10. Private Fire Suppression System ReportAgenda -February 10, 1997
AGENDA ITEM 10 - PRIVATE FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM REPORT
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: In response to developer's concerns, I
initiated an Internal Study Committee on.November 26, 1996. I have
enclosed a copy of the memo to the committee outlining my concerns
and questions to be addressed by the committee.
Due to the extreme snow conditions and schedules, the committee was
unable to report their findings to me until January 23. The
results of the committee's work is interesting in terms of the
effect we may be causing for developers and in how we compare with
other cities.
A review of findings reveal:
1. Kalispell is very expensive in terms of fire
service connection fees.
2. Due to cost of connection fees related to fire
suppression, we are indirectly encouraging
developers/owners to forego the installation of
sprinkler systems by building to different code
standards that are not as effective in controlling
fires but are much less expensive due to our high
costs of connection fees.
3. In actual fire situations, a sprinkling system with
5 heads activated for 20 minutes will result in
2,000 gallons of water usage that immediately
begins suppression effectiveness. This is in
comparison to a 20 minute response lag -time for the
Agenda -February 10, 1997
Fire Department that could use over 1,000,000
gallons of water and create more fire/water damage
results.
4. Response time for sprinkling systems insure a
reduction of the potential loss of life and/or
property.
5. By increasing sprinkler systems, our entire hydrant
system may be reduced in numbers and/or costs.
6. Some businesses, by installing fire sprinkling
systems, may experience a lower insurance premium.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the committee's findings; the unanimous
concern about the disincentive that has been created; the unanimous
recommendation to reduce, discount, or waive fees for sprinkler
system connections; and the unanimous concern that we are not
competitive with other cities that are not charging this type of
fee or are giving governmental monetary assistance to encourage
fire sprinkling systems, I highly recommend that we eliminate the
additional charges for fire sprinkling connections to our water
system. We should set a standard that creates a long-term benefit
directly to all businesses and indirectly to the safety of citizens
of Kalispell.
ACTION REQUIRED: Fees have been adopted by resolution. An
amendment should be prepared to implement this change. We should
make this change effective immediately to allow the current
building plans to incorporate the fee structure.
TO: Ted Waggener, Chairman /�,
FROM: Clarence Krepps, City Manager
DATE: November 26, 1996
RE.: Internal Study Committee, Water Fees/Sprinkler Systems
In response to the problem concerning the current fees for water
hook-ups and the effect they may be having on developers'/builders'
decisions to include or not include fire sprinkler systems within
their improvements or new building, I am asking you to chair an
internal committee to review, research, and report to me at least
the following:
1. Is the fee actually a disincentive for builders?
2. If so, what alternatives do we have in terms of
fees, in terms of codes, or any combination to
encourage sprinkling systems where/when needed
other than those that we can force by code
requirements?
3. Can/should a separate dedicated line used strictly
for fire suppression/sprinkling systems be
constructed as a non -user application or a
discounted rate user for the purpose of water hook-
up fees?
4. Any other questions or concerns your committee
would deem appropriate for discussion of this
subject.
I would appreciate a written report from your committee by December
31, 1996. Your committee consists of yourself, Larry Gallagher,
Amy Robertson, and John Wilson.
CWK/ksk
p.c.: Larry Gallagher
Amy Robertson
John Wilson