A quarrel over sprinklers is breaking out among restored barn owners in Minnesota.
Owners of the state’s 83 restored barns, used as wedding venues, are arguing over a mandate to install $300,000 sprinkler systems.
Many of those who have already done this say the law should be enforced equally statewide. But most barn-owners say installing sprinklers would put them out of business — for little public benefit.
Sen. Karin Housley, R-St. Mary’s Point, is siding with the un-sprinklered barns. Housley is sponsoring legislation that would ease fire codes for smaller rural venues.
“They are being bullied,” said Housley. “You have one or two wedding barns going after everyone else.”
FACILITIES WITH, WITHOUT SPRINKLERS
There has never been a fatal fire a Minnesota barn venue, she said, which makes the sprinkler mandate an example of government overreach. “It’s a solution in search of a problem,” she said.
The pro-sprinkler movement is driven, in part, by Wayne Butt, owner of the Historic Furber Farm in Cottage Grove, and a former city councilman.
He installed a $350,000 sprinkler system in his barn. That is what the state fire code calls for, he said.
But the industry has grown recently, with wedding websites listing between 83 and 124 venues. Butt says he is now competing with venues that refuse to install sprinklers — and he is working hard to get them to comply.
“This is a passion for me,” said Butt. “I do not want shut places down, but my goal is the safety of the venue. The law is there – just follow it.”
Randy Schmitz agrees. He owns a smaller venue near St. Cloud, and recently spent $100,000 on a sprinkler system.
“We did not want the liability. We wanted to sleep at night. We wanted to keep our guests safe,” said Schmitz, owner of Rolling Ridge Wedding and Event Center, with a 130-year-old barn.
Rural venues are inherently dangerous, he said, because they are farther from hospitals and ambulances. “It’s a much riskier environment,” said Schmitz.
They are even more dangerous if they don’t have sprinklers, he said. “It is going to take a catastrophe to take this seriously,” said Schmitz.
BANKRUPTING EXPENSE
Only four miles from Butt’s barn is the Hope Glen Farm, owned by Michael and Paula Buschilla. The sprinkler issues has strained the couples’ previous friendship.
“We used to go on double-dates together,” she said. “I was surprised by how he turned on us. He unfriended us on Facebook.”
The Buschillas don’t have sprinklers in their barn.
They follow every other rule in the fire code, involving multiple exits, capacity limits, panic-door openings, fire extinguishers and smoke alarms.
But they have not installed a sprinkler system. Michael Buschilla said it would cost him $300,000 — an expense that would bankrupt him and about half of the other barn-based venues in the state.
OPEN SPACES
The trade group Minnesota Rural Event Venue Association wants to give the barns a break.
Board member Adam Wallis said barns have open interiors — so if a fire breaks out, everyone sees it.
Smoke alarms save lives by giving an early warning to flee. Only later do sprinklers deploy, in order to save the building.
They pop off when the temperature climbs to 160 degrees — and everyone would be gone before then, said Wallis.
Sen. Housley said rural barns are subject to all other state rules, and also local fire codes. But they don’t have access to the city water systems that sprinklers require.
The wedding-barn industry has been a boon for rural economies, she said. “You get wedding planners, photographers, caterers popping up,” said Housley.
SAFETY CONCERNS
Julie Gacek, co-owner of Redeemed Farm in Scandia, said she followed the rules set by local fire inspectors. Her barn has been examined several times, and no one ever said she needed sprinklers — which is what she said happened in 120 other venues.
“Did 120 inspectors get it wrong?” said Gacek.
Pro-sprinkler barn owner Butt denied that he was motivated by limiting his competition, or that he slighted anyone because of the issue of sprinklers. His only goal, he said, is guarantee the safety of wedding visitors.
Barn owner Schmitz said his new competitors should pay the cost of having a safe venue.
“They say they are rural and should not have to comply,” he said. “It’s a dirty game.”