Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears options for livestock building after bids rejected; fire suppression and possible state grant shape next steps
Summary
After rejecting construction bids, the county discussed code classification, occupancy limits, costly fire-suppression requirements (estimated $400,000–$500,000), a possible downsize option, an interim covered structure to replace rented tents (40x120), and potential state grant funding under House Bill 1591.
Stark County staff updated the board on next steps for a proposed livestock building after the county rejected construction bids in February. The primary issue is building-code interpretation and occupancy, which drives whether the facility will require costly fire suppression.
Staff said the county had the project reviewed under the U (miscellaneous) and A (agriculture) sections of the UBC building code; occupancy calculations are the controlling factor. A county reviewer estimated an occupancy of about 300 for the proposed layout, a number that would push the project over thresholds that typically require fire suppression. Staff told the board that fire-suppression infrastructure — including holding tanks, pumps, winterization and distribution systems — had been estimated in informal conversations at roughly $400,000–$500,000.
"Occupancy is the driver," staff said, noting that adding suppression at that scale could make smaller configurations less cost-effective. One option under consideration is downsizing the building to stay under the suppression threshold; another is to pursue a miscellaneous (U) classification and rework elements to lower calculated occupancy. Staff also proposed an interim partial solution: constructing a covered pole-barn-style roofed area (dirt floor, similar footprint to the 40-by-120 tent currently rented for fair events) to reduce ongoing tent rental costs while the larger building plan is refined.
Board members and staff also discussed state-level funding prospects. Lisa Heizer, staff member, summarized House Bill 1591, which had been amended in committee to reduce its total allocation from $3 million to $1.5 million for fair facility grants; the bill would offer matching funds of up to $100,000 for shovel-ready projects in smaller jurisdictions. Heizer said the fair association has a $100,000 match available and could apply quickly if the county finalizes plans: "Every fair originally was able to get up to a hundred thousand dollars 1 time for this next 2 years, and you had to have a shovel ready project," she said. Staff emphasized the need to be ready to apply if the program opens in July or August.
Technical thresholds discussed included a general 12,000-square-foot benchmark that often triggers suppression requirements and the need to justify occupancy (for example, showing actual typical event attendee counts) if a larger footprint is proposed without high-occupancy events. Staff said some existing fair buildings in the state exceed 12,000 square feet without suppression because their documented use and occupancy remain below the threshold.
The board gave direction to continue refining options — downsizing, reclassification, or interim covered structure — and to pursue grant opportunities if a shovel-ready application can be assembled in time. No formal decision to proceed with construction or suppression work was made at the meeting.
