The above-captioned cases were originally scheduled for an initial hearing on July 9, 2013 at 1:00 PM. At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Burlingame, Jackson, Thornton, Pearson and Booth were present. The fire service was represented by Providence Fire Marshal Frank Silva and ADSFM Michael Krasnowiecki of the Providence Fire Marshals Office along with Chief of Inspections Scott Caron of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Commissioners Thornton and Booth directing the Applicant to have all the maintenance issues in all of the above captioned schools corrected prior to the commencement of the 2013-2014 academic year in September of 2013.  The Board further directed the Applicant to return to the Board on August 6, 2013 with a representative of the engineering firm that he advised the Board would be hired to conduct a detailed building assessment and cost analysis.  The Applicant and the engineering representative were to further provide the Board with an overview of the preliminary engineering recommendations and a progress report of the corrections made to the listed deficiencies thus far.  The motion was unanimous.
Accordingly, the matter was re-scheduled for hearing on August 6, 2013 at 1:00 PM. At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Burlingame, Sylvester and Booth were present. The Applicant and his engineering representative were present. However, they were not able to provide the Board with a comprehensive overview of the engineering recommendations at that time because the engineer had only recently been retained.  The fire service was represented by Providence Fire Marshal Frank Silva and ADSFM Michael Krasnowiecki of the Providence Fire Marshals Office. 
During the August 6, 2013 hearing, the fire service advised the Board that, aside from completing the preliminary school inspections, they had developed a comprehensive training/survey document, entitled Providence School Department NUTS & BOLTS School Survey for use by local school officials to ensure both proper training and day-to-day code compliance.  In addition, the Applicant advised the Board that he had hired the engineering firm of Hughes Associates and the Gilbane Construction Company to develop their comprehensive plan for compliance.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Booth to grant the parties an additional two (2) months, until October 8, 2013, to review the situation and to report back with the comprehensive plan of action. The motion was unanimous.   

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact as its initial findings of fact in this case.  Specifically, the Board finds that the above-captioned facilities are schools that have been recently inspected by the Providence Fire Marshals Office in conjunction with the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board finds that the current Providence Fire Marshal recently assumed his office and that he directed that all schools were to be visited, on a preliminary basis, during the fall of 2012.  The Board further finds that full comprehensive inspections of the above-captioned schools were completed by May of 2013.  The Board hereby incorporates the 2013 Providence and/or State Fire Marshals Inspection Reports, covering the above-captioned schools, as its initial findings of fact. 
	The Board further finds that many of the listed deficiencies are related to ongoing maintenance.  In fact, the Applicant has advised the Board that, out of approximately six hundred thirty-two (632) deficiencies, approximately four hundred (400) deficiencies were believed to have been corrected as of the July 9, 2013 hearing date.  The Board further finds that the Applicant and the Providence and State Fire Marshals Office have been working closely together on this project.    
The Board finds that the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office have categorized the above schools into four (4) groups (Priority Level 1, Priority Level 2, Priority Level 3, and Priority Level 4).  The Board finds that the parties have determined that Priority Level 1 Schools represent the highest need and that Priority Level 2 Schools represent the second highest need.  It is the understanding of the Board that Priority Level 3 and 4 Schools have deficiencies that appear to be less extensive, and more readily addressed, when compared to the other schools. 
The Board has been advised and finds that the Applicant has engaged an engineering firm to develop and submit a plan of action for the correction of the deficiencies in these schools.  The Board finds that the Applicant plans to correct the majority of the more costly deficiencies through a school bond with an initial cost estimate of approximately twenty-three million (23,000,000) dollars.  The Board has been advised and finds that securing such a bond could take up to one year to accomplish. 
Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant and his engineer need additional time to develop their comprehensive plan of action with the fire service and report back to the Board. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

The Board hereby reaffirms that the Applicant shall address all of the lower cost maintenance issues in all of the above-captioned schools by correcting these deficiencies prior to the commencement of the 2013-2014 academic year in September of 2013.  By lower cost the Board is referring to those general routine maintenance items relating to the Applicants existing fire protection systems such as the replacement of an individual damaged exit sign and/or emergency light unit, or their respective light bulbs, the certification and/or replacement of fire extinguishers, replacing damaged individual heat and/or smoke detectors, replacing damaged sprinkler heads, ensuring that existing exit doors and hardware work properly, and maintaining the egress systems, and all hazardous areas, clear of all obstructions and combustibles on a daily basis.  In using the term lower cost the Board is not, for example, referring to higher cost items such as the installation of new full sprinkler systems, new full fire alarm systems, or the replacement of a majority of the egress system doors in a school.  These higher cost items should be addressed as part of the parties longer term plan of action.
The Board further directs the Applicant to return to the Board on October 8, 2013 with his engineer to provide the Board with an overview of the engineering recommendations to bring these schools into compliance with the code and to further provide a progress report of the corrections made to the listed deficiencies thus far.  The Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshals Office shall not have to prepare separate written follow-up inspection reports for the October 8, 2013 hearing. 

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	This Decision represents a comprehensive, integrated plan of fire safety for the above-captioned facility under the above-cited use or occupancy.  Accordingly, every variance granted is conditioned upon the Applicants timely and continued compliance with all of the directives of the Board. Every variance granted is further conditioned upon the continued use or occupancy of this facility under the above-cited classification reviewed by the Board.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-17).
	Failure of the Applicant to initially comply with the full Decision of the Board, within the stated time frame, shall void all variances granted herein.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18)  In the event of complete, timely and continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above cited variances shall be deemed to have vested in the above-captioned facility.  As long as this facility is in continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above-cited variances shall remain with this facility in the absence of any change in use or occupancy mandating review under a separate classification of the Fire Code or a revision of the above-cited classification.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-19).  Such changes in use or occupancy of this facility, or failure to continually comply with the Boards Decision shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such change creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.1-6, all variances granted under the original use or occupancy are void and this facility shall be reviewed under the newly created use or occupancy. . (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).
	The Applicant may appeal the Boards Decision, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by commencing an action against the State Fire Marshal in the Sixth division of the District Court.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].