Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Risk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners weigh where to apply new WOOI wildfire code, ask staff for draft GIS map
Summary
Under House Bill 48 the county must select which wildland‑urban interface (WOOI) zones it will adopt for enforcement. County staff and a state consultant presented risk maps; commissioners discussed choosing a cutoff (state requires inclusion of risk score 5 or higher — county may opt for 6 to narrow scope), inspection workload, training and whether the county or state should perform property inspections; staff will prepare a draft map showing subdivisions and estimated structure counts for next meeting.
County planning staff and a state representative briefed the Rich County Commission on mapping and enforcement choices for the new wildland‑urban interface code (WOOI) required by the Legislature under House Bill 48.
The state model scores "structure exposure" across the landscape. The presenter explained the statute requires counties to include any area the state rates as a 5 or higher; counties may draw boundaries that include higher scores (6 or 7) to limit enforcement. "Everything that is a five needs to be included or we cannot go less than five," the presenter said. Commissioners discussed the practical tradeoffs: a larger WOOI area increases the inspection and administration workload, while a narrower area risks leaving some at‑risk homes outside the code.
Commissioners asked how many homes would be affected and about likely costs to homeowners to meet Class A building or defensible‑space standards; staff said many building products now carry Class A ratings but acknowledged there will be incremental costs and insurance‑rating effects. The group discussed which entity should perform inspections — county staff, a fire district, or the state — and whether inspections could be self‑certified with photo uploads. Commissioners expressed concern about inspection consistency, weekend availability for seasonal homeowners and likely follow‑up work after initial mitigation.
Planning staff agreed to produce a draft GIS map that prioritizes clear, enforceable boundaries (for example aligning with roads or subdivision limits), estimate the number of structures in proposed zones, and obtain Weaver/Weber County implementation examples for comparison. No formal boundary decision was made; commissioners indicated a preference to "split the difference" (a threshold near 6) but asked for a mapped draft before formal action.
Next steps: GIS staff to produce draft WOOI boundary options and structure counts; staff to gather Weaver County documents and draft ordinance language for review and a public hearing at a future meeting.
