Green River planners weigh rubric and zone approach to prioritize dangerous-building enforcement

The Green River Planning Commission on June 16 discussed how to prioritize enforcement of the city's Dangerous Building and nuisance-abatement ordinances, leaning toward a hybrid approach that combines a citywide grading rubric with phased enforcement zones.

Chair (speaker 3) opened the work session and placed "land use enforcement prioritization methods utilizing the Dangerous Building ordinance" on the agenda. A commissioner (speaker 4) proposed "an almost a grading rubric for any building inside of Green River," suggesting each property be scored against the code's criteria so the city would start enforcement with the highest-scoring (most hazardous) structures. The Chair agreed the rubric has "a lot of merit" but said City Council has signaled an interest in prioritizing Broadway and Main Street because of pending development in those corridors.

Commissioners, staff and the Chair discussed how inspections and scoring would be staffed. Participants recommended that the code-enforcement officer(s), a planning-and-zoning representative, a council representative and officials such as the fire marshal and health department be part of grading and inspections so assessments follow an objective standard. The Chair said the rubric would be designed from Section 302 (Dangerous Building) to align grading points with existing ordinance language.

A major implementation concern was funding for abatement and legal work. A committee member asked whether the city has a dedicated fund; staff (speaker 1) said no line item currently exists and suggested opening the budget or adding a fiscal-year appropriation. Commissioners discussed a revolving fund model, placing liens on properties after the city abates hazards, and offering payment plans so the city can recover demolition or repair costs and attorney fees. The Chair suggested an initial fund in the range of "$50,000 to $100,000," while other commissioners warned that $100,000 "will go way fast."

Before issuing enforcement notices, the commission agreed the city must establish an appeals authority or hearing examiner because property owners have a statutory right to appeal within established timeframes. Staff emphasized that appeals timelines are short (30 days) and said the city should have an appeals process and staffing in place before letters go out. The group also noted the code allows sheriff involvement in enforcement activity.

Members debated mailing strategy and public notice. Staff warned that legally required notices must go to owners of record, which means deed research and postage costs; some commissioners recommended a citywide mailing to avoid perceptions of selective enforcement, while others favored targeted mailings to priority zones to manage workload and cost. One commissioner raised concerns that past outreach made some residents feel "picked on," and several commissioners said a rubric or zoned approach could reduce those perceptions by applying objective criteria across properties.

The meeting also covered practical disposal issues: staff reported the RFP to operate a Class 4 landfill closes the next day, and commissioners discussed alternatives such as a transfer-station model, rail spurs, or contracting a private operator. Disposal logistics and costs will factor into abatement planning because demolition and cleanup require places to process construction debris.

Commissioners raised the need to protect eligible historic properties. The group discussed building nomination and designation processes and agreed that any rubric or ordinance language should include a step to identify nominated or listed historic buildings so preservation options and renovation funding can be considered prior to demolition.

Next steps: Commissioners agreed to draft maps and a basic rubric, spend a short working session on zone delineation and rubric criteria, and invite the city attorney to a future meeting for legal guidance on appeals, enforcement authority and code language. No formal motions or votes were taken at the work session.

The commission plans to reconvene with maps and a draft rubric to begin a public review process and to finalize the appeals authority and initial funding approach.