to show effectiveness. Seat belt usage, smoking cessation and discouraging drunk <br />driving are examples of long -term campaigns. <br />The fiscal impact to the property owner versus the taxpayer or community at large is <br />considered. While the MSFC (2007) does impose requirements that may be costly to the <br />individual property owner, it does so not only to protect those individuals and persons <br />occupying the property, but also to ultimately reduce the burden of fire protection on the <br />community as a whole. The question becomes: Is it in the best interests of the city to, for <br />example, require that a property owner provide automatic fire sprinkler protection for a newly <br />constructed building instead of having the taxpayers of the city pay for enhancements to the <br />city's infrastructure (more hydrants & larger water mains) and response capabilities (more <br />stations, apparatus and firefighters)? The adoption of the MSFC also places all cities on a <br />more level playing field as no matter where the structure is to be built; the fire code is the <br />same. <br />The proposed changes to the city ordinances are shown on Attachment B. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.