Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pullman council leans toward planning-commission short-term rental exemption while weighing safety safeguards
Summary
Council members favored the planning commission’s owner-occupied exemption for short-term rentals but instructed staff to preserve key safety measures; staff warned verifying exemptions and enforcing occupancy limits could be difficult and could reduce on-site safety oversight.
Pullman City Council on June 9 debated competing proposals for amending the city’s short-term rental code, centering on a planning-commission recommendation that would exempt certain owner-occupied properties from many registration and inspection requirements.
The planning commission’s draft would exempt properties where a long-term resident occupies the dwelling at least six months a year, rents no more than two bedrooms, and keeps total occupancy at 10 people or fewer. R.J. Lot, Pullman’s community development director, told the council the exemption follows state law (RCW 64.37) but flagged enforcement and safety concerns. “It is possible that the exemption could make the properties not as safe as properties that are reviewed and inspected by staff,” Lot said, warning that verifying residency and limiting rented bedrooms could be “very difficult, near impossible” for staff to enforce.
Supporters of the exemption, including several council members, said Pullman should keep rules simple and aligned with neighboring jurisdictions to preserve visitor lodging and local economic benefits. Council member McDonald argued for streamlined requirements and owner-occupied exceptions, saying the city should “be as simple or more simple and still legal as any of those” nearby communities.
Other speakers, including community members who use short-term rentals for income, emphasized the local economic importance of visitor lodging. Carl Olsen, who identified himself as the owner of several short-term rentals, asked council to weigh “economics and safety” on a sliding scale and shared approximate revenue figures for units he tracks.
Council members also discussed specific safety measures advocated by staff and the fire marshal — such as battery-backed egress lighting, posted evacuation plans, functioning smoke and carbon-monoxide alarms, and a UL-rated 2A:10BC fire extinguisher — and some said they supported retaining those low-cost provisions. Council member Fjarn said she favored the planning commission’s exemption but asked that staff recommendations on evacuation plans, extinguishers and power-outage lighting be retained for safety.
After extended discussion, council signaled it wanted staff to prepare an ordinance based on the planning commission’s recommendations and return it at the next meeting after legal review. Lot noted staff stood ready to bring either the planning-commission or staff proposal back for adoption and reiterated that staff’s priority was “safety first” alongside enabling lodging options.
The council’s direction means owner-occupied exemptions are likely to be included, while details of required safety equipment and inspection language will be reconciled during legal review and final ordinance drafting.
