Committee hears split testimony on bill letting fire districts administer International Fire Code

Senate Local Government Committee members heard competing views on Senate Bill 6,064, which would allow certain fire protection districts or regional fire authorities to assume administration and enforcement of the International Fire Code within their jurisdictions.

Committee staff Jacob Ewing described the bill’s key terms: a district or authority with more than $10,000,000 in annual revenue for the preceding three years (or an authority formed by districts whose combined revenues exceed that threshold) could assume code administration and enforcement after giving the county six months’ notice; districts that assume responsibility must offer equivalent positions to county fire-marshal employees displaced by the change and may charge fees to cover inspection and enforcement costs.

Supporters — including representatives of South County Fire — said regional authorities that already operate across cities and unincorporated areas need consistent fire-code administration to protect firefighters and the public. “This bill will clarify that South County Fire and other regional fire authorities are directly involved in the issue and the areas that we have direct effect on the public safety,” said Bob Eastman, chief of South County Fire.

Opponents, including the Washington State Association of Counties, the Building Industry Association of Washington and several county fire marshals, urged a do-not-pass recommendation. Curtis Steinhauer of the state counties association said the bill risks creating a “patchwork of local codes across different fire districts” and could complicate local permitting. Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association said current law allows interlocal agreements (ILAs) that already permit districts to assume code functions and warned the bill would add duplicative permitting that could delay housing and remodeling projects.

Snohomish County witnesses said they had not received requests for ILAs from districts promoting the bill and worried that an RFA (regional fire authority) could assume unilateral authority without negotiated cooperation. “This legislation is dangerous as it will allow a special purpose district to assume the governmental authority from county government against the county’s will,” said Seth Henderson, assistant fire marshal for Snohomish County.

The committee spent time probing whether ILAs are an adequate tool and how revenue and fees would be distributed if districts assumed inspection responsibilities. Supporters said many RFAs already manage prevention and inspections inside contract cities and expect similar arrangements in unincorporated areas. Opponents said the balance of permitting responsibilities and statutory tools such as the Interlocal Cooperation Act make the bill unnecessary.

The hearing produced robust testimony but no formal vote or committee action in the transcript. Committee members asked staff and witnesses for follow-up information about administrative details, thresholds and anticipated fiscal effects.