Whats the deal with SASCO

Makes sense after the fire last month. The bad thing is there is no way Dennis can afford the upgrade.

Lee Studebaker wrote:

So if SASCO shuts down,what will become of all the inventory? The city wants to tear down everything in that area.You think they would want to keep a tax paying buisness in place. Wouldnt it be neat if SASCO were to move into the old administration building? That building,while not in great shape,is in WAY BETTER shape than the current SASCO building. I am ready to help move parts again if the need arises!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like it's time for more letter writing and pressure on the city. They knew the conditions there when they let him move in. They can't or shouldn't be able to change them now.

Let me talk to Dennis in the AM before we go off half cocked. I think he would have called me like he did the last time if he needed us. It's possible his insurance company may cover any upgrade, or that the expense is minimal.

Alex Magdaleno wrote:

I am hoping there is a good,affordable solution for this.

Now is one of those times where I could *almost* help... but I generally do detection, not suppression.

nate

Well? Where were you when he needed some 'detection'? (Oh, You were under some Porsche, or out shopping for an imaginary pickup truck). Nate... Get your priorities straight... Jeff

"N8N" wrote...

Dennis wants us to sit tight until we hear from him. As we speak, the city wants a impossible upgrade that would shut him down. He's been up against the wall before, so he's hopeful for a good outcome since the bank that holds the note on the parts is involved too. I'll let you know if we need to circle the wagons again.

Lee Studebaker wrote:

Since the city is the landlord, it is really their problem...

JT

John Poulos wrote:

Which could make it his problem... the city would probably say screw it and condemn the building and give him 30 days to vacate.

Lee

Forcing a non-residential building to comply with modern codes is ludicrous and perhaps illegal. I'd suggest that Dennis also have a lawyer in the loop. If pressure is applied to Dennis, it has to be applied evenly to all the other non-conforming buildings within the entire jurisdiction. Further - the city can not simply chose sections of building code at random that they want the facility to comply with.

Rob

. John Poulos wrote:

I have seen instances where existing buildings *have* been forced to comply with modern codes. I haven't specifically seen a sprinkler upgrade be mandated (but again that is not what I work with every day; I primarily deal with detection,) but just within the past year I have seen:

1) a building with old "flashing light" notification devices directed to upgrade to ADA compliant strobe lights throughout the building, even in areas that weren't being renovated. 2) several instances of buildings with numbered stairs having to post new signage to label stairs with letters, in a clockwise rotation, per current code 3) A building with old hardwired conventional detection circuits was directed to begin installing new addressable detection devices when the head end equipment was replaced with a new panel capable of driving addressable detection circuits (even though all existing hardwired circuits and detectors were maintained.)

Sometimes IMHO the authorities might overstep their actual authority to direct changes, but often unless the cost of the changes is significant, the building owners end up complying because the cost of fighting the directives is of the same order of magnitude as simply complying.

Of more concern to me is that if SASCO is forced to do a sprinkler upgrade, they might also have to install a full fire alarm system to monitor all the flow switches, install pull stations at all exit stairwells, notification appliances (which could be significant in a building the size of SASCO) install an auto-dialer with a dedicated phone line etc. and that could just get real ugly financially.

nate

I see this problem only extending to that portion of the building where the public has access, i.e., the showroom.

Clearly, the city is not on solid ground here.

JT

(But what else do you expect from South Bend?)

Now that I think about it, there is something I could do. If SASCO ends up being forced to do an upgrade, which would involve submission to an AHJ - I would be more than happy to CAD up the floor plans, if Dennis has any old hard copy blueprints of the building. I'm guessing some others reading this might also have some CAD skillz... I wouldn't be able to do any fire alarm or sprinkler layout however as i'm guessing my employer would consider that "moonlighting."

nate

If it comes to that, get your employer to "donate" your services. Corporations are always looking for good publicity.

N8N wrote:

The trigger to this whole affair is the fire. Once that occurs, the fire department and the building inspector can enforce code bylaws they wouldn't be able to simply lay on Dennis in the absence of damage to the building. BTDT many times over the years as an insurance adjuster. Many insurance policies will exclude improvements forced by municipal bylaws, especially in the undamaged portion of the structure. A blue ribbon policy would possibly include it but I doubt Dennis has that kind of policy.

Brooksie

Here's where we are today: The city is giving a two week "talk it over" period for Dennis, the city, and the bank to talk it over. The city will put the building on a fire watch during that time. (what ever that mens") The simple fact is, the million dollar upgrade would shut down SASCO. Let's just keep our power dry until then.

Brooksie wrote:

That could get weird, because if there ends up being work done, my employer's Elkhart branch will likely be bidding on the work, so any design work I would "donate" would be less money in their pocket. Plus I do not have a PE so all I could do would be make recommendations and disavow that I was ever involved. (isn't liability a wonderful thing?)

nate