Thurston County board moves to use Title 26 tools more aggressively, opens public docket

Thurston County commissioners on March 4 heard a joint presentation from planning/building (CPAD) and public health staff that laid out 13 representative, longstanding code‑compliance cases and urged clearer procedures and more aggressive use of existing enforcement tools under Title 26.

The presentation, led by county staff including Ashley (CPAD) and Jen (Public Health & Social Services), said most complaints are closed voluntarily, but a small share of cases require extensive staff time and legal coordination. Environmental health staff reported more than 355 active cases; presenters said the county’s limited FTE and the cost of pursuing formal remedies have left some violations unresolved for years.

“We have the tools in the toolbox; we need to proceduralize them and coordinate with the prosecuting attorney’s office so staff can gather evidence and move to hearings or abatement when necessary,” Ashley said, urging clearer internal processes and quicker use of hearings‑examiner final assessments to allow collection of civil penalties.

Commissioners pressed staff on specific barriers: a 30‑day cap on serial civil penalties that can make fines a “cost of doing business,” the time and up‑front costs required to place liens or fund abatements from the general fund, and the need for criminal or law‑enforcement action in dangerous cases. Staff pointed to case examples illustrated in the presentation, including an unpermitted event center with repeated violations, a shoreline stairway constructed without permits and access challenges, a private landing strip built in critical habitat, and a multi‑property asbestos and erosion case that has drawn state and federal attention.

Staff described a non‑linear enforcement process that can include notices of violation, stop‑work orders, voluntary compliance agreements, civil penalties, hearings‑examiner proceedings, tax levies and, where necessary, court action. Several tools, including civil infractions and a policy to fast‑track liens, are already in the code but have rarely been activated, staff said.

Short term, county managers and department directors asked the board to consider two tracks: (1) procedural changes the departments can adopt now to improve evidence collection, timelines and coordination with the prosecuting attorney’s office, and (2) code amendments to Title 26 if procedures prove insufficient. The board voted to add a Title 26 docket item and to open a public comment period; staff said a project sheet and public notice would be posted in the coming week and that they would return with a more detailed plan distinguishing procedural fixes from code changes.

The motion to add the Title 26 item to the docket passed on a board voice vote; commissioners directed staff to prioritize procedural updates in 2026 with code changes to follow if necessary.

Next steps: staff will produce a project sheet, open a public comment window and return to the board with recommended procedural updates, a list of tools to be activated, estimated resource needs for abatement or lien work, and any suggested code edits for future consideration.