Local Government Q&A
Test your knowledge of municipal practices and
procedures with the questions and answers below. Click
here to submit a question to Ancel Glink.
Municipal Q&A - December 2003
Do fire protection district codes supercede municipal codes?
ANSWER:
A number of tragic recent fires have brought to the fore the fact that sprinklers save lives. Two entities are the principal proponents of the installation of sprinklers. The first is the sprinkler industry, which points out that today's sprinklers are great improvements over those in use in prior years. Modern sprinklers only go off in the area where a fire is detected, while the rest of the building may be undamaged by water. The fire sprinkler industry has voluminous literature showing that a significant number of lives could be saved each year if sprinklers were widely in use.
The second great proponent of the installation of sprinkler systems are the administrators and the firefighters in fire departments and fire protection districts. Their job becomes much easier, safer, and more effective if they have operating sprinkles to assist them. This combination of the industry and people who risk their lives each day in our defense has convinced a growing number of municipalities to require sprinkler systems in a variety of building types. In fact, a number of municipalities now require sprinklers to be installed in single-family homes. Other communities require sprinklers in commercial and industrial buildings, in apartment buildings and in townhouses.
But other municipalities believe that the added cost of installing sprinklers is a deterrent to development in the community, and that the benefit is not worth the expense.
In some situations, disputes have arisen between municipalities and fire protection districts as to which government has the authority to require sprinkler systems. In some cases, the argument has been made that, even though sprinklers are not required by municipal ordinances, they can be required by an overlapping fire protection district. The law on this subject is reasonably clear and has been made even clearer by a recent decision of the Illinois Appellate Court.
The Fire Protection District Act, 70 ILCS 705/11, gives to fire protection districts the ability to "adopt and enforce fire prevention codes and standards parallel to national standards." Such fire codes can deal with construction standards, including a requirement that sprinklers be installed in particular kinds of buildings. The statute, however, gives the complete upper hand to the municipality "in which fire prevention codes have been adopted" within its corporate boundaries, where that municipality is served by a fire protection district rather than a municipal fire department. Thus, a fire protection district which favors the installation of sprinklers in new single-family homes, or the retrofitting of existing buildings, cannot, within the borders of a municipality it serves, impose its own stricter code requirements over those of the municipality. If the corporate authorities of the municipality decide that it would be too expensive to have sprinklers installed in new single-family homes or to retrofit existing buildings, its policy decision prevails over a fire protection district ordinance. The board members of a fire protection district and the firefighters themselves can exercise their constitutional right to urge the corporate authorities of the municipality to adopt stricter codes, but the ultimate decision rests with the municipality.
The rule is different regarding unincorporated land. In Wauconda Fire Protection District v. Stonewall Orchards LLP and the County of Lake, 797 N.E.2d 1130, 278 Ill.Dec. 212, __Ill.App.__(2d Dist., Oct. 2, 2003) the Illinois Appellate Court decided that the language of 70 ILCS 705/11, does not give the codes of a county priority over the codes of a fire protection district in unincorporated areas. The Appellate Court found that a county is not "a municipality" for the purposes of the statutory provision. Therefore, both county codes and fire protection district codes are applicable for construction in unincorporated areas. Under those circumstances, developers must comply with the stricter of the two codes. So, if the county does not require sprinklers, but the fire protection district does, the developer must provide them.
The ruling in this Appellate Court case, unless overturned by an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, may encourage developers' efforts to annex land to municipalities which do not require sprinklers. If fire protection districts continue their current trend of strongly favoring sprinkler installation in all buildings, developers who had contemplated building in the county may well seek to enter into annexation agreements for their land, even if the land is not presently contiguous to the municipality. Outside Cook County and the collar counties, in the less populous counties of Illinois, a municipality which enters into an annexation agreement can extend its jurisdiction to the affected land. Under those circumstances, a municipality which does not require sprinklers would be able to override the ordinance of a fire protection district which does require them. In contrast, if the unincorporated land were developed without an annexation agreement, the weaker county code would be superseded by the stronger fire protection district code.
In Cook County and the collar counties, land which is governed by an annexation agreement but not yet annexed, is not subject to municipal regulations. Where the regulations of the county or a fire protection district require sprinklers, an annexation agreement cannot exempt the development from compliance with those regulations.
The market place may eventually force developers to provide sprinklers, regardless of whether they are required. But developers who wish to avoid the additional cost may seek to escape county or fire protection district mandates by entering into annexation agreements with municipalities which do not require sprinklers.
Please direct comments or questions to Stewart Diamond at: (312) 782-7606.
Previous Questions
What Are the New Rules About Recording Closed Meetings?
What Does a Municipality Need to Know About Extending
Utility Lines?
Are Courts Especially Hard On Governmental Bodies?
How Can You Achieve Flexibilty in
Health Care Coverages in a Collective Bargaining Agreement?
Question and Answers at the 2002 Illinois Muncipal League
Conference
Are political discussions subject to the Open Meetings Act?
What can be done about IMRF Overfunding?
How can a municipality regulate wireless internet service providers?
How can governments counter unionization?
Where can I find an outline of zoning and planning issues?
Question and Answers at the 2001 Illinois Muncipal League
Conference
Question and Answers at the 2000 Illinois Muncipal League
Conference
How are closed session Minutes taken, approved and reviewed?
Will insurance companies and governmental pools cover claims
for "regulatory takings?"
Who gets to choose the municipal attorney?
How are the Open Meetings Act and FOIA impacted by municipal
elections?
Must you engage in collective bargaining if you employ 20 regular
employees and 20 summer employees?
When can a political party nominate by caucus?
Can a governmental body hold a retreat?
When can a municipality use a recapture agreement?
Can a governmental body reconsider actions previously taken?
Can a public body hold a meeting with less than 48 hours' notice?
Must the resignation of a police officer be accepted by the corporate
authorities?
Is the mayor required to appoint an officer for the full period
of her term?
In a village with a president and six trustees, the vote to approve
an ordinance authorizing the execution of an annexation agreement is 3-yes, 2-no
and 1-absent. Does the president vote? Does the ordinance pass?
And many more...
|
