Elbert County and local fire districts agree on next steps to implement wildfire resiliency code

Elbert County commissioners met with local fire districts on July 15 to discuss how the new state wildfire resiliency code will be applied and enforced across the county’s unincorporated areas. No formal decisions were made; attendees agreed a July 8 county resolution clarifies the county’s authority and set a series of next steps including a unified communications plan, cost estimates and a proposed cooperative agreement.

County Attorney Lance Ingalls said the statute allows an adopting governing body to enforce the code or to do so through a cooperative agreement, and that the county’s recent resolution "bridged that gap." He urged the districts to develop a clear proposal outlining which enforcement responsibilities they expect the county to take on and how costs would be allocated.

"I didn't think last week's resolution was necessary but it's certainly not objectionable," County Attorney Lance Ingalls said, explaining his reading of the new statute and why the county passed the resolution.

Fire marshals and chiefs at the meeting described how enforcement could be split between building-permitting work and vegetative-fuels responsibilities. Chris Burnett, a fire marshal who spoke for several districts, said builders and homeowners need clear, uniform information about when the code applies and what work will trigger requirements.

"If the districts in the county can move forward with a shared communications plan so that we are on the same page about how we're sharing this with our community members, it might benefit all of us," Chris Burnett said.

Attendees discussed several technical triggers and inspection thresholds in the code. Fire officials said a new building addition with a footprint of 500 square feet or more would be subject to the code for that addition; repairs that replace more than 25% of exterior wall cladding can trigger site-and-area design requirements for the first 5 feet around a structure. Participants also noted roofing work that replaces a large portion of a roof may require higher-class roofing materials under the code.

Robert Nelson, fire chief of the North Central Fire Protection District, described the capacity limits confronting volunteer districts and cautioned that enforcement will require more staff time and possibly inspection fees.

"I have no way to first, I don't have money to train somebody," Robert Nelson said, noting his volunteer district could not absorb fines and added inspection burdens without additional resources.

Officials also discussed the statewide hazard map that determines which properties fall into higher-severity classes. Modifying that map locally requires documentation of vegetation fuel types, topography, historic wildfire occurrence and fire-behavior modeling; participants urged using GIS-supported local mapping and recommended focusing early work on higher-density, higher-risk areas to get quicker relief for the most impacted projects.

Tom Blevins, the county building official, was asked to estimate how much extra staff time and inspection work different application types will require so the commissioners can understand budget and staffing implications before taking any formal action. Commissioners and fire chiefs also agreed to share talking points and coordinate with the county public information officer on a unified messaging plan.

The meeting concluded with no vote. Fire districts were asked to draft a cooperative proposal describing how they would like enforcement responsibilities divided and the county to follow up with a written cost/time estimate that can inform any future resolution or agreement.

What happens next: fire districts will assemble a unified proposal for a cooperative agreement; county staff will prepare time-and-cost estimates for permit and inspection work; and county and district officials will coordinate a communications rollout for affected residents and builders.