City staff presented a survey of municipal approaches to vacant or unoccupied buildings and the council debated whether Richland should adopt a registry, what it should cover and how penalties would be set.

Development Services Director Mike Rizzitello briefed the council on Oct. 28 about definitions and municipal tools used elsewhere in Washington, including registries in Bremerton and Liberty Lake and nuisance abatement approaches used in Grandview and Olympia. Rizzitello said definitions vary: some cities treat commercial buildings vacant after 90 or 180 days of nonoccupancy; others use foreclosure or notice‑of‑default as triggers. He noted staffing and liability implications and cited the differing posture of federal appellate circuits, saying the Ninth Circuit’s rulings have made more aggressive municipal measures legally risky in the Pacific Northwest.

Rizzitello walked the council through local examples of fees and program design. Liberty Lake and Olympia have $200 annual registry fees for buildings that meet their vacancy definitions; Bremerton’s commercial registry carries a $150 annual fee, while Grandview uses civil infractions (up to $500 per infraction) tied to unsecured or derelict properties. “It’s a fee to literally maintain the registry,” Rizzitello said of the typical annual charge; he cautioned that full registries covering all structures can create staffing burdens for smaller cities.

Council members focused most discussion on commercial buildings downtown and other sites councilors said depress surrounding commercial areas when they remain unused. Councilmember Kurt Meyer said his priority is making it “unprofitable to harm our neighborhoods by holding this property vacant,” citing examples such as the Albertsons building. He and other councilors favored targeting commercial spaces first. Councilmember Witten raised the practical question of whether the fee is punitive or an administrative cost and sought clarity; Rizzitello confirmed the fee is intended primarily to support administration but can be accompanied by fines for noncompliance.

Other topics raised included whether a registry should be retroactive (staff said the typical approach is to apply a registry at ordinance start and then notify existing properties that meet the definition) and whether the city can use police‑department call data to document problems and support enforcement. Rizzitello said staff would produce a vetted local inventory; he estimated about three months to validate and quality‑control a database of vacant properties before proposing specific regulatory language to council.

Ending: Council members asked staff to return with a validated vacant‑property inventory and recommended focusing early efforts on commercial properties, a 90‑ to 180‑day vacancy threshold, and fee designs tied to administration rather than only punishment. Staff flagged the need for city‑attorney review on legal thresholds and appellate risks before adopting any ordinance.