Roll call.

So if you are on the public safety committee, if you'll go ahead and you will mark your attendance on the device in front of you.

Okay.

And I do show seven members present, so we do have a quorum today.

Thank you, everybody, for marking your attendance.

Moving up next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from our previous meeting on Tuesday, September 16th.

Move to adopt.

Okay.

I have a motion second to adopt our minutes from the previous meeting.

If you agree with these minutes as presented, if you will denote that in a vote on the device in front of you.

Okay.

And that item does pass.

Okay.

Moving on to the next item on our agenda being new business and ordinances to be introduced.

First ordinance on the agenda is ordinance 2503.

An ordinance to amend chapter six of the alcoholic beverages to comply with the changes to the Arkansas law regarding private private club permits.

Could you give us an explanation of that or tell us the highlights of what's changing?

I can.

Essentially, what happened, and I wish I brought the definition with me because I probably won't quote it word for word, but essentially what happened is that the state in the last legislative session changed the wording of what constitutes a private club, and they removed the requirement that it be a nonprofit corporation.

It can still be a nonprofit corporation, but it can also be just a regular corporation, an LLC, a partnership, a sole proprietorship.

So they basically removed the requirement that you have a nonprofit corporation involved in forming a private club.

So what this does is it just changes our definition of a private club to match the state law definition of a private club.

And then it also took out references that required things be submitted for the nonprofit corporation because it though they may not be applicable.

Does that make sense?

So it brings us into compliance or into alignment.

It changed it changed our definition to match state law definition.

Yes.

I'll make a motion we recommend to the full council.

I have a motion and a second on the item as presented.

Um if there are no more questions from anybody on the committee, we will go ahead and we will call a vote.

Okay, and that item does pass.

Thank you.

Moving on to the next ordinance on the agenda is ordinance 25036.

An ordinance to create third party inspection requirements for the passive fire protection.

Whereas Chapter 34 of the Jonesboro Code of Ordinances addresses fire prevention requirements within the city of Jonesboro, whereas the Arkansas Fire Protection Code adopted under Chapter 34 authorizes the use of expert opinions when addressing unusual, detailed, or complex technical issues.

Whereas passive fire protection is recognized as an unusual, detailed, and complex system.

Now therefore it be ordained by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, that section one, any time passive fire protection is used by an architect as part of their design, the owner or owner's authorized agent requesting a building permit shall retain a third-party inspector for passive fire protection.

Section two, the third party inspector shall inspect all components of the passive fire protection system subject to inspection, including but not limited to those listed in the most current edition of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code.

Provide a written report for the findings to the city.

Section three, the city hereby adopts the creation of the third-party inspection requirements for passive fire protection based on the building and occupancy type.

Mr.

Chair, am I understanding it right that right now the city inspection department does the passive fire protection and it'll remove that from the city inspection requirements and it'll hire a third party?

Is that I know Chief Hamric's here, but I believe it's the fire marshals that the fire marshals that do that inspection, I believe.

But maybe they can speak to that, I'm not sure.

I guess my question is right now who does it is the architect or is it Tim and them?

Right now it is what is happening is we're having the developers do it as a third party, but it's not a mandated requirement, and so it's it's a a bit arbitrary, and we think by doing this, it'll just make it more consistent across the board that it is a requirement to have third party inspections on them.

Um because honestly, when without the third party, the inspections are not being done as thorough as they should be, and this will rectify that problem.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may, um so this doesn't eliminate the fire marshals going out.

This just is a the developer has to get a third party come out and they give us the a report to the city and the fire marshals.

The the fire marshals are going to continue to do sprinkler system inspections.

Okay.

That that is their primary role is to do sprinkler system and hood suppression systems.

They don't typically do the uh passive fire protections, so it's kind of a combination of massive fire protection.

Give me a uh instead of using a sprinkler system, they'll use fire corridors, fire doors, fire rated walls, extend uh walls all the way to the ceiling and penetrate through just a bunch of different uh ways to not have to sprinkle a building.

But if they're done improperly, they're ineffective.

Um it takes a lot of time for the fire marshals and the building code official, the department to go out there and look at all these different pipe penetrations and wall penetrations and make sure they're all compliant.

Um this would require the builder if he's gonna use passive fire protection as his source of fire protection for the building to have a third party inspector do that work or use a sprinkler system, which is you know what what would be preferred from the city but is not mandated by the code to do.

Eric, is this just apply to commercial construction or does it were apply to residential also?

Uh it applies for anything that requires an architect to design, which would generally be commercial.