HB 1654
In CommitteeHouse
International fire code
Concerning the administration of the international fire code.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill clarifies and expands which local agencies can enforce the International Fire Code in unincorporated areas of Washington counties. It allows larger fire districts and regional fire authorities to take over fire code enforcement—including inspections, plan reviews, and fire investigations—if they choose and meet revenue thresholds. It also ensures displaced county staff are offered new positions and allows agencies to charge fees to cover enforcement costs.
- Clarifies that county governments are responsible for enforcing the International Fire Code in unincorporated areas of the county.
- Allows fire protection districts and regional fire protection service authorities with over $10 million in annual revenue (or formed by jurisdictions with combined revenue over $10 million) to voluntarily take over fire code enforcement—including fire cause investigations, planning reviews, and building inspections—in unincorporated county areas, with six months’ advance notice to the county.
- Permits fire districts, regional authorities, and other political subdivisions to use the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Chapter 39.34 RCW) to share or assume fire code enforcement responsibilities alongside counties.
- Requires that if a fire district or regional authority takes over enforcement, it must offer equivalent positions to displaced county fire marshal’s office workers.
- Authorizes counties and fire districts/authorities to charge fees sufficient to cover inspection, administration, and enforcement costs—ensuring program costs are paid by users, not the state general fund.
Who is affected
- County governments — Counties will retain primary responsibility for enforcing the International Fire Code in unincorporated areas, but may transfer that responsibility to fire districts or authorities under specified conditions.
- Fire protection districts and regional fire authorities — Fire protection districts and regional fire protection service authorities with over $10 million in annual revenue (or those formed by jurisdictions with combined revenue over $10 million) may choose to take over fire code enforcement in unincorporated county areas.
- County fire marshal's office staff — Employees in county fire marshal's offices who lose their jobs due to a transfer of fire code enforcement responsibility may be offered equivalent positions by the new enforcing agency.
- Residents and businesses in unincorporated areas — Residents and businesses in unincorporated county areas may see changes in who conducts fire inspections, reviews construction plans, and investigates fire causes—potentially shifting from county staff to local fire district staff.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Allowing fire districts with higher revenues and likely more resources to take over fire code enforcement in unincorporated areas could improve consistency, responsiveness, and technical expertise—especially where county fire marshal offices are under-resourced—potentially reducing fire-related injuries and property loss.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1, p. 2, line 10–12 (‘…a fire protection district or regional fire protection service authority… shall, at its sole option… assume responsibility… in the unincorporated areas of the county within its jurisdiction.’)Clarifying county responsibility as the default ensures continuity of fire code enforcement and prevents jurisdictional gaps—especially important in counties without active fire districts—reducing confusion for residents and developers about who to contact for inspections and permits.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, p. 3, line 1–2 (‘Each county government shall administer and enforce the International Fire Code in the unincorporated areas of the county…’)Authorizing user-fee funding for fire code enforcement reduces reliance on general fund subsidies, potentially making local budgets more transparent and sustainable—though this depends on how fees are administered and whether they disproportionately burden low-income residents.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1, p. 3, line 19–21 (‘Each county… is authorized to impose fees sufficient to pay the cost of inspections…’ and same for fire districts/authorities)The use of the Interlocal Cooperation Act enables flexible, collaborative models of service delivery—potentially reducing duplication, improving regional coordination, and allowing smaller districts to piggyback on larger agencies’ expertise without full assumption of responsibility.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, p. 3, line 15–16 (‘…pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW, the interlocal cooperation act, assume all or a portion of the administering responsibility and coordinate and cooperate with the county government…’)
Potential Concerns (3)
The $10 million revenue threshold effectively limits the pool of entities eligible to take over fire code enforcement to only the largest fire districts and regional authorities—most Washington fire districts (median annual revenue ~$2.5M) and many rural counties will remain excluded, creating a two-tiered system where only wealthier jurisdictions gain operational flexibility while others retain fragmented, less efficient county-run enforcement.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1, p. 3, line 12–14 (‘…a fire protection district or regional fire protection service authority with more than $10,000,000 in annual revenues… shall, at its sole option… assume responsibility…’)While the bill states enforcement costs will be covered by user fees, it does not cap or regulate those fees—risking cost-shifting to residents and businesses in unincorporated areas, especially small property owners or low-volume developers, who may face higher per-service fees without competitive oversight.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1, p. 3, line 22–23 (‘Each county… is authorized to impose fees sufficient to pay the cost of inspections…’ and same for fire districts/authorities)The requirement to offer equivalent positions to displaced county staff is limited to *equivalent* roles—not guaranteed retention of same pay/benefits—and does not address potential job displacement if the new enforcing agency chooses not to hire all staff or reassign them into different roles (e.g., reclassification, reduced hours), leaving some workers vulnerable despite the language.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, p. 3, line 27–28 (‘…must offer an equivalent position to all workers displaced from the change in administration within the county fire marshal's office.’)
Who Is Most Affected
Larger fire districts and regional authorities with >$10M in annual revenue gain new authority and potential revenue streams through user fees, while also assuming greater responsibility for public safety in unincorporated areas. They are the primary beneficiaries of the expanded operational scope.
Smaller fire districts and counties without the revenue threshold may be locked out of the new authority, potentially worsening service disparities. However, counties retain baseline responsibility and avoid being forced to cede authority, offering some stability.
Residents and businesses in unincorporated areas may benefit from more consistent, professionally staffed fire inspections if a well-resourced fire district takes over—but could face higher fees or inconsistent service if enforcement shifts to a district with less capacity or different priorities.
County fire marshal staff face potential reassignment or displacement, though the bill mandates equivalent position offers. In practice, “equivalent” may not mean identical pay, benefits, or job security—especially if the new enforcing agency restructures roles.