SB 6064
In CommitteeSenate
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 well-resourced fire districts and regional fire authorities to take over fire code enforcement duties — including inspections and fire investigations — from counties, and requires counties and fire agencies to share enforcement costs through fees. It also protects county fire marshal staff by requiring new enforcing agencies to offer them equivalent jobs if their roles are displaced.
- Confirms that county governments are responsible for enforcing the International Fire Code in unincorporated areas of the county.
- Allows fire protection districts or regional fire protection service authorities with $10 million or more in annual revenues over the prior three years to voluntarily take over fire code enforcement in unincorporated county areas — including fire investigations, plan reviews, and inspections — after giving six months’ advance notice to the county.
- Permits fire districts, regional authorities, and other local governments to assume fire code enforcement responsibilities through interlocal agreements (cooperation contracts under chapter 39.34 RCW).
- Authorizes counties and fire districts/authorities to charge fees sufficient to cover the costs of inspections, administration, and enforcement of the fire code.
- Requires that if fire code enforcement responsibilities shift from the county to another agency, the new agency must offer equivalent positions to displaced county fire marshal’s office staff.
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 other agencies under specified conditions.
- Fire protection districts and regional fire service authorities — Fire protection districts and regional fire protection service authorities with sufficient revenue ($10 million or more in annual revenues over the prior three years) may choose to take over fire code enforcement in unincorporated county areas, including fire investigations, plan reviews, and inspections.
- 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 responsibilities may be offered equivalent positions by the new enforcing agency.
- Municipal governments and fire protection agencies — Cities, towns, and other local governments that already provide fire protection services may continue or expand their fire code enforcement roles through interlocal agreements.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The job protection provision helps preserve employment continuity for county fire marshal staff during transitions, reducing displacement risk and supporting workforce stability — especially important in rural counties where fire marshal offices may be small and highly specialized.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), requirement that new enforcing agencies offer equivalent positions to displaced county fire marshal staffBy allowing cost-recovery fees, the bill enables local governments to fund fire code enforcement without relying solely on general fund revenues — potentially improving service sustainability and accountability, especially in counties where fire enforcement competes with other budget priorities.
FinancialPeopleRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), authorization for counties and fire districts/authorities to impose cost-recovery feesTransferring fire code enforcement to agencies with greater resources and specialized expertise (e.g., fire investigations, plan review) may improve enforcement consistency and effectiveness in unincorporated areas, particularly where counties lack dedicated fire code staff or technical capacity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), proviso allowing well-resourced fire districts/authorities to assume enforcement in unincorporated areasThe bill preserves county authority as the default enforcement body, avoiding a top-down mandate and allowing flexibility for local jurisdictions to structure enforcement based on their resources and needs — supporting local control and reducing unintended state overreach.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), clarification that counties retain primary responsibility for fire code enforcement in unincorporated areas unless voluntarily transferredThe explicit authorization for interlocal cooperation provides a clear legal framework for collaboration between counties and fire districts, potentially reducing duplication, improving resource sharing, and enabling more efficient delivery of fire prevention services.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), interlocal agreement authority under chapter 39.34 RCW
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill may increase administrative complexity and potential jurisdictional fragmentation in fire code enforcement across unincorporated areas, requiring counties to coordinate with multiple agencies instead of a single county-wide enforcement body — potentially increasing administrative overhead and creating inconsistencies in enforcement standards.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), proviso permitting fire districts/authorities with ≥$10M annual revenue to assume enforcement after 6 months’ noticeWhile the bill authorizes cost-recovery fees, it does not cap or regulate them, potentially leading to higher user fees for fire inspections and related services in areas where fire districts or regional authorities assume enforcement — especially in rural or low-population areas where fixed costs per household are higher.
FinancialRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), fee-authorization clauseThe job protection provision only applies if the new enforcing agency *chooses* to hire displaced staff — it does not guarantee employment or require retention beyond the offer of an equivalent position, which may not be available if the new agency has no existing staffing structure in the area or chooses not to staff at pre-transfer levels.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), requirement that displaced county fire marshal staff be offered “equivalent positions”The $10M revenue threshold effectively limits the pool of eligible agencies to larger, more urbanized fire districts (e.g., King County Fire District 1, Snohomish County Fire District 2), potentially excluding many rural fire districts and leaving unincorporated areas in those districts subject to continued county enforcement — possibly creating uneven service levels across the state.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), $10M annual revenue threshold for fire districts/authorities to assume enforcementThe bill does not require counties to accept interlocal agreements or define dispute-resolution mechanisms if counties and fire districts disagree on scope, timing, or cost allocation — potentially leading to legal or administrative delays in implementation.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1, SB 6064 (amending RCW 19.27.110), interlocal agreement clause
Who Is Most Affected
Counties retain primary enforcement responsibility but may transfer duties to better-resourced agencies. This could reduce administrative burden for counties lacking fire code expertise, but may also reduce local control in rural areas where county enforcement is already effective and cost-efficient.
Larger fire districts and regional authorities with ≥$10M in annual revenue gain new authority to expand their jurisdiction and fee-setting power — potentially improving service quality and financial sustainability. Smaller districts are excluded, reinforcing a two-tiered system where only well-resourced agencies can participate.
County fire marshal staff benefit from job protection during transitions, but only if the new enforcing agency chooses to hire them — offering security but not a guarantee of continued employment. Staff in counties that retain enforcement face no direct impact.
Cities and towns with existing fire departments may expand their fire code enforcement role through interlocal agreements, but the bill does not directly change their authority. Municipalities may benefit from reduced county encroachment into their fire zones if counties shift responsibilities to regional agencies.
Residents and businesses in unincorporated areas may benefit from improved fire safety services if enforcement shifts to agencies with greater capacity, but could face higher fees if new agencies impose cost-recovery charges without oversight. Rural areas may see little change if counties retain enforcement.