Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Suffolk City Council approved an ordinance to amend Chapter 38, Fire Prevention and Protection, of the city’s code during its meeting on May 7, 2025. The proposed amendments aim to align the city code with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and the International Fire Code and reflect the current operations of the fire and rescue department.

The amended language in the code specifically ensures that municipal water will be available in terms of fire flow. If fire flows in Appendix B cannot be met, they must be met by engineering, or a building permit cannot be approved, and no construction can move forward.

Following the presentation, Council Member Ebony Wright requested clarification regarding the potential impact of the proposed changes on firefighter safety. She asked for assurance that “the overall consensus is the changes do not weaken our current code and put our firefighters, our assets, and other people’s property at risk.”

Fire Chief Michael Barakey stated that as Fire Chief, he maintains authority, based on the code and his “wisdom [and] experience,” in deciding whether to place firefighters into “any building or situation or not to.” He emphasized that suppression systems defined by national and state codes, and the city’s amendments, would “never take away the ability for command officers as fire chief or anybody who operates to decide to enter, not enter, engage, not engage and protect the lives of the citizens and the firefighters.” Barakey stated that the unpredictable nature of fires, including the commodities, fuels, and unknown materials within buildings, “will never be defined by this code”. He asserted that safety in such situations depends on the “wisdom of myself and the command officers” and the firefighters’ ability to “make decisions based on wisdom and experience.” He concluded, “No amount of anything [that] happens today will take away from that.”

Addressing the specifics of the proposed amendments, Barakey said, the changes to this code in 2025 is more in line with where we need to be as a city”. He acknowledged the fire marshal’s concerns as valid but also highlighted that the city’s amendments to the international and statewide fire prevention code “has to only be more strict than what is presented by the international and statewide fire prevention code”. Barakey expressed comfort with the amendments, citing the “wisdom, the training, the equipment that’s supported by this budget” provided to the department. He mentioned the reality that some fires are difficult to extinguish, stating, “we’ll burn a building for three days if we have to to save lives and save property and the fact of some fires can’t go out”.

Wright asked, “But do the fire flow changes weaken or strengthen the code?”

Barakey responded that this was a “very difficult question”. He said the department has the resources needed based on this code to do their job, while acknowledging that “the opinion of others may be different. He reiterated that the Code of Suffolk is more stringent than the international and statewide codes and can only be more stringent. It can’t be less restrictive. He explained that the language in the amended code “ensures that we have municipal water available.” If fire flows cannot be met according to Appendix B, they must be met by engineering. If engineering cannot meet their requirements, “then their permit is not approved. They don’t build”. Barakey explained that it was difficult to take a stance on whether the changes are more restrictive or less because “so much more goes into it,” including the improving water systems and the fact that the code being amended was written “20 plus years ago. It’s time to revisit it”. He concluded, “I think it’s a difficult stance to take right now of whether it’s more restrictive or less when there’s so much more that goes into it”. He assured Council Member Wright that he was “not trying to dodge a question” but trying to be “as real as I can”.

The motion to accept the amended ordinance was approved by a vote of 7 to 1, with Wright voting in opposition.