The adoption of the 2009 International Fire Code by the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners marks the end of a three-year process of discussion, disagreement and compromise between local fire protection districts and the BOCC and Housing and Building Association of Colorado Springs.As reported in the October 2013 and January 2014 issues of The New Falcon Herald, the fire districts do not agree with the BOCCís version of the code. Questions exist about the countyís code adoption process and the code itself.Option 7At a Dec. 5 BOCC work session, six options for adopting the 2009 IFC and amendments were presented to commissioners. The first adopted the code and amendments as presented by the fire districts, while the other five options contained a variety of inclusions and exclusions. None of the options included reverting to the 2003 IFC.A seventh option, which Trent Harwig, FFPD fire chief, said he and other fire district officials hadnít previously seen, was presented at the Dec. 10 BOCC meeting. County attorney Amy Folsom said she created that option based on feedback received at the Dec. 5 work session. She said attorney-client privilege prevented her from releasing it publicly prior to the Dec. 10 meeting.The BOCC voted unanimously to adopt provisions of that seventh option, with some adjustments to language. In summary, commissioners approved the following:
- Adoption of the 2009 IFC and ìamendments proposed by the districts which are approved by the BOCCî
- Creation of a new amendment excluding the applicability of the IFC to residential homes regarding addressing, road access and fire suppression water supply
- Discontinuing the use of rural water funds as an option to meet fire protection water supply requirements
- Adoption of commercial sprinkler requirements, which are less restrictive than those in place since 2006
- Elimination of minimum wildland fire protection requirements such as defensible space, access and ignition-resistant exterior construction materials
- Direction to county staff to integrate WUI requirements into the Land Development Code
Darryl Glenn, county commissioner, said fire districts were making fire victims ìjump through hoopsî and hampering the rebuilding process. ìWe received feedback from a lot of people affected by the fire,î he said. ìMy principal concern was for my constituents.î He said the BOCC was obligated to balance the fire districtsí concerns with the residentsí concerns. Commissioners and (fire) districts had ìan agreement to disagreeî on fire code issues, he said. ìI believe this was the best decision.î
Legal wranglingThe resolutions passed by seven fire district boards, including the Falcon Fire Protection District, differed slightly in language but all contained the same key elements. Each board adopted the 2009 IFC with local amendments, in its entirety, as drafted by the fire districts and presented to the BOCC for their support. The boards also concurred that the current fire code (2003 IFC with local amendments) would remain in effect if the BOCC disapproved all or part of the fire code amendments submitted by the districts.Glenn objected to the latter. Calling the language of the resolutions an ìall or nothingî maneuver by the fire districts, Glenn said, ìWe have the authority to review amendments. The fire districts tried to use a legal strategy that was unacceptable.îAt the December FFPD board meeting, Richard Shearer, FFPD attorney, said, ìWe sent a detailed letter (to the county attorney) analyzing the state statutes that point out that the county can do certain things when it comes to fire code. They can approve, not approve, they can even adopt their own fire code, but they have to go through a very special procedure, which theyíve never done. In effect, what theyíre doing is adopting their own fire code without following the state statute.î
The statutesThe fact that county commissioners must approve fire codes adopted by fire district boards is not in dispute. C.R.S. 32-1-1002(1)(d) authorizes a fire districtís board of directors to adopt and enforce fire codes, but they have to be approved by the county.However, C.R.S. 32-1-1002(1)(f) states that when a county rejects the adoption of fire codes submitted by fire districts, the districts have the power ìto compel the owners of premises, whenever necessary for the protection of public safetyî to install specific fire safety equipment and devices such as fire escapes and fire alarms. This section doesnít apply ìwhen a valid ordinance providing for fire safety standards, pursuant to section 30-15-401.5, C.R.S., is in effect.îThat statute, titled Fire Safety Standards, grants county commissioners the power to adopt ordinances to provide for minimum fire safety. The 2009 IFC approved by the BOCC is not a countywide fire code and applies only to the fire districts named in its resolution (Falcon, Black Forest, Wescott, Cimarron Hills, Peyton, Hanover, and Security).The same statute also authorizes fire districts to propose fire code provisions that differ from ìminimum fire safety standards adopted by the county.î Such a proposal would require approval from the BOCC. How a county is supposed to adopt fire codes is uncertain. C.R.S. 30-15-401.5(2) states that a BOCC may adopt fire codes ìonly after it has approved the formation of and received the recommendations of a permanent commission, to be known as the fire code adoption and revision commission.î Per the statute, the commission would consist of the BOCC or its designees, fire chiefs whose districts are affected and other members appointed by the BOCC.Harwig said El Paso County has never created any sort of fire code adoption commission or committee to the best of his knowledge. He said Commissioner Sallie Clark proposed such a commission during the 2009 IFC adoption process and fire districts were agreeable, but the BOCC took no further action.ìThis is setting precedence for how the county can adopt fire codes,î Harwig said.
The fire codeAs reported in the January issue of The New Falcon Herald, fire districts felt that the BOCCís elimination of Appendix K, which addressed residential construction in the WUI (wildland urban interface), was significant. Folsom said county staff is ìhustlingî to incorporate WUI requirements into the Land Development Code as directed by the BOCC, with a goal of bringing an initial draft before the planning commission in March. She said stakeholders will have ample opportunity to provide input on this issue.WUI requirements were not the only thing that changed.A new provision in the 2009 IFC appears to require commercial property owners to bring buildings up to current IFC standards, if they were not constructed to International Building Code standards, which were first adopted by El Paso County in 2005. This section was originally deleted by the fire districts but retained by the BOCC.Generally speaking, upgrading buildings to current standards is only required when they are undergoing significant renovation or the intended use of the building changes ñ or they are deemed unsafe. Could this requirement place a burden on owners of older properties? Folsom said she would review the issue. ìIt doesnít sound like something the county would support,î she said.Glenn agreed and said that fire code review and revision ìis a constantly evolving process. Weíre always evaluating for the best interests of the citizens and first responders.î
