Kansas providers and local governments press for clearer, consistent fire-code enforcement

Topeka — Long-term care providers, advocates for people with disabilities and local building officials told the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency on Sept. 9 that inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of Kansasfire and life-safety codes by the State Fire Marshalhas caused construction delays, unexpected retrofit costs and situations where complying with one agencyrequirement would violate another.

The complaints centered on a handful of recurring problems: retroactive changes to previously approved building plans, differing requirements between the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) and the State Fire Marshal, and unclear or shifting expectations about acceptable alternatives to sprinklers in small multi-unit housing. Providers described projects stalled mid-construction and facilities briefly tagged with an "immediate jeopardy" finding later rescinded.

"This is not a new challenge," said Kylie Childs, director of government affairs for LeadingAge Kansas, citing repeated examples of facilities cited after following previously accepted procedures. Linda Mowbray, president and CEO of the Kansas Health Care Association, told the committee that assisted-living facilities and nursing homes "don't even share the same code requirements," noting assisted living in Kansas is enforced to the 2006 life-safety code while nursing homes use the 2012 edition.

Administrators said the mismatch can create impossible choices. Michelle Rifford, administrator at Well Springs of Westmoreland, described a case in which a memory-care courtyard gate had been secured with a passcode-protected lock for decades to meet dementia-care safety needs. A fire inspector initially ordered the padlock removed and the gate wired to the fire alarm system; KDADS rules, she said, require secure exits for residents at risk of elopement. "If a resident had wandered outside, we could have received a separate immediate jeopardy citation from the health inspector," Rifford said. The fire marshal later told the facility the citation had been based on the wrong regulation and rescinded the immediate jeopardy finding, she said, but the facility had already spent staff time and money and had disrupted residents' routines.

Local building and fire officials told the committee they want to preserve local code-making authority and the flexibility in local amendments that communities have long used to address local conditions. "We're asking for your support to help the state fire marshal adopt a contemporary code while preserving the local decision-making authority with cities and counties who stay current," Sedgwick County Deputy Chief Brad Crisp said. Wichita's joint building and construction department director, Chris Labrum, said the department submits full amendment packages to the State Fire Marshal for review and that prior review had reduced conflicts.

State Fire Marshal Mark Ingholm acknowledged tensions but said his office is enforcing a statewide minimum standard and has a statutory duty to do so. "I have been the state fire marshal for about 20 months," Ingholm testified. "It is my job to carry [laws] out as you pass them." He said the state code is long out of date in places and that many of the disputes stem from differences between the older statewide code and more recent local code cycles.

Multiple witnesses urged more collaborative problem-solving and faster updates to the state's rules and regulations so state and local requirements align. Several called for a standing multi-stakeholder workgroup. Local officials said they sometimes rely on accepted alternatives to sprinklers, such as two-hour fire separations between units, and that those alternatives are part of local amendment packages that were vetted by local boards. Builders and municipal officials said those amendments have worked safely for years in many jurisdictions.

The committee heard specific accounts of construction projects stalled or made more expensive when a fire-marshals office reviewer later required a different water service or sprinkler approach than the locally approved plan. One provider told senators a retrofit required an extra $15,000 to $20,000 and delayed an opening by months.

Advocates for people with disabilities and for residents of group homes urged caution about rolling back state oversight. Lola Kurnell of the Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities warned that people with disabilities are disproportionately likely to be injured or killed in fires and that any regulatory change must not reduce protections for group homes and similar settings.

Several conferees welcomed recent outreach by the State Fire Marshal's office; Ingholm said the office has been trying to update the code and increase communication. But witnesses told the committee that communication alone was insufficient: when interpretations change or enforcement standards shift, providers can face unexpected compliance costs and threats to resident well-being.

Committee chairwoman Sen. Dinah Erickson encouraged stakeholders and state and local agencies to negotiate a durable solution before the 2026 legislative session. "If it requires some statutory change, bring us a solution," she said.

What happens next: Senators said they will offer the parties an opportunity to present joint recommendations on statutory fixes, standards for acceptable alternatives to sprinklers, and a faster, more transparent process for reconciling state and local code differences.