FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL

                                  Real.  Educational.  News.

 Fort Fairfield Journal     About Us     Contact Us    Advertising Rates      Subscribe       Distribution       Bible Reference     Our Library

By: David Deschesne

Fort Fairfield Journal, March 14, 2007, p. 1

The state fire marshal’s office is demanding Fort Fairfield install a fire detection and warning sensor in every room and closet of the Community Center, as well as a double redundant telephone system to call the Fort Fairfield Fire Department, which is also housed there, in the event of a fire.

The Community Center was originally built in the late 1940s by the State of Maine for use as a National Guard Armory. The town shared 1/3 of the $300,000 price tag in exchange for using a portion of the building for its Recreation Center. The town of Fort Fairfield took ownership of the building in 2003 when the National Guard consolidated and moved the guardsmen to another location for monthly drill.

“We took over the building in 2003,” said town manager, Dan Foster. “In the summer of 2004, we were planning the annual adult dance for the Potato Blossom Festival when an inspector from the fire marshal’s office showed up for an inspection and determined a dance permit would be needed. Once we applied for the permit, we were informed that the building was not in compliance with the National Fire Protection Association 101 guidelines for alarm systems and it would need to be taken care of.”

The curious side-note is that for the fifty plus years the state occupied the building, the fire marshal never felt the need to demand said fire warning measures be implemented.

In a letter from the state fire marshal’s office dated February 7, 2007 to the Town of Fort Fairfield, inspector Greg Day wrote, “On 7/12/04 the State Fire Marshal Office did an inspection of the Community Center as the Town of Fort Fairfield applied for a dance license in accordance with Title 8, Section 161. The inspection was done using the National Fire Protection Association 101, Life Safety Code which is adopted under Title 25 Section 2452. One of the deficiencies noted was that a fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with National Fire Protection Association 72, The National Fire Alarm Code and National Protection NEC70, The National Electric Code.”

Day then cited chapter 13 of NFPA 101 which indicates when an assembly has occupants of more than 300 an approved fire alarm system must be installed. The approved system is noted in NFPA 72 which would require the town to install nearly 90 smoke detectors with audible and visual strobe capabilities at a cost of $100 each into every room, closet and alcove in the entire Community Center. It also requires a double-redundant phone system that will enable a call to the fire department on a secondary line in the event the first outgoing line is down. The irony is that for all the precautions to make sure the call gets out, the building would actually be calling itself since the Fort Fairfield Fire Department is entirely housed in the basement and North section of the Community Center. Any reasonable person would see that this level of fire detection and warning would be overtly superfluous and a waste of the town’s limited financial resources.

“There are exceptions provided in the code Mr. Day is relying on to compel us to install the elaborate detection and warning system,” explained Foster. “At NFPA 101, Section 13.1.1.1. it states, “The requirements of this chapter apply to existing buildings or portions thereof currently occupied as assembly occupancies.” “It also states an exception, ‘An existing building housing an assembly occupancy established prior to the effective date of this Code shall be permitted to be approved for continued use if it conforms to or is made to conform to the provisions of this Code to the extent that in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, reasonable life safety against the hazards of fire, explosion, and panic is provided and maintained.’”

The armory was built and occupied years before the NFPA 101 was written.

Foster read the above exception to the town council at the last town council meeting and informed them that he let Mr. Day know of the rule exception, but was unable to get a determination from Day’s office that alternate “reasonable” standards would be approved.

“I propose we take a reasonable approach in the spirit of the code,” said Foster, “and meet the safety requirements within the occupied areas such as the gym, locker rooms, rest rooms and lobby area. Those are the only rooms that would ever serve a crowd in excess of 300. Steve Rogeski is working out the plans for a system to fulfill the occupied areas of the building and rough estimates place its cost at around $9,000 which is much lower than outfitting the entire Community Center for $35,000 or more.”

Foster wonders why the State never felt the need for such elaborate fire warning measures while it occupied the building for over half a century, but is all of a sudden interested in enforcing the regulations on the town once the change of ownership took place. “If the State does not want to accept our proposed reasonable standard of fire warning systems, and continues to demand we install the full-blown system building-wide, then I think the town council should draft a letter to our state Senators and ask them to enter a bill to require the State to pay for the upgrade.”

Chapter 13 of the NFPA 101 only deals with buildings occupied in excess of 300 people. The Community Center only sees crowds of that capacity two or three times per year.