Manhattan board tables proposed fire‑sprinkler code change after public‑safety concerns over Saint Joseph School

The Village of Manhattan Board of Trustees voted to table consideration of a proposed text amendment to the village fire and building code that residents and fire‑safety experts said could affect plans to reuse the Saint Joseph School building.

Trustees voted to postpone action after several speakers urged the board to maintain the village's existing sprinkler requirements while staff and church representatives continue discussions. Mayor Mike Adrianson said staff had been working with the church and requested more time to finalize a solution; the motion to table carried on a roll call vote.

Public commenters included Father Mike McMann, who said benefactors had surfaced to help pay to bring water from Sharp Drive to the building and urged the board to delay any change while that aid is finalized. “If they're lined up and everything is squared away, certainly my suggestion and my hope would be for you to dismiss the need for an amendment,” Father Mike said during public comment.

Experts pressed the board to keep the current code requirements in place while the parish pursues donated work. Eric Cofer, executive director of the Northern Illinois Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board, told trustees that the building should be classified as an educational occupancy (Group E) rather than an A‑3 assembly use, citing building‑code definitions. “It is clear this is an accessory to a school and therefore, it should be educational,” Cofer said, and he urged the village to maintain current sprinkler requirements and allow donated labor and equipment to be used to install sprinklers.

Another commenter who identified himself as a longtime fire code official told the board that consistent application of sprinkler requirements increased community safety and that sprinkler systems are not replaceable by alarm systems alone. Chief Steve Malone had been consulted by parish representatives, and public speakers encouraged trustees to be sure the chief had adequate opportunity to comment before any final action.

Village staff told the board they had obtained contractor bids and were pursuing donated labor; a speaker representing fire‑safety advocates said contractor bids with donated labor were “roughly under $30,000,” though speakers also noted the cost of bringing water to the building remained an unresolved item. The board did not adopt any code change; instead it tabled the ordinance to the next meeting to allow staff, the fire chief, and church representatives additional time to work toward a resolution.

The ordinance described on the agenda was identified as an amendment to Title 3, Chapter 10, Section 2 of the village ordinances related to fire code provisions. The trustees’ formal action on May 20 was to postpone consideration to a future meeting while staff continues negotiations and technical review.