pf_01501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I - Richard L. Sorensen (Cont.) Page 2 that the Subcommittee on Assembly.and Educational Occupancies of the Committft'ze on Safety to Life, is continuously reviewing the requirements for day care facilities and not doing it on one shot deals. Regarding the changes to group day care homes and family day care 'homes, it should be pointed out that the Life Safety Code does not* establish staff ratios into these facilities, but only states that the,requirements in these sections are based on certain staff -to -child ratios. In fact, a closer look at the requirements for day care centers also states that the requirements are based on certain staff -child ratios. Again, these ratios were from the federal guidelines for these facilities. Problems with these staff ratios have occured in other states and the authorities involved have allowed other items to be used to compensate for reduced staffing. It is interesting to note that the Life Safety Code does allow these facilities to be on upper levels of a building whereas kindergarten and first grade Pupils are not allowed on upper levels of a building, and this is almost entirely based on these better staff -to -child ratios. If the state has said that staff -to -child ratios cannot be enforced, then appropriate revisions should be made to the requirements to compensate for this lack of enforcement. The Subcommittee on Assembly and Educational Occupancies is aware of a problem regarding the means of egress from family and group.day care homes, and is proposing suggested changes for the 1985 edition of the Code. However, to callously just state that no means of egress above and beyond that of a one - and two-family dwelling is required, in my opinion, is irresponsible considering that there can be up to 12 children in the care of people other than their family. It is interesting to note in the Regulation, that the legislature considers the Department of Public Welfare to be more of an expert :in fire safety than the state or local fire marshal. In short, it is my opinion that the act is obviously a piece of,legislation pushed through by an interest group without due regard to the safety of the occupants which are involved. It is a callous disregard for safety require- ments which have been carefully put together, and which were based on an extensive amount of work which was done by a task force working for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to develop federal guidelines for these facilities. I appreciate the concern of both -the local fire marshals and the State Fire Marshal's Office in Minnesota, and hope that you are successful in getting this legislation revoked, possibly using, as your basis, the 1985 edition of the Life Safety Code which does have improved language in this area. If I can be of any assistance with regard to this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. JKL/kj f / cc: Wes Wernerv/ R. Robertson R. Smith J. Laughlin Very truly yours, / .14 on ZOFame'sK. Lathrop Chief Life Safety Specialist � 4�� 5yj��s ; 0 JUN 1 gL'-rzl r J.CZ