Pullman planning commission debates two short‑term rental approaches, asks staff to refine inspection wording

The Pullman Planning Commission on Feb. 25 continued its review of proposed changes to Pullman City Code chapter 17.109 governing short‑term rentals, heard public comment pushing to reduce or eliminate application fees, and directed staff to revise a draft (Option A) with clearer inspection language and an explicit reference to the dwelling‑inspection checklist.

Why it matters: Commissioners spent more than an hour weighing two competing approaches. Option A keeps an annual application and permit process and would exempt certain small, owner‑occupied rentals; Option B sought to treat all rentals uniformly while eliminating the $200 application fee and relying on the city’s free dwelling inspection program and a $15 registration. The choice affects local lodging revenue, regulatory burdens on small operators, and how life‑safety checks will be performed and funded.

Public comment and the fee debate: A public commenter told the commission the short‑term rental market in Pullman has softened and that regulatory fees add a burden to small operators. “Streamlining the registration process, reducing or eliminating fees, and fostering a more cooperative relationship with short‑term rental owners would support local businesses,” the commenter said (Public commenter (speaker 8)). Commissioners repeatedly returned to the fee issue during deliberations, noting some residents said high fees push operators into informal advertising channels outside city oversight.

Safety inspections and the checklist: Much of the meeting focused on what a city inspection should verify. Commissioners and staff agreed that Pullman already offers a dwelling life‑safety inspection on request and that the existing inspection form could be a starting point, but they debated whether the checklist is overly broad. One commissioner described operating an older, small rental and said some prescriptive requirements—interconnected smoke alarms, wall‑mounted extinguishers or required plug‑in emergency lighting—can be costly or impractical in historic homes, without necessarily improving safety in every case (Commissioner (speaker 4)). Staff cautioned that if dwelling inspections are recast as business inspections the building division may apply its standard inspection fees; the minimum building inspection fee cited in the discussion was roughly $100.

Positions and tradeoffs: Commissioners were split on whether to exempt owner‑occupied one‑ and two‑bedroom rentals (Option A language) or to include all rentals under uniform rules (Option B). Supporters of Option B said uniformity and registration help emergency responders and protect guests; supporters of Option A said lowering barriers to entry will encourage compliance and reduce migration to the gray market. Multiple commissioners emphasized safety as a paramount goal but disagreed about the best route to achieve broad compliance with minimal burdens on small operators.

Direction to staff and next steps: After debate, the commission asked staff to begin with Option A and return redlined language that: tightens the inspection definition; references the city dwelling‑inspection checklist so operators know what inspectors will verify; improves the fire‑extinguisher paragraph; and clarifies enforcement by cross‑referencing the city’s enforcement chapter. Staff will consult other departments (building, fire and police) about workload and fees and bring revised language back to the commission for review ahead of a legislative public hearing. The commission expects to consider the revised draft at its March meeting and proceed to a public‑hearing recommendation to city council in April if departments’ feedback is manageable.

Meeting outcome and procedural note: The meeting also included routine business: the commission approved minutes of its Feb. 19 special meeting by voice vote at the start of the session. The STR discussion concluded with a direction to staff rather than a final ordinance vote; any final code change will return to the commission and then to city council.

What to watch: Look for the staff redline that preserves safety checks but narrows the inspection scope, the staff position on whether the building division will charge its standard inspection fee, and any council‑level decision about whether to retain or reduce application fees for STR operators.