Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Buildings And Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners probe library fire‑suppression system after inspection finds tank not rated for sprinklers
Summary
Officials said the library’s fire‑suppression expansion tank is not rated for sprinkler systems, that plans and contractor records are missing, and that repair/contractor quotes are being sought. Commissioners directed staff to pursue quotes and add needed repairs to the budget request.
Weston County commissioners discussed a library building inspection that identified an expansion tank in the fire‑suppression system that inspectors flagged as not suitable for use in a sprinkler system.
County staff said they found a spec sheet indicating the tank was rated to 80 psi while the sprinkler system operates at about 90 psi and that inspection notes state the tank is “not to be used in fire sprinkler system.” Staff are seeking the original installation contracts and blueprints to identify the installer and determine responsibility for repairs or replacement.
Why this matters: county employees said the tank mismatch means the expansion device in the system is not compliant with recommended standards for fire sprinkler systems, raising questions about liability, warranty and whether the county should pursue reimbursement from the original installer. Rapid Fire (the local fire‑suppression contractor referenced) was asked for a quote to repair and refill the system; staff estimated the repair cost could be in the low thousands and noted the county’s insurance deductible is $25,000, making an insurance claim unlikely for a small repair.
Staff described a series of follow‑up steps: search for original contracts and general‑contractor records from when the building was completed around 2005–2007; ask Rapid Fire for a repair estimate; and, if appropriate, seek reimbursement from the installer. Commissioners directed staff to add library fire‑suppression work and glycol replacement to the county’s budget request so it can be funded in a future budget cycle.
County staff also reported they had located some manuals and service records, tightened loose screws at a sensor that had caused repeated issues, and noted the system currently retains a water feed so the sprinkler function remains operable despite the problem with the expansion tank’s glycol/pressurization component.
No formal motion to replace the tank was recorded; commissioners requested staff return with quotes and findings and to put the repair and glycol replacement on the next budget request list.
