Travis County Commissioners Court
January 25, 2005
Item 7
Number 7 is consider and take appropriate action regarding order amending the Travis County code adding chapter 71 fire code, which adopts the following: a, the international fire code for Travis County; and b, appropriate fees for implementation of the fire code.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. My name is simon brusard, the Travis County fire March shafplt brief review on Thursday, April 22, 2004, the fire marshal's business plan which included adoption of the county fire code was presented to the Commissioners court. On Tuesday, may 11, 2004, the Commissioners court approved the basic concept of the fire marshal's business plan. And authorized purchase of necessary equipment to support a county-wide [inaudible] and associated software. During the f.y. '05 budget hearings in process this Commissioners court approved additional f.t.e.s, full-time employees, for implementation of the fire code. On January 11, 2005, [inaudible] was held regarding adoption of the fire code. No one presented negative testimony to the adoption of the fire code. On January 18th, 2005, a request to delay the vote for one week at Commissioner Daugherty's request so we could [inaudible] representatives of small businesses. On January 21st, 2005, three individuals, Commissioner Daugherty, the fire marshal, and a county attorney met in Commissioner Daugherty's office. Within this hour and a half meeting, a number of issues were presented, but there were no projects with plans presented for review by our office. One of the individuals asked about the water flow issues of an average building. When advised by this office that one had to have a structure over 12,000 square feet before a sprinkler system was required, his response was wow, this code is much more lenient than the uniform fire code. The reality is that it's 12,000 square feet which is not departmentalized through petitions. A space approximately 10 times the size of the Commissioners courtroom we're in today. Most if not all businesses have an office, storage, filing rooms, customary restrooms, et cetera, so a building closer to 18,000, 20,000 square feet, which comparison purposes is approximately 15 times the size of this Commissioners courtroom or about the size of the first floor of this county facility. The average small business usually runs 4,000 to 7,000 total square feet. Which is way below the requirement for a sprinkler system in the national fire code. Based on ethics alone, architects, engineers and contractors follow an actual standard when they design and construct standards in an effort to protect their own liability issues. The average small business does not need to be sprinkled and therefore there should not be any additional cost or restrictions to the growth of small businesses. There are some copies being passed out to you in a second from the code that I want to read to you. And i've highlighted those to make it easy for you to locate. First page it's 104.8 modifications. Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out provisions of this code, the fire code officials have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases. Provided the frier code officials show, first, find that special within reason makes strict [inaudible] of this practical and the modifications and compliance with intent and -- life and fire safety requirements. The details of any action, planning modifications, shall be record understand the files of the fire prevention. On the next page, b, fire requirements for buildings. Section b 103.1 decreases. The fire chief is authorized to reduce the [inaudible] or a group of buildings in rural areas or small communities where the development of full fire code requirement is impractical. On the next page, the national fire protection association, document 1231, 8.2 states in locations where adequate visible water systems are not provided, additional fire protection is needed. [inaudible] water supplies shall be established in or transportable to this area. And b-1, water supply, a firefighter operating without a water system with hydrants or very limited number of hydrants has two means of getting water. One, supplies on the fire ground which can be constructed or natural or two, supplies transported to the scene. So there are multiple ways to handle the water flow issues that are in what we know are in rural Travis County.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> ... In their respective insurance rates. Today the judge and commissions, you will take an historic action for the safety and citizens of Travis County. The purpose of the fire code is to protect and promote the health of the safety and residence of Travis County. By requiring permits for the construction and promotional structures and public buildings in Travis County, to propose standards to protect the lives of the property and general public. Tarrant, dallas, bexar county already adopted this fire code. We will embark on the mechanism to ensure that all of the citizens of Travis County can ensure to be fire safe in any commercial or public building located in the county. Per state law, this fire code does not apply to private residences. Adoption of the fire code will allow the Travis County fire marshals office to transition from being reactive to being proactive. And provide safety issues in addition to the current missions of the office. Citizens lives will be saved by the actions that you are taking today, they will have the members of this Commissioners court to thank. Your vision and commitment to the citizens of Travis County is indisputable. Today the county fire services, specifically the fire prevention and fire education community, commend you for your dedication. Once again, we thng you for your support -- thank you for your support. Your affirmative vote on the adoption of the fire code, and for the safety of the citizens of Travis County.
>> have you received modifications that -- that other urban counties may have in place? You mentioned several counties that adopted the international fire code. Do we know whether they have written modifications? They follow these guidelines where there's a variance or need requested, when they can make those variances they do. That happens in every county and every other city that has a fire code.
>> but we don't have standards for variances that we adopt up front?
>> well, there is a guide line on appendix b, fire floor requirements of building, p 105.2, that's one of the guidelines that you would need for 50%, up to 75%. There are written guidelines that we follow [indiscernible]
>> this says modification, is that the same as a variance? Ms. Wilson?
>> I think it would be. The -- the -- the information that I have suggests that tarrant county has not aadopted a fire code. According to their attorney, perhaps their fire marshal did it without their attorney knowing it. The harris county one in fact has taken out the entire chapter one out of the code and put in their own chapter one and they did address criteria for variances in their code.
>> normally if you adopt standards, but you provide for variances, normally you sort of indicate up front how you will determine case by case requests for variances. Now, during our 90 day education period, as the issues surface, you may get a better idea of exactly what we need to have in place to variance language. You did meet with several individuals on Friday and are they in court today and would like to comment on this item?
>> county judge, Commissioners, I'm Ron thrower, I have a land planning company here in Austin, we have -- we have a lot of clients that we do projects for in the central Texas area. My concern, I have three concerns about this. One of them I would like it understood and read into the minute of the court that my understanding of an exemption for this particular project or excuse me this particular code amendment is ground breaking and we have a project that -- that commenced construction last week, but we have not broken ground on the slab and it's my understanding through the county attorney's office that ground breaking is just that, ground breaking, so we are outlet there kicking dirt around, laying pipe, do the infrastructure that project is exempt, that is my understanding. Second of all, I have concern about projects that have gone through every process that has been put to them and obtained a site development permit through the county, through the city if it's in the e.t.j. Or what have you and are right now going through financings options for the development of their property. They have -- they may or may not be aware of this issue. They may be going forward with financing, being under construction, and then be in violation. Their financing as they are going through it right now does not take into account any implications of the international fire code adoption, what effect that may have on the buildings construction, the sites accessibility, the water pressure, what have you. And they could find themselves in a hole on the project very quick if it's going to take $100,000 to provide this fix. The third thing that I would like to bring up is within the amendments, I have some concerns about a specific word in relation to the construction and design standards. They are talking about the applicability and going through it, they talk about a particular commercial use that in their eyes, if it is many obtained as a commercial use, then the code applies to it. I see maintained as having two very restrictive implications on this. One of them is maintain as in continue a current use. Secondly would be maintain as in repairing a current use and to what agree can that repair -- degree can that repair occur before the new rules apply. If maintenance needs to be defined further, I think now is the time to do it, because I see it to have implications on existing commercial establishments. Thank you.
>> what triggers your grandfathered or your not, especially related to what the effective date is related to any kind of a -- call it a grace period that we choose to have an education process, would that count or not?
>> that would not count. Grace period the way that it is normally dealt with in terms of giving people time to learn and understand is moving your effective date. So that a grace period for punitive measures, you just say 30, 60, 90, 180 days from today is the -- the code is effect active rather than saying it's effective today and creating a -- an agreed upon non-punitive period at the beginning of it.
>> can you address the questions raised by what -- what is that mark? Is it a site development permit, is a grand breaking, what is it?
>> the way that the order is written now, it's ground breaking. It can be changed because clearly what the law said in giving us authority is if ground is broken, you cannot include these. So if we back it up to say a permit is granted, that's -- that's hopefully all of the permits are granted before the ground is broken. I'm sure that sometimes that isn't the case, but if we take it from that perspective, then presumably we are give men more time and -- given more time and we can revise the wording that we put into our order to say permits granted and/or we can make it an alternative, whichever is earlier, ground breaking or permits granted to ensure if somebody broke ground before we got their permit, we don't go afoul of the law. In relation to the issue about maintain, the word maintained is in the -- in the language that we have put in as to who is grandfathered in, who is not. That word could be removed because what's left if you take that out is enlarged, altered, you might want to if you are going to take out maintained consider whether you need repaired out. But repaired could also be a significant repair as opposed to a small repair. Move, removed, demolished converted. Taking maintained out would take out the example used in the meeting we reroofing. Take out somebody who reroofed but repairing could take out reroofing, but also take out people who had a fire and lost half of their building, they were just repairing.
>> I would file better in terms of the effective date, when your development permits have been issued, as in last June it rained the entire month of June, it could be that somebody was ready to go and you know mother nature got in the way. To me it's more of a permit has been issued because it's really there could be a lot of reasons why somebody chooses to or has a choice forced upon them to have to delay the actual ground breaking, we've had that a kazillion times on ground breakings, ceremonial things, sometimes the weather just doesn't cooperate. That makes sense to me.
>> yes, sir.
>> we talked about the ground breaking, about the issuance of the permit, in another 30 days it won't make any difference. This whole thing got to this spot y'all because everyone -- I mean the question that I asked, where I was comfortable, a month ago, would say this was not an issue. Is the fact that fire flow is generally what fireman want to use to fight a fire. Adequate water, adequate pressure with water, we know that there is a major issue in the county part -- I mean the true unincorporated areas of most of Travis County where you just don't have fire flow. So that was -- I think, the reason why there were people that did surface and for right sake, you're thinking, you are somebody that's considering building a building or if you think that you are going to expand your building in six months or a year, I mean I'm somewhat sympathetic to that. I think that most people are. I think that firemen probably are if you really come to somebody, said do you want to have some sort of an ill everything on the potential of my operating my business. Now, we obviously, where I got comfortable with the response from chief brussard was no, there are other things that you can do if you don't have adequate fire flow. Well, the more I got to talking to people, I mean, from architects to planners to whatever, so things that you have to do is -- are to -- to buildings are things that are, you know, not the most practical thing to do. I mean, if you have a -- if you have a 13,000 square foot dance hall, you can't com pairment 13,000 square foot of a building. I mean, you can't dance in 200 square foot rooms throughout that building. I mean, whatever kind of manufacturing that you might be doing. Where does that get you? It gets you to come to the tire chief, whether we are calling it a modification or really talking about a variance at that time, and, you know, I'm still a little nervous with -- with perhaps applying as much liability to the fire marshal as that would take. I mean, you know, I'm glad to have somebody where somebody can go and show somebody their plans and say, you know what, I just don't have the fire flow here, by the way, I have a building that I can't put a lot of little compartments in. So how do I get this building built? Well, obviously, I mean, the fire chief I suppose is the one that's going to say you're right, you don't have the fire flow out here and you are going to need some sort of a variance. That vearngs may be pretty easily granted the first time, but it's just going to take one incident happening where either somebody got hurt or whether union there was something somewhat catastrophic. I will bet you that the next time the fire chief is approached with a variance that they are not going to be very likely to issue that variance. Now that may be fine in this county, that may be fine with this court and say you know what, what we really are after is public safety. And because I think that that's something that most people buy off on of the public safety is something that we want for ourselves and something that we want for our constituents. I am surprised that whenever we did have the public hearing on January the 11th, we had no one. I did have three people, I did ask to have this postponed for a week, I appreciate the court's indulgence with that. And I think that mr. Thrower has probably brought up a couple of the issues that are brought up for folks that may anticipate building a building out in the unincorporated areas and given that the chief is going to be the one where it really is going to funnel back to him, with regards to -- to is there ever going to be a variance given because quite frankly, I think that the variances are going to be the norm in the unincorporated areas. When you find that you can't meet the fire flow. And that's -- that -- if this court is willing to say, you know, the international fire code is something that we want to adopt, we are willing to give that authority to the chief then union hey i've had my say on it. I think we've had the opportunity to have people come down. I'm surprised there's only mr. Thrower here today, but everybody's schedule is pretty busy. I appreciate the time, I think that we've answered the questions, judge, that we need. The only other question that I would ask from a legal standpoint, barbara, do you -- are there any places that you see any sort of exposure to Travis County with adopting this fire code today?
>> that question should be answered in executive session.
>> do you think that there is something that we need to discuss in executive session regarding perhaps liability to the county?
>> liability to the county and effectiveness of the code, yes.
>> then, judge, should we take that up in executive session or should we stop 'n go in and get whatever --
>> I should say take it up this afternoon.
>> okay.
>> how common is a plus 1200, 12,000 square foot building in unincorporated areas? That's for anybody who thinks he knows the answer.
>> judge, the -- most businesses are four to 7,000 square feet, it's not very common. But like I said, it's a pretty good sized structure, about 10 times the size of this courtroom.
>> if you put a commercial building near some sort of residential development, chances are that the water pressure would be there. Before you if you put one in a sort of isolated area, say maybe in anticipation of future growth, chances are greater that there will not be sufficient water pressure.
>> that's a probability.
>> in that case, though, during the permitting process, whatever water flow issues exist will surface.
>> correct.
>> and it's that that point that they will be dealt with.
>> that's correct.
>> so on -- is it maintain a maintenance fee language that we're worried about, mr. Thrower talked about.
>> maintained.
>> so if we say -- you think if we say substantial repairs that's a lot better.
>> if we say substantial repairs, we would want to address what substantial meanings. I know that the harris county provision provided for substantial change or substantial modification and they put theirs at 50%, but the court would need to decide what they consider to be substantial. Because substantial is -- is -- substantially buy us a lawsuit real buy us a lawsuit real easy because it's ambiguous.
>> substantially buy one faster than maintain?
>> no, probably not. About the same. Substantial.
>> let's give some thoughts, too, do you have any concerns about that. Looks like maintain is so general that it is sort of open ended. Maybe we could provide more guidance by narrowing it a little bit and using another nebulous by word like substantial.
>> judge, for -- most cities use 30%, that type of fire code substantial, 30 to 50%, I think that's generally the accepted norm for the enforcement of a substantial repair or replacement of something. That would apply to that section.
>> we've had to deal with the issue of substantial repair in terms of dealing with the floodplain issues, when do you allow somebody to rebuild or not. I think that's a 50% in terms of if it's -- the -- the value. But I think that's a good one to say let's define -- that's not a -- that's not something that -- that can cause us a lot of heart ache. Judge, I want to give one other perspective in terms of the fire flow. There are a lot of areas where it's byow, bring your own water. It always has been, it always will be. But the only thing worse than the situation you talked about there in terms of -- you know, that large structure out in the middle of nowhere, where there isn't water, is having that same large structure in the middle of nowhere with no fire code. We've had to deal with situations and it was basically when we were talking about raves about these large structures, just got slapped down with zero thought as to fire safety. And how to get vehicles in and out. There was nothing -- the only thing worse than saying that there is a fire code is to say that there isn't a fire code. And that somebody I would think that when they would go to one of those large dance hall structures, would like to think that -- that somebody reviewed the plans here with -- with fire and safety in mind. As opposed to don't have to, good luck.
>> wait a minute. I don't want anybody to think the reason that I asked for a week --
>> no, no, no,.
>> is because I'm not for the international fire code. What I was asked by some constituents is can we come in and talk to you about this. I mean, I think it makes all of the sense in the world. I want somebody, especially when you are out of these areas, with these raves, things of this nature, I want you to be able to protect somebody. I'm not interested in you just putting up a lean-to, getting a thousand people in there, severing 6,000 gallons of beer, you know what there's a fire going on, oh, really. That's not what we're after. I mean, we're after public safety here. But I think we -- the reason that I wanted it brought back is so that we could unfortunately during the public hearing, we didn't get to have a little bit of an exercise like this. We probably had -- the exercise was in my office on Friday. In the hour and a half that we had. Unfortunately, I would like to take that and be able to show it back so that people know you know what, we did talk about it, we did bring it up. Quite honestly, it's still the right thing to do because I -- I'm very much in favor of that. I think the people that came into my office on Friday also understand why we would do this. But obviously, I mean, they are in industry or work for somebody that says hey, you know, go down and let's make sure of what might be happening to us. You know, there are so many things that we can't do with regulation, things that we would like to be able to do as a Commissioners court, quite frankly, I think this is, you know, one of the areas that we can pass something that is going to benefit, you know, our group folks. So, yeah, I didn't want anybody to get the impression that hey I'm trying to get out here and mount a force to defeat the international adopted international fire code. But I do think that everybody needs to have their opportunity to say here are some issues that I think that I could have with it. And let's just make sure that everybody knows that, hey, that the thing that you really need in order to build something out in the unincorporated area is most likely something that you are not going to have so you need to perhaps think about plan b with regards to being able to get a permit. I mean, because this is going to be good that's going to be part of our permitting process at this point. From this point forward. You can make all of this other things but when it gets to -- to the fire marshal, the fire marshal has to -- to put his signature on it as to whether or not you get that -- that plat.
>> if there's something that is killing small business, it is, you know, sunk costs of things such as insurance. Everybody out in the you think incorporated is having -- in the unincorporated is having to take their burden of not having a fire code, the fire insurance out there is higher. This is something that will be relief, they are no longer have to share the burden of not being a fire code. I'm glad to hear you say these are questions to make what we are doing better, but not that we're talking about walking away. I still want to make sewer that we have discussions as well as to what the effective date is. I feel in terms of your final site development permits being issued. Not the first permit because sometimes it's like you are getting the septic system. But it's the final permit that allows you to like move that to me outing to be the trigger point as opposed to a ground breaking. This can -- there can be a million reasons in the world between when you get your permit and when your ground breaking is going to be.
>> do -- if we want to take one more item, four or five minutes, then take this item in executive session try to finish it before lunch?
>> I think we should because the executive session stuff is -- that we are going to do this afternoon is quick.
>> very quick.
>> so that nobody has to come back. We can get this thing.
>> Commissioner Daugherty and I have a thing to get to at 12 noon.
>> let's get my office to go ahead and set up the executive session for us. We will call this item up in executive session in just a minute and discuss legal issues and hopefully after that discussion come back into court shortly thereafter to take whatever action we need to in court. Okay?
>> okay.
>> and so we will just put item 7.
>> 7.
>> 7 a and b on hold for a few moments. And we will call up item no. 30. Which is to draw names for the grabbed --
>> judge, this gentleman wanted to speak on --
>> coming back to you.
>> 7 a and b.
>> coming back to it.
>> we will be back to it real soon.
now let's call back 7 a and b. And that was the item regarding the Travis County code, adding chapter 71 fire code, international fire code, b was appropriate fees. Yes, sir, if you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> thank you. My name is chris layman, chairman of the Austin regional group of the sierra club. I apologize for not knowing the process. We are in favor of the fire code. With as few exiptions as possible. We -- as few exceptions as possible. We do believe it's a serious environmental concern that fires my be prolonged because of delays in responding. There are concerns about these longer roads with no turn arounds out in the county. They are just cut off. We are also very concerned for the safety of the people. I'm also a member of the appraisal institute by career and, you know, a lot of people assume, they don't know they have crossed an invisible line that the codes have changed, that there's no building code. So -- so they don't know that their fate is preordained. It already been decided. If that building catches on fire, they will be fighting for that 32 ism space to get out. And pretty horrible tragedy. No clue. They just assume they are as safe as anywhere. If they live maybe in a city that's got building codes they are expecting something different when they get out to the county and not even know they cross that line. We sure appreciate your support of this fire code for the county. We think that it's essential for all of us. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
(brief discussion of item 6.)
steve, I think that we plan to go to lunch after this -- and now, so on the number 6. Let's think about this on number 6. Whether we in fact need to have our work sessions Thursday, whether we could easily move them back to Wednesday afternoon. Talking about two times a month. Also the other notion is whether we need to have them at 1:30 in the afternoon. Do they like start in the morning or start in the afternoon?
>> sometimes they start at 1:00, judge.
>> so the option would be we could move it back to Wednesday for these four months, see how it works. Let's think about that over lunch. In spirit of compromise and working with our state officials.
number 7 we have just called to order. And took comments on that. Now we will go into executive session under the consultation with legal counsel for legal advice. We will discuss this one item and then come back to court and take appropriate action.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed items 7 a and b and there is a motion? Move that we give ourselves another week to further review specific language regarding modification and variance for Travis County and at the same time look at maintenance and substitute appropriate language for that, we talked about substantial repairs as a possible option. That we also give thought to -- to -- I think we also talked about what the effective date of -- a ground breaking versus issuance of permit and other factors that we talked about today. Anything else.
>> final permit because it's not the first permit. It's the final permit.
>> whatever language we need on that. That was -- that seemed to me to be pretty important.
>> there was some discussion that went between 30 and 50 and maybe being -- being non-specific in relation to substantial. Did the court reach a --
>> both. Can we have language with both of them in there, 50%, then 30 to 50, see what the differences are.
>> second that motion.
>> if we use 50 as we use understand the floodplain issues, that's a nightmarish situation. According to my recollection. But if that's the best then, so be it. In other matters that we talked about today, for the fire marshal discussed, it may help for us to see this language variance option source so we can choose and maybe try to make a final decision next week. Was there a second to that motion?
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes.
>> and in my view we are trying to put something in place, hopefully that will last indefinitely. So I think that it's important for us to -- to proceed extinguish showsly but -- expeditiously but take whatever time is necessary. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> move adjourn for lunch.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, January 26, 2005 8:31 AM