OPG, county officials 'concerned' about fire district vote to end subdivision review
by Glenda Wallace
Officials in two counties say they are puzzled and dismayed by a recent decision by the Frenchtown Fire Board of Trustees to stop reviewing subdivisions. They’re concerned that the action may prove problematic for developers and builders and end up costing district taxpayers more than $122,000. Last month, the Fire Board voted stop using district resources to review subdivisions proposed within its Missoula and Mineral county province. Trustee Glenn Green described the move as eliminating a redundant activity and allowing fire personnel to get back to the “core mission” of providing “fire service” while achieving a cost savings for the district.
Green later explained that he sees the July 14 vote as a way to clarify the overlap between building codes and subdivision regulations—as well as to return the workload to the county level, which, according to the Administrative Rules of Montana, has the ultimate responsibility.
Specifically, counties are tasked with ensuring that proposed subdivisions address the impact and capabilities of “local services, including education and busing, roads and maintenance; water, sewage, and solid waste facilities; and fire and police protection.”
According to Mary McCrea of the Missoula City-County Office of Planning and Grants, OPG requests comment on subdivision proposals (called preliminary plats) from nearly two-dozen entities—including Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, neighborhood councils, and the fire department. These comments help OPG mitigate any impacts to the environment and public health and safety.
McCrea says she “can’t speak to why the Fire Board decided it’s okay to do this.” She does say the decision is looking “problematic” for the County.
““It’s not just the new subdivision proposals coming in,” she explains. “We have many preliminary plats with Conditions of Approval that are subject to review and approval by Frenchtown Fire” before they can move to the “final plat” or building permit stage.
If Frenchtown does not review and sign off on these conditions, she says, the plat essentially “will have to go back to the Commissioners to approve an alternative”—which takes time and frustrates the applicant.
Missoula County Deputy Attorney Mike Sehestedt admits “from a policy point of view” he’s “a little puzzled” by the Board’s decision to get out of the subdivision review business.
“They have a discretion to allocate resources how they want to,” he says. “It’s a decision they can make.
But, he continues, “With Frenchtown not cooperating and coming to some recommendation to provide suitable fire protection, I kind of think we’ll wind up defaulting for any subdivision in that jurisdictional area to the [regulations and the fire protection water supply of] 1000-gallon minimum flow for 20 minutes with fire hydrants every 100 feet, which is based on the Uniform Fire Code, which has been adopted by the State.”
Manager of the Montana Department of Commerce’s Community Technical Assistance Program Jerry Grebenc confirms this thinking. He says without a review, counties must rely on their locally adopted regulations—which vary a great deal from county to county.
“There’s a lot of flexibility about what you can and could choose to require for mitigation of impacts to streets and roads, water and sewer, fire protection supplies,” he says. “There are guidelines in the statutes for what to require, but it’s not written down to the nitty-gritty. It’s not a statute that micromanages. It’s kind of like a growth policy with a statutory checklist, but the details are up to the local government to decide.”
Noting that not all Montana fire jurisdictions offer subdivision review—most due to the limited nature of volunteer districts and rural communities—Grebenc says he recommends all Counties adopt “fairly detailed fire protection standards” in their regulations—particularly during wildland fire season, when fire officials may be otherwise occupied and a planner can’t wait.
“All jurisdictions should have minimum standards,” he says, “so they know they’ll have a water supply and roads built for emergency access and homeowner egress. Or whether you’ll allow buildings on slopes of 25 or 35 percent, where you could have a fire chimney effect” during a wildland/urban interface fire.
“Somebody by state statute has to answer those questions and give the okay,” says Mineral County Commissioner Judy Stang. “And it should be the fire department. Why do they want someone else controlling that for them?”
Referencing her fellow commissioners, she says, “We’re not the ones to state you need a hammerhead turnaround or fuel mitigation in a particular development. We’re not the fire department. That would be micromanaging. To me, they would want to have that responsibility since they’re the ones suffering the consequences as a fire department having to respond to a fire in those areas.”
Local fire chiefs agree.
“From my experience in Montana, nobody is looking at the subdivision other than a fire department with firefighting issues and capabilities in mind,” says the Chief of the Superior Fire Department and Superior Rural Fire District John Woodland.
“It’s part of the standard procedure to submit [plats] to us [for review],” he says. “Without that, there’s nobody with a firefighting focus and experience looking at water supply…looking at access for emergency vehicles. I don’t think it’s covered elsewhere.”
He explains, “Building codes look at the particular construction of the structure. We’re looking at things like is that a dead end street where I might get a pumper stuck and can’t turn around? Or are the hydrants placed in such way that I can pick up a hydrant going to a fire? Or in a non-hydrant situation, how far do I have to go to get water? Is there a water source close enough to provide a fire flow?
According to state statute, which Mineral and Missoula County have adopted for their regulations, land developers have several options for meeting water supply requirements for fire protection. The apparent default is in the Uniform Fire Code. Called the “rural standard,” it requires fire hydrants and a sustained fire flow from as much as 120,000 gallons of water storage. Other options include wells, ponds, rivers or other natural water bodies.
Missoula County planner McCrea says regulations aren’t specific enough on these other options, which don’t always supply a steady flow for a designated period of time—and do it year round.
“We’ve relied on the fire district, based on state statute, to tell us what they need. They are the experts,” she says.
The least expensive water supply option on the list is residential sprinklers. In Mineral County, according to Commissioner Stang, this alternative is never approved—primarily because the County has not adopted the state’s Building Codes and does not have a building department or the staff to conduct the necessary inspections. In this situation, the State pays a local inspector (typically a certified contractor) to ensure electrical and sanitary standards are met.
Missoula County, meanwhile, does have building codes and a building department that issues permits. And it’s here at the junction of where subdivision review meets building codes that Trustee Green finds “muddy waters” to clarify.
“The State Building Codes Division already stated in a previous communication with the Fire Department, and it’s their legal opinion,” he says, “that this whole issue has been a gray area…this issue of what happens in the counties when they just take and decide to do residential subdivisions, and have requirements and building techniques, too, which they don’t have jurisdiction over?”
He adds, “Our particular district fire chief said the reason he is in subdivision review is because Missoula County asked him to. There are two problems with that. He works for the fire department, not the County. And the County and the OPG should be regulating those requirements. So we don’t really need to be involved in it and shouldn’t be involved in it.”
Missoula Rural Fire Chief Curt Belts understands the confusion, but thinks residential sprinklers are a good option because the system provides an efficient on-site source of water that is more affordable than the default standard, particularly for small developments. State law requires review of all subdivided land—even it’s just one lot—excluding family transfers.
“From a fire department’s standpoint,” Belts says, “if we could have our utopia, we’d have hydrants and a municipal water system and every home would have a fire sprinkler. We’d have the safest community around, but that isn’t practical, particularly in rural Montana.”
Instead, a process of negotiation ensues.
“If you take the fire department out of it, and not allow the fire department to look at other options and their ability to deliver [fire protection] services based on those options,” he says, “you have no choice. You go to the Administrative Rules.”
County officials don’t know how many preliminary subdivision plats have already been issued and will be affected by the policy change, but for now the process is continuing without input from Frenchtown Fire.
McCrea admits frankly that Missoula County doesn’t have the expertise to do subdivision review, particularly in the area of residential sprinklers where system installers must be licensed.
Mineral County Attorney Shaun Donovan states in an email to the Chronicle: “We managed to review subdivisions before the Frenchtown Fire Department got involved in Mineral County and so I think we can figure out a way to do it again. Tim Read [Mineral County Planner] is the person you should talk to about the details.”
The Chronicle could not obtain comment from Read before deadline, but notes that the county may be hiring someone to aid in subdivision review.
Back at Frenchtown Fire, Prevention Officer Cindy Crittendon anticipates the district could lose a minimum of $122, 500 in review fees for just one large subdivision currently underway. She says the district has no way to collect those fees when the plats receive final approval. She says there are many more subdivisions, ranging from two to 80 lots, in the same situation.
Trustee Green, meanwhile, reports he’s unsure of district’s cost savings. He notes both Crittendon and Fire Chief Scott Waldron spent time on the process, which he admits “does generate some revenue but it also increases the cost of building” since developers pass along additional costs to the ultimate buyer: the homeowner.
Crittendon confirms that review fees are set to compensate for the workload, but reasons the review process gives them an advantage: firefighters know in advance where and what they may be defending in future—and how a fire in these new areas could impact its neighbors.
At the State level, after several costly wildfire seasons that threatened homes and taxed community resources, the Department of Labor and Industry (which is charged with handling building codes) and the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (which is responsible for protecting state lands and private structures outside of fire districts) are both working on documents that will provide communities with standards for public and firefighter safety. The DNRC document is anticipated this fall. The DLI document won’t be ready until October 2009.
Contrary to Trustee Green, who states that the “core mission of the fire service is fire suppression and medical response,” Missoula’s Chief Belts believes that fire planning is integral to the job.
“The core value of the fire service,” he says, “is saving lives and property and the best way to save lives is to prevent fire from happening. That’s what inspections and reviews do: Put measures in place to help save the lives of the citizens and the firefighters sent to help them.”
Adds Crittendon, “Think about what we put in these areas: What is most precious! Our kids, our possessions, our animals. We’re trying to keep them safe. We’re not doing it for the money. This is not about revenue or jobs. It’s part of being a fire department.”
###
Officials in two counties say they are puzzled and dismayed by a recent decision by the Frenchtown Fire Board of Trustees to stop reviewing subdivisions. They’re concerned that the action may prove problematic for developers and builders and end up costing district taxpayers more than $122,000. Last month, the Fire Board voted stop using district resources to review subdivisions proposed within its Missoula and Mineral county province. Trustee Glenn Green described the move as eliminating a redundant activity and allowing fire personnel to get back to the “core mission” of providing “fire service” while achieving a cost savings for the district.
Green later explained that he sees the July 14 vote as a way to clarify the overlap between building codes and subdivision regulations—as well as to return the workload to the county level, which, according to the Administrative Rules of Montana, has the ultimate responsibility.
Specifically, counties are tasked with ensuring that proposed subdivisions address the impact and capabilities of “local services, including education and busing, roads and maintenance; water, sewage, and solid waste facilities; and fire and police protection.”
According to Mary McCrea of the Missoula City-County Office of Planning and Grants, OPG requests comment on subdivision proposals (called preliminary plats) from nearly two-dozen entities—including Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, neighborhood councils, and the fire department. These comments help OPG mitigate any impacts to the environment and public health and safety.
McCrea says she “can’t speak to why the Fire Board decided it’s okay to do this.” She does say the decision is looking “problematic” for the County.
““It’s not just the new subdivision proposals coming in,” she explains. “We have many preliminary plats with Conditions of Approval that are subject to review and approval by Frenchtown Fire” before they can move to the “final plat” or building permit stage.
If Frenchtown does not review and sign off on these conditions, she says, the plat essentially “will have to go back to the Commissioners to approve an alternative”—which takes time and frustrates the applicant.
Missoula County Deputy Attorney Mike Sehestedt admits “from a policy point of view” he’s “a little puzzled” by the Board’s decision to get out of the subdivision review business.
“They have a discretion to allocate resources how they want to,” he says. “It’s a decision they can make.
But, he continues, “With Frenchtown not cooperating and coming to some recommendation to provide suitable fire protection, I kind of think we’ll wind up defaulting for any subdivision in that jurisdictional area to the [regulations and the fire protection water supply of] 1000-gallon minimum flow for 20 minutes with fire hydrants every 100 feet, which is based on the Uniform Fire Code, which has been adopted by the State.”
Manager of the Montana Department of Commerce’s Community Technical Assistance Program Jerry Grebenc confirms this thinking. He says without a review, counties must rely on their locally adopted regulations—which vary a great deal from county to county.
“There’s a lot of flexibility about what you can and could choose to require for mitigation of impacts to streets and roads, water and sewer, fire protection supplies,” he says. “There are guidelines in the statutes for what to require, but it’s not written down to the nitty-gritty. It’s not a statute that micromanages. It’s kind of like a growth policy with a statutory checklist, but the details are up to the local government to decide.”
Noting that not all Montana fire jurisdictions offer subdivision review—most due to the limited nature of volunteer districts and rural communities—Grebenc says he recommends all Counties adopt “fairly detailed fire protection standards” in their regulations—particularly during wildland fire season, when fire officials may be otherwise occupied and a planner can’t wait.
“All jurisdictions should have minimum standards,” he says, “so they know they’ll have a water supply and roads built for emergency access and homeowner egress. Or whether you’ll allow buildings on slopes of 25 or 35 percent, where you could have a fire chimney effect” during a wildland/urban interface fire.
“Somebody by state statute has to answer those questions and give the okay,” says Mineral County Commissioner Judy Stang. “And it should be the fire department. Why do they want someone else controlling that for them?”
Referencing her fellow commissioners, she says, “We’re not the ones to state you need a hammerhead turnaround or fuel mitigation in a particular development. We’re not the fire department. That would be micromanaging. To me, they would want to have that responsibility since they’re the ones suffering the consequences as a fire department having to respond to a fire in those areas.”
Local fire chiefs agree.
“From my experience in Montana, nobody is looking at the subdivision other than a fire department with firefighting issues and capabilities in mind,” says the Chief of the Superior Fire Department and Superior Rural Fire District John Woodland.
“It’s part of the standard procedure to submit [plats] to us [for review],” he says. “Without that, there’s nobody with a firefighting focus and experience looking at water supply…looking at access for emergency vehicles. I don’t think it’s covered elsewhere.”
He explains, “Building codes look at the particular construction of the structure. We’re looking at things like is that a dead end street where I might get a pumper stuck and can’t turn around? Or are the hydrants placed in such way that I can pick up a hydrant going to a fire? Or in a non-hydrant situation, how far do I have to go to get water? Is there a water source close enough to provide a fire flow?
According to state statute, which Mineral and Missoula County have adopted for their regulations, land developers have several options for meeting water supply requirements for fire protection. The apparent default is in the Uniform Fire Code. Called the “rural standard,” it requires fire hydrants and a sustained fire flow from as much as 120,000 gallons of water storage. Other options include wells, ponds, rivers or other natural water bodies.
Missoula County planner McCrea says regulations aren’t specific enough on these other options, which don’t always supply a steady flow for a designated period of time—and do it year round.
“We’ve relied on the fire district, based on state statute, to tell us what they need. They are the experts,” she says.
The least expensive water supply option on the list is residential sprinklers. In Mineral County, according to Commissioner Stang, this alternative is never approved—primarily because the County has not adopted the state’s Building Codes and does not have a building department or the staff to conduct the necessary inspections. In this situation, the State pays a local inspector (typically a certified contractor) to ensure electrical and sanitary standards are met.
Missoula County, meanwhile, does have building codes and a building department that issues permits. And it’s here at the junction of where subdivision review meets building codes that Trustee Green finds “muddy waters” to clarify.
“The State Building Codes Division already stated in a previous communication with the Fire Department, and it’s their legal opinion,” he says, “that this whole issue has been a gray area…this issue of what happens in the counties when they just take and decide to do residential subdivisions, and have requirements and building techniques, too, which they don’t have jurisdiction over?”
He adds, “Our particular district fire chief said the reason he is in subdivision review is because Missoula County asked him to. There are two problems with that. He works for the fire department, not the County. And the County and the OPG should be regulating those requirements. So we don’t really need to be involved in it and shouldn’t be involved in it.”
Missoula Rural Fire Chief Curt Belts understands the confusion, but thinks residential sprinklers are a good option because the system provides an efficient on-site source of water that is more affordable than the default standard, particularly for small developments. State law requires review of all subdivided land—even it’s just one lot—excluding family transfers.
“From a fire department’s standpoint,” Belts says, “if we could have our utopia, we’d have hydrants and a municipal water system and every home would have a fire sprinkler. We’d have the safest community around, but that isn’t practical, particularly in rural Montana.”
Instead, a process of negotiation ensues.
“If you take the fire department out of it, and not allow the fire department to look at other options and their ability to deliver [fire protection] services based on those options,” he says, “you have no choice. You go to the Administrative Rules.”
County officials don’t know how many preliminary subdivision plats have already been issued and will be affected by the policy change, but for now the process is continuing without input from Frenchtown Fire.
McCrea admits frankly that Missoula County doesn’t have the expertise to do subdivision review, particularly in the area of residential sprinklers where system installers must be licensed.
Mineral County Attorney Shaun Donovan states in an email to the Chronicle: “We managed to review subdivisions before the Frenchtown Fire Department got involved in Mineral County and so I think we can figure out a way to do it again. Tim Read [Mineral County Planner] is the person you should talk to about the details.”
The Chronicle could not obtain comment from Read before deadline, but notes that the county may be hiring someone to aid in subdivision review.
Back at Frenchtown Fire, Prevention Officer Cindy Crittendon anticipates the district could lose a minimum of $122, 500 in review fees for just one large subdivision currently underway. She says the district has no way to collect those fees when the plats receive final approval. She says there are many more subdivisions, ranging from two to 80 lots, in the same situation.
Trustee Green, meanwhile, reports he’s unsure of district’s cost savings. He notes both Crittendon and Fire Chief Scott Waldron spent time on the process, which he admits “does generate some revenue but it also increases the cost of building” since developers pass along additional costs to the ultimate buyer: the homeowner.
Crittendon confirms that review fees are set to compensate for the workload, but reasons the review process gives them an advantage: firefighters know in advance where and what they may be defending in future—and how a fire in these new areas could impact its neighbors.
At the State level, after several costly wildfire seasons that threatened homes and taxed community resources, the Department of Labor and Industry (which is charged with handling building codes) and the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (which is responsible for protecting state lands and private structures outside of fire districts) are both working on documents that will provide communities with standards for public and firefighter safety. The DNRC document is anticipated this fall. The DLI document won’t be ready until October 2009.
Contrary to Trustee Green, who states that the “core mission of the fire service is fire suppression and medical response,” Missoula’s Chief Belts believes that fire planning is integral to the job.
“The core value of the fire service,” he says, “is saving lives and property and the best way to save lives is to prevent fire from happening. That’s what inspections and reviews do: Put measures in place to help save the lives of the citizens and the firefighters sent to help them.”
Adds Crittendon, “Think about what we put in these areas: What is most precious! Our kids, our possessions, our animals. We’re trying to keep them safe. We’re not doing it for the money. This is not about revenue or jobs. It’s part of being a fire department.”
###