Bill to let local fire officials verify sprinkler credentials gets broad support from safety groups, mixed reaction from builders
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 24‑72 would let local fire code officials request proof of contractor/fitter certification, issue stop‑work orders and require payroll records during investigations; fire marshals, trade groups and unions supported the change as a public‑safety measure while some builders asked for tighter drafting of residential definitions.
House Bill 24‑72, which would strengthen enforcement tools for fire sprinkler contracting and fitting, drew largely supportive testimony from fire safety professionals and unions and a few drafting concerns from builders.
Staff described the bill’s aims: require contractors and fitters to produce licenses or certificates on request, permit local fire code officials to issue stop‑work orders for unlicensed or uncertified work, and allow the state director of fire protection to investigate and require payroll records in enforcement actions.
Neil Hartman of the UA Plumbers and Pipefitters and Suzanne Mayer of the National Fire Sprinkler Association said the bill protects lives and ensures a level playing field for qualified contractors. "This bill is important to both public safety and the contractor industry that does this work the right way," Hartman told the committee.
Local practitioners and fire marshals testified that the bill extends existing responsibilities by giving authorities the tools to verify credentials on site and stop illegal work in progress. Karen Grove of the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals said the bill provides helpful clarity for inspectors and field staff.
The Building Industry Association urged the sponsor to tighten language — specifically the undefined term "residential sprinkler" — to avoid inadvertently covering landscaping or irrigation systems. Sponsors and supporters said they were open to technical drafting changes to address those concerns.
The committee closed the public testimony for HB 24‑72 with no vote; members indicated they expect follow‑up language work and possible amendments to address drafting concerns before any final action.