Fire Department issues overcrowding citation to City

City officials late Thursday received a written notice of a fire code violation based on what the Maricopa Fire Department referred to as overcrowding during the recent proposed redevelopment district meeting at City Hall.

At least 95 guests signed in, not counting city staff, the mayor and council members. The city sent about 200 letters in late December to owners of 319 parcels inviting them to attend, in addition to welcoming real estate agents and developers who chose to participate (See related story, “Proposed redevelopment raises eyebrows, questions“).

As a result, more than 100 people packed into a conference room set up with chairs for no more than about 50. Some lined the back wall of the room rather than sitting in a few of the unoccupied chairs, which staff continued to bring in from nearby conference rooms, as needed. Others streamed down the hall.

Danielle Casey, a city staffer who oversaw the event, said staff continued to squeeze in as many chairs as they could for those who wanted to have a place to sit.

“Some exits were blocked, and pathways to exits were blocked,” said Mark Boys, division chief and fire marshal for Maricopa Fire.

Boys said he hand-delivered a notice of violation to City Attorney Denis Fitzgibbons whom he met with along with Mayor Kelly Anderson about 3 p.m. Thursday. Boys said the information was passed on to Interim City Manager Roger Kolman who contacted him by phone at about 4:30 p.m. seeking clarification.

“I explained the situation to him and he assured me he would take measures to make sure it wouldn’t happen again,” Boys said. “Our main concern is for the life and safety for citizens and employees as well.”

Earlier in the day, Anderson had told inmaricopa.com that he was pleased with the large turnout and that he was unaware that any violation had taken place. The idea to hold the meeting at City Hall was his, based on the number of residents who live nearby who might be most interested in the topic of the creation of a redevelopment district.

“If they were truly concerned about the public’s safety, why didn’t they talk to me at the meeting?” he said of the deputy fire marshal who said he witnessed the violation. “They chose not to talk to the mayor.”

Anderson continued by saying he didn’t see anyone in official Fire Department attire at the meeting.

“But I wasn’t specifically looking for them either,” he said.

Anderson stated that at any given time there are 100 people in the building attending to city business during the regular business day, so he didn’t see a problem with bringing in that many during the evening.

The problem, Boys said, is that the building is not permitted as a meeting facility such as a church or other public place of assembly. Instead, it is permitted for business use, meaning that the number of people who are on site isn’t as important as how they are situated in the building.

The intended use of the building is to provide offices, a conference room and a place to do things one does in the normal course of business.

“The facilities we have at City Hall are not conducive to meetings,” he said. “Exits were blocked by people and chairs and tables and so forth. There were too many people in the area to exit safely.”

Boys said had they known about the meeting beforehand, the Fire Department would have advised them against holding it there.

Anderson said he wasn’t aware of any such limitation on how the building could be used, and if the Fire Department had an issue with specific uses, they should have communicated such restrictions better with him.

Boys disagreed.

“People are quick to blame the Fire Department because we didn’t tell them, but ignorance is no excuse,” Boys said. “It is not the duty of the Fire Department to make sure occupants read and understand the code. Had they called to ask us if they could have an assembly of 100 people or more, or even 50, we would have said ‘no.'”

Anderson did state, however, that if anyone was pointing fingers, that he was willing to take the heat for choosing the location and setting up the meeting without being properly informed.

“During the meeting they didn’t say anything to me, and if there was a concern, I would have definitely shut down the meeting and rescheduled,” Anderson said.