They made some fairly significant changes in the bill. A few of them seem to go beyond the summary that they had.
For example, section 15, reciprocity seems to be gone and I think that makes sense. Other states do not seem to offer this.
Also, they apparently cut out the controversial section 19, which made those complaining immune from a lawsuit by the inspector. That language has been eliminated other than it states, in effect, that state employees performing enforcement cannot be sued by an inspector. This seems better than before.
They put the education requirements much higher again, similar to what they were prior to the sub bill that was S-2054, released a couple weeks back. All of the mentoring is completely gone, as is anything similar to the Oregon system, except the state test in five parts is retained.
They have also put the insurance or bond requirements up to the minimum that those of us who are insured are paying now. Those working on the bond will have to pay more, as they lifted that from $25K to 100K. That probably puts the cost to the inspector at about 1K per year, just guessing, and insurance is about 4x that.
It puts it back with DOL. And, far as I can tell, the language regarding architects and engineers is to allow them to do the work at a home that they have to do, without someone being able to say they did an illegal inspection. For example, the engineer looking at the truss that has been cut. Now, I think this also means that an architect or engineer could probably go into HI and avoid the licensing altogether. That seems unlikely, that these folks with those advanced degrees and PE’s would do that, but it is something that could be controversial.
Any person licensed by the department of agriculture as a pesticide applicator or operator under chapter 17.21 RCW, or as a structural pest inspector under chapter 15.58 RCW who performs only wood destroying organism inspections, is exempt from the licensing provisions of this chapter.
As for the language above, about SPI’s only being able to do wood destroying organism inspections, it seems apparent that the intent is to allow the licensed PCO’s to do pest inspections without having to have the HI license. And it looks like someone,who is not a licensed home inspector, but is an SPI under WSDA, could simply choose to do WDO inspections and do so without the HI license. But, I do not think the opposite would be true: Home inspectors could not do home inspections only without doing the WDO inspection as part of it. It is kind of the opposite of now. Now you can, in theory, do a home inspection calling out unsafe steps if you do not mention WDO issues. As proposed, the SPI without the HI license would be able to mention only WDO issues and could not mention the unsafe steps. As for the licensed home inspector, he or she would have to call out both HI issues and WDO issues.
I have not spent hours mulling this over, but those are the things I noticed.