Memorandum

City of Lawrence                  

Fire Medical

TO:	David Corliss, City Manager Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager Jonathan Douglass, Assistant to the City Manager Scott McCullough, Director of Community Development Toni Wheeler, Director of Legal Services John Jay Miller, Staff Attorney
FROM:	Mark Bradford, Fire Chief
Date:	February 25, 2009
RE:	Shelters in Religious Institutions

The Fire Medical department conducted an informal telephone survey of the fire or codes enforcement departments where Family Promise indicates it has affiliates.  The following questions were asked:

1. Do you have churches being used as homeless shelters?
2. What fire code is adopted in your jurisdiction?
3. Do you view the residential use of churches as a “change in use” or an existing use?
4. What code requirements do you enforce with this use?
5. What code requirements have you chosen not to enforce and what mechanism did you use to reduce any of the code requirements (i.e. change in code, alternative means, appeal)?
6. Do you limit the number of individuals at any one time in the shelter and/or do you limit the number of consecutive days that the shelter may be occupied?

Of the 137 Family Promise affiliates, 60 responses representing 39 states were collected.  The following chart is a summary of response types by state and affiliates.

Contacts

	Number	Number Possible	Percentage
States with Family Promise Affiliates	39	50	78%
Family Promise Affiliates	137	n/a	n/a
Survey Respondents	60	137	44%
States with Family Promise Affiliates Contacted	28	39	72%
States Contacted on a National Level	28	50	56%

Of the 60 respondents, 62% indicated that they were unaware that the Family Promise program was operating in their community and 37% of the affiliates would require code compliance, regardless of whether they were aware of the program or not.  The following chart is a summary of the responses.

Responses

	Number Evaluated	Number Possible	Percentage
Respondents who had no knowledge of Family Promise	26	60	43%
Respondents who had no knowledge of Family Promise, but would require code compliance	11	60	18%
Overall respondents who had no knowledge of Family Promise	37	60	62%
Respondents who had knowledge of Family Promise and required code compliance	11	60	18%
Respondents who had knowledge of Family Promise and required code modification	8	60	13%
Respondents currently researching Family Promise	3	60	5%
Overall respondents who had knowledge of Family Promise	22	60	37%
Overall respondents requiring code compliance	22	60	37%
Respondents who indicated Family Promise program fell within existing use guidelines	19	30	63%
Respondents who indicated Family Promise program required a change in use	11	30	37%

Of the eight survey respondents indicating that the Family Promise program required code modifications, the following modifications were required:

• Inspections required
• Notifications of occupancy and the number
• Exits identified
• Hard-wired smoke detectors with routine testing
• Supervisor or monitor present and awake
• Egress windows available
• Telephone access
• No open flames (cooking, candles, etc.)
• Evacuation diagram
• Sleeping areas must be grade-level and have two or more means of egress
• Portable extinguishers
• Cot separation
• 200 square feet per person
• Supervised alarm system
• All occupants must be ambulatory
• Annual use permit, with or without a fee
• Approval of the fire department, building inspection department and the health department
• Maximum of 24 at one time
• Maximum of four weeks per year per church
• Maximum of 14 consecutive days, not to exceed 50 days per year
• Emergency lighting present and operational