Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety Sprinklers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Economic Matters votes to recommend five-year extension for downtown sprinkler deadline
Summary
Annapolis Economic Matters Committee voted to send O-32-24 forward with a favorable recommendation after approving an amendment to extend the sprinkler compliance timeline by five years. Committee members and fire department officials discussed costs, affected buildings and available funds.
The Economic Matters Committee on Feb. 19 voted to recommend O-32-24 to delay the deadline for required sprinkler installations on affected downtown properties by five years.
Committee members said the extension responds to building owners’ concerns about project timelines and contractor availability. Fire Marshal’s Office representatives told the committee a 10-year timeline is more realistic than the current five-year schedule.
Committee Chair and aldermen discussed funding and cost estimates. A fire marshal representative estimated sprinkler work alone might average $7 to $10 per square foot depending on historic building constraints, and said total retrofit costs typically run “upwards of $20,000” for many buildings when water service and alarms are included. Committee members noted the city’s sprinkler fund holds “about $300,000,” and that 44 properties still lack sprinklers while 52 already have them. Using a rough $20,000 per building estimate, the committee observed the fund would be insufficient to cover all remaining properties.
Alderman Savage said the committee should ask the law office to draft language to expand the deadline by five years; the law office agreed to prepare the amendment for the next council meeting. Fire Marshal Office staff agreed the longer timeline was more realistic. The committee then voted to advance O-32-24 out of Economic Matters with a favorable recommendation.
Committee members also discussed whether mixed-use buildings with residential units above commercial storefronts are treated as commercial for sprinkler requirements. Fire Marshal Office staff said mixed-use properties have been treated under the commercial use grouping for the current requirements, while freestanding single-family houses on those streets number “two to three,” according to the fire marshal.
Assistant City Attorney Carrie Berger advised the committee that the State Fire Prevention Code allows jurisdictions to require sprinklers in existing buildings when an authority having jurisdiction determines a hazard exists, but that the state code explicitly excludes single-family dwellings from that authorization. Committee members asked the law office to clarify the state-code limits in writing and upload the opinion to Legistar.
The committee did not finalize funding or programmatic details for assistance from the sprinkler fund; members recommended the extension to create time to pursue any needed changes and to allow the law office to prepare the amendment language for the full council.
The committee’s favorable recommendation sends O-32-24, as amended to delay the deadline, to the City Council for further consideration.
