Fire districts, counties clash over who should administer International Fire Code

The House Local Government Committee heard testimony on House Bill 16-54, which would allow fire protection districts or regional fire protection service authorities with more than $10 million in annual revenue for the preceding three years to assume responsibility for administering and enforcing the International Fire Code within their jurisdictions.

Committee staff Kellen Wright summarized the bill: “It would allow a fire protection district, or regional fire protection service authority… with more than $10,000,000 in annual revenue for the preceding 3 years to unilaterally assume responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the international fire code… The fire protection authority would have to give the county at least 6 months notice…and allow all workers displaced from the county fire marshal's office because of the change to assume an equivalent position within the fire protection authority.”

Sponsors and large fire districts said the change would align inspections, plans review, investigations, and response under a single authority and improve public safety. Deputy Chief Oscar Espinosa of Central Pierce/Orting/Graham testified that his merged district already provides inspections and plan review in incorporated areas and asked for the option to expand that work “to our entire response area so that we can administer the process and codes in a congruent fashion that aligns with our fire prevention and emergency response goals.”

Supporters from South Snohomish County Regional Fire Authority and other regional agencies testified similarly, saying the bill would address lack of parity between residents in contract cities and those in unincorporated areas and produce better coordination of prevention and response.

County officials, county fire marshals, and building‑industry groups testified in opposition. Laurie Burke, Snohomish County assistant fire marshal and a Washington State Association of Fire Marshals board member, said the bill “conflicts with the purpose and objective to consolidate the administration of the building codes within each authorized enforcement jurisdiction” and warned it would “bifurcate any processes currently established within county governments and have adverse impacts causing increased costs, increased review timelines, and negatively impact established coordination.”

Mason County Fire Marshal Randy Collins said longstanding interlocal cooperation under the Interlocal Cooperation Act (referenced in testimony) allows jurisdictions to negotiate shared services and that the bill’s unilateral transfer authority could be disruptive. Curtis Steinhauer of the Washington State Association of Counties testified the bill “could result in a patchwork of code enforcement agencies across the same county,” raising concerns about permitting predictability and county capacity to maintain fire marshal offices.

Builders and industry representatives opposed the bill as written, saying the existing contract/ILA model provides needed consistency and efficiency; at least one builder noted potential cost savings if fire‑response practitioners were engaged earlier in plan review but urged preserving a single county code authority.

The committee received mixed testimony from merged fire districts urging the option to assume code administration, and from county officials, fire marshal organizations, and builders urging continued county administration and use of interlocal agreements. No committee vote on HB 16‑54 was recorded during the hearing.