blank space

Fire Code Commission Decision Summary

See Decision No. 94RA001-100 for additional background information.

DECISION NO.:94A004-103
DATE:February 9, 1995

SUBJECT MATTER:

Appeal of an Order to Pay Costs.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:

The subject premises is a used tire storage site with an area of approximately 2.41 acres. The front part of the site is occupied by a one storey combustible building used as a retail tire sales store and service shop. The rear portion of the building was demolished because it was declared structurally unsafe. The rear part of the site is overgrown with trees, bushes and tall grass. The adjoining properties are occupied by a welding shop, residential subdivisions, an autoglass shop and within 100-500 ft Hydro transformer stations supplying a significant percentage of power to the city. On August 10, 1994 the fire department received authorization from the Commission to remove all tires from the site. After tendering and reviewing 3 quotes, the cheapest and most flexible rating price (per tire or per ton) was chosen. On September 24, 1994 the site was clear of tires - 118,300 whole tires plus 523.61 tons of tires and mixed solid waste were removed - only tires above grade were removed, those buried were left. On December 5, 1994 the Order to Pay Costs was issued which included tire removal, related meetings, advertising for tender and site supervision.

REASON FOR APPEAL:

The owner considers the costs to be excessive.

APPELLANT'S POSITION:

The appellant believes that some of the tires that were removed were not on his property and therefore, he should not be charged for their removal. Further, he believes he should have been consulted when the fire department brought in a second contractor to help with the clean up.

RESPONDENT'S POSITION:

The fire department was only following the direction given by the Commission and the costs incurred were reasonable for the work done.

COMMISSION RULING:

The Commission modified the Order to Pay Costs:

  1. Certain costs were incurred prior to the issue of the decision by the Commission. A total of $442.35 was disallowed.

  2. The fire department demonstrated that they employed prudent practices, and no evidence was presented to the contrary, in incurring the remaining costs.

Therefore, the direction is continued to the appellant to pay the costs of $232,609.06.

REASONS:

It is the opinion of the Commission that the work done was in accordance with the Commission's decision of August 10, 1994 and that the costs were reasonable for the work done.