Park County commissioners favor targeted litter rules, enforcement options over broad 'decay' law

Park County commissioners and residents debated whether to pursue a countywide "decay" ordinance at a May 5, 2026 work session, with many speakers urging a narrower, enforceable approach focused on litter, trespass and public-safety hazards rather than subjective standards of "ugliness." The session opened at 10:40 a.m.; no formal ordinance was adopted.

Commissioner Vermillion said she was "more focused on the health and safety side of it" and asked staff to explore options that clearly define hazards and are enforceable without imposing subjective aesthetic rules on private property. She urged the group to find a path that is "not a burden to the county, but also helps" residents affected by blowing trash and unsafe properties.

Public commenters and staff repeatedly distinguished litter — loose bags, insulation and debris that blows onto neighbors' property — from broader "decay" or blight rules. One resident who said they had brought the issue recommended a litter ordinance, saying "The decay ordinance goes way too far" and that many properties would be immediately out of compliance under a broad law.

Speakers described several recurring concerns: unsecured household trash at county green-box sites, construction and remodel debris that blows in wind, and isolated properties where accumulated materials create fire or hazardous-waste risks. Resident Bruce Gange asked whether county discussions had addressed "the stuff flowing out of the green boxes everywhere," and staff and commissioners pointed to ongoing work by the Solid Waste Board on compactors and site management as a possible mitigation.

Staff and other speakers pointed to existing Montana law as both a resource and a constraint. Participants referenced Montana Code Title 75 and a cited section (75-2109) that limits some penalties; speakers noted state litter statutes apply especially to public roads and that the county could use state-authorized hazardous-waste and abandonment procedures in some cases without creating a new, countywide decay ordinance. One staff member recommended coordinating with the county attorney to clarify which tools can be applied immediately and where a local ordinance could add utility.

A central implementation concern was enforcement capacity. Multiple speakers said the sheriff's office and county departments are stretched thin and need a point person to follow complaints. Several urged re-creating or funding a compliance-officer position to document problems, take photos, refer cases for tickets and follow up until cases are resolved. "You need that thing in the middle that helps everybody work together," one speaker said of the compliance role.

Fire-safety risks were also raised: a commenter said two fire departments had deemed a repeat property unsafe to respond to after repeated incidents, a situation that could place neighboring properties at risk and push up insurance costs for adjacent homeowners. Commissioners discussed whether hazardous-material or abandonment procedures under state law could address the most serious safety cases.

As next steps commissioners and staff signaled they would pursue legal clarification from the county attorney's office, continue coordination with the Solid Waste Board (including compactors and possible permit requirements for remodels to secure waste), and consider whether a locally funded compliance officer is warranted. The work session closed with a motion to adjourn that was moved and seconded.