Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Weed Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goldendale building official reports code activity; council discusses weed-control letters and noxious-weed list
Summary
Building official Robert Thompson reported 16 building permits valued at a little over $2 million and 43 code cases (11 ongoing). Council discussed rewriting the weed-control courtesy letter, enforcement steps, and the need for a local noxious-weed list tied to county resources.
Robert Thompson, Goldendale’s building official, told the council the building department issued 16 building permits last year with a project value “a little over $2,000,000,” and the department handled 43 code-enforcement cases, 11 of which remain open.
Thompson said staff are rewriting the annual courtesy weed-control letter and expanding it to include vacant and residential properties. “I reworked that letter trying to make it more informative to the people that say, this is important. It becomes a fire danger. We will…get rid of that,” Thompson said; he also said he has worked with the city attorney to ensure the letter’s language and procedures meet legal requirements for due process before the city enters private property to abate fire danger.
Councilmembers and staff discussed enforcement steps when property owners do not comply. One participant noted that penalties are constrained by state law: the RCWs set base fines, and court and statutory adjustments add fees. The transcript records an example: a $50 base fine can become about $145 after county and court fees.
Councilmembers raised the need to publish a current noxious-weed list and suggested pulling the county’s list into the city website or municipal code. Staff said they will bring the item to the next ordinance committee meeting and post the list where appropriate.
Why it matters: Council members framed weed control primarily as a fire-safety measure rather than an aesthetic issue; staff emphasized the need for clear, legally vetted communication to property owners and follow-through where hazards persist.
No formal motion or vote on policy changes was taken during this discussion; staff received direction to continue refining the letter, consult the city attorney on process, and coordinate with county lists and ordinance review.
