Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press CPED to fix gaps in Title 26 enforcement after staff flag funding and staffing shortfalls
Summary
During the April 22 work session CPED staff told the board that several enforcement tools in county code (Title 26) have not been fully implemented due to upfront costs and limited enforcement staff; the board asked for a detailed cost and implementation plan before adopting major code changes.
Commissioners spent a substantial portion of the April 22 work session probing why many administrative enforcement tools in Thurston County’s Title 26 have not been used.
Community Planning and Economic Development Director Ashley Ryan explained that Title 26 contains a range of administrative remedies and penalties but that activation of some tools has been limited by up‑front costs and staffing constraints. Staff told the board the CPED code‑enforcement team currently has three staff and that the department lacks budgeted amounts for certain transactional expenses. According to staff, common examples that create practical barriers include state recording fees for property liens and the one‑time purchase cost of ticket books for civil infractions; staff estimated those costs in discussion as rough, up‑front sums that the department currently cannot absorb without explicit funding.
Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff for a clear fiscal and operational framework. "We need to know how much it will cost to actually implement the tools that are already in place," Chair Ty Menser said, asking the county manager and CPED to come back with options including one‑time funding, consultant support, or a phased implementation plan. Several commissioners warned that revising code without funding the administrative capacity to execute enforcement would create further frustration for residents.
Staff and the county manager said work is already underway to draft an administrative procedures manual to make enforcement processes more transparent and to clarify how voluntary compliance agreements and other tools would be used. But staff also recommended the board consider a consultant or a budget request because the department’s small enforcement team lacks in‑house policy and legal resources needed for a large code rewrite and implementation.
The board directed CPED to return with a detailed cost estimate and implementation options for Title 26 (including potential one‑time funding sources, consultant scopes, and FTE needs) rather than immediately adopting substantive code changes. The matter was placed on the docket for further consideration but commissioners emphasized staff should present a realistic budget and timeline before the board proceeds.
