Bonney Lake council votes on AB 26-34 to repeal local residential sprinkler requirement

Bonney Lake ' The City Council on June 2 debated and then approved a motion on AB 26-34, the ordinance to remove the city's residential sprinkler mandate, after lengthy council discussion, testimony from the East Pierce Fire chief and local builders, and public comments.

The measure, introduced by the clerk as AB 26-34, would repeal chapter 15.16 of the Bonney Lake Municipal Code and amend related sections to reflect current procedures for annual fire-safety inspection and permits for automatic fire-extinguishing systems. The council took public comment and, after roll-call voting, the presiding officer announced the motion passed.

Why it mattered: Council members split on whether the safety benefits of mandatory sprinkler systems justify the costs for new-home construction. Councilmember Angela Fullerton told colleagues she had long supported repealing the mandate and cited a constituent's account that installing a required system cost "approximately $25,000," arguing that such mandates can price families out of the housing market. Several members repeated concerns about inspection and maintenance costs and questioned whether sprinklers reduce fatalities enough to warrant a local requirement beyond state code.

Safety and evidence: East Pierce Fire Chief Parkinson, speaking for the fire department, said sprinkler systems "do a very good job at protecting life and protecting property" and that sprinkled structures rarely experience catastrophic fires when systems are maintained. The chief added that insurers often offer discounts (the department estimated roughly 10% in many cases) and said sprinklers can limit property loss and displacement. Several council members, by contrast, said national reports that favor sprinklers may not adequately control for the presence of working smoke alarms, and asked for clearer, controlled data comparing outcomes.

Costs and implementation: Builders and some residents testified that costs vary widely depending on system type and when permits were filed. A contractor in the room said the current installed price in parts of Clark County runs about $4,500'$6,000 for a typical single-family home, while other speakers described projects that ran into the tens of thousands, sometimes because of older implementation practices or meter/service upgrades required under city policy in earlier years. Development staff and the public-services director explained the city previously required particular system types and service-line upgrades that increased costs; those requirements were relaxed several years ago, and code now allows multiple system types depending on water flow and house specifics.

Planning Commission position and next steps: Staff said the Planning Commission had voted 4-1 not to recommend repealing the ordinance. Councilmembers nonetheless debated whether to delay action to gather additional cost data and expertise; one procedural motion to table discussion to the June 16 meeting was made and considered during the same evening before the roll call that resulted in the council's final action on AB 26-34. The chair announced the motion on the floor had passed.

Public comment and community reaction: Members of the public raised a range of views: some urged preserving the requirement for life-safety reasons, others emphasized builder and homeowner cost burdens and the need for local discretion. Several speakers also noted differences in allowed pipe materials and historic local permit policies that explain cost disparities between jurisdictions.

What happens next: Council members indicated the issue will return for follow-up information and continued oversight in upcoming council business; staff and council discussed scheduling additional review so members can hear more technical input before final ordinance language is finalized or implemented.

The meeting moved on to audience comments after the vote.