Pullman council debates draft ordinance to register and manage vacant downtown storefronts

City staff presented a draft ordinance to address vacant ground‑floor commercial spaces in Pullman’s C‑2 Central Business District during the Feb. 24 study session, and councilmembers gave staff direction to return with a refined proposal.

Arjorie Lott, Pullman’s Community Development Director, told the council the draft (chapter 5.6 of Pullman City Code, health and sanitation) would require a responsible person — defined in the draft as an owner, operator or maintenance company — to register any street‑level commercial space that has not been occupied for the preceding six months. Lott said registration must occur within 10 calendar days after the six‑month vacancy threshold, and that registration forms would include property address, parcel number, responsible party contact information and an anticipated vacancy period.

The draft includes exceptions for spaces covered by an active building permit for repair or rehabilitation, spaces that meet applicable codes while the responsible person is actively attempting to sell, lease or rent, and sites with an active land‑use application for redevelopment. Lott also described a window‑display requirement for spaces unoccupied for 30 days: owners would be required to maintain a “vibrant streetscape” by painting windows, displaying works of art or using other community‑development‑director‑approved alternatives.

On fees, Lott noted the draft did not set a fee amount and offered Medical Lake’s graduated schedule as an example: Medical Lake’s structure (as discussed by staff) was year 1 $250; year 2 $500; year 3 transcribed as $7.50 (staff and council flagged the transcription oddity during discussion); subsequent years $1,000 until occupancy. Councilmembers generally supported an incremental fee that grows over time to encourage compliance, and several said the fee should be explicitly framed to defray administrative costs rather than to punish owners.

Councilmembers asked about administration and enforcement: how bills and renewals would be sent, whether staff had an up‑to‑date inventory of vacant spaces (staff said an inventory exists from about two years ago but not current numbers), and whether existing vacancies would be grandfathered. Lott said the ordinance would likely become effective a set period after adoption (the draft treats vacancy as measured after adoption), giving owners a window to comply rather than applying the rule retroactively.

Council debated whether the vacancy threshold should be 90 days or six months. The majority expressed support for a six‑month threshold as reasonable for conversions that require more time or expense, while endorsing an effective date (for example, adoption followed by a six‑month compliance window) so owners receive notice. Several members also urged staff to include annual reporting to council on the program’s status.

Members raised legal and practical enforcement concerns about the window‑display standards’ subjectivity and emphasized that enforcement will require staff resources. City legal counsel and councilmembers noted precedent from other cities: some codes are difficult to enforce and, in at least one neighboring city discussed during staff research, registration existed on paper with limited enforcement activity. Staff said section 5.6006 (window displays) could be removed and the rest of the chapter remain effective, and recommended that council provide direction on the vacancy threshold, effective date and fee schedule for the next draft.

Next steps: staff will refine the draft ordinance to reflect council direction — including clarifying the effective date, confirming a six‑month vacancy definition, and proposing a fee schedule and enforcement approach — and return to council for further deliberation.