HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-2004 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
January 26, 2004 7:00 p.m.
501 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA
A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00
p.m.
B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vall Spinosa)
C. DISCUSSION
1. School Zoning Issues
2. Site Plan Review
3. Parking Regulations
4. 2004 Legislative Issues
D. ADJOURNMENT 9:00
P.M.
ITEM C -1
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medina-wa.aov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 20, 2004
TO: Medina City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Planning Director
RE: School Zoning Issues
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council review the following summary of
existing regulations on the design of new schools and direct staff to investigate any regulatory changes felt
to be necessary.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The Zoning Code prescribes the allowed land uses in Medina and provides
development standards for each type. The regulations for new schools should adequately address issues
such as safety, traffic, and neighborhood character.
BACKGROUND: The City has recently learned of the Bellevue School District's plans and
schedule for replacing the existing building for Medina Elementary School. The new building will re -use
the current 8.2-acre site and construction is scheduled for the 2005-06 academic year including the
summer terms before and after. The district has stated that attendance is predicted to remain at the
current size of approximately 450 students. The floor area of the building is, however, expected to
increase — from approximately 45,000 square feet to approximately 67,000 square feet.
Staff have held two meetings since learning of the final schedule. In November, department heads and
other key staff met to brainstorm what the City's priorities in the new design might be. The resulting list is
offered as a starting point for City Council discussion below. Earlier this month, Development Services
staff meet with school district staff members as well as several consultants forming the design team hired
by the school district. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the design and permitting process. The
design team felt that they could be ready to apply for land use permits (i.e. SEPA and a special use
permit) as soon as May 2004.
The attached table analyzes how well existing regulations might serve the City in influencing the design of
the new school. Each row is a "design priority" that was identified by staff at the first meeting. The council
may identify other priorities. There are essentially four ways that the City could influence the design of the
school discussed in the table. The following terms are used for each:
• Code standards — These are objective and measurable standards that are specified in the Zoning
Code.
ITEM C -1
• SEPA — The State Environmental Policy Act allows cities to impose mitigation requirements when
a project involves a clear impact to some element of the environment.
• Special use permit criteria — New schools require a special use permit through a public hearing
process facilitated by the Medina Hearing Examiner. The process allows discretion in the hearing
examiner's decision but provides four decision criteria. The four criteria can be refined or
supplemented for school projects.
• Partnership — Some goals can only be reached through a partnership between the City and the
school district.
In addition to changing standards and criteria, the Council may also wish to consider changing processes
such as weather the hearing examiner is the reviewing body of the special use permit.
Page 2
Q
r
2i
m
tq
y
O
r0+
✓� L-
C
�
r- U m
-. U
L
7
C
n
-
J C
El
'"O
i U
o c n
C�:
O
`n
y
,�
U
tF,
�+
V 72
sz.
C
L'
Ss�.
c
L
U
�
U
L
^
:J
L
.J
C7J
J
f J Q
C V
G
Ll
73
-
L_
f
O
• I
J
I�
L _
L Y � CS
LU
7 C _ L C r fj
cj
ol
ri
0.4
V n �
_ tf) r
U y v v ; j _n t n o° c
y
ci
s a v s to as v u s n v r c
y a �s n c❑ m _ c y— c cs c c c y °
_
.Y ^ L I C r C n CJ
I L V J� V � Or ❑. :J '�
J—�fl
c' ti aL
L _ r ° y
CS CD t0 sV, I � L J — t=• •- I '.O = - � ._ I � — •V (mil
—L_ J
a
r
U
H
No
.
ct
s
y
r �
tix
O
rU-
u
3
._
e—
:n
7
en
a'
c
cz
J
U E C
G
p N
J L
=n
y
G
G7E
G
Y
r
7
U
✓: N U
L 1
L
to
n i
u
F
m0.1
c
'CZr'
74 r,
_
c
J
J:
ti
�1
r
ITEM C -2
'07
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 20, 2004
TO: Medina City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Planning Director
RE: Site Plan Review
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1) review the course of the
Planning Commission's consideration of a new site plan review program, and 2) verify that the policy
direction of the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance meets the Council's intentions and
provide further direction to staff or the Planning Commission accordingly.
POLICY IMPLICATION: Enacting a site plan review program would supplement existing Medina
Municipal Code (MMC) provisions for the construction of large homes in Medina — primarily the
development standards found in Title 17 (the Zoning Code) and the Construction Mitigation Program in
Chapter 15.20.
BACKGROUND:
Site Plan Review Objective Statement
At their March 2003 meeting the City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop a
recommendation on establishing a site plan review program for the construction of large homes in Medina.
In doing so they set the following objective statement for such a site plan review program:
A discretionary land use permit process should be explored that would accomplish the following
objectives in the design of new large homes:
1. The primary buildings on the site should fit harmoniously with the character of the
landscape.
2. New homes should not create an overwhelming amount of bulk from the perspective of
neighboring homes.
3. New homes or occupied accessory buildings should not create significant privacy impacts
for neighboring lots.
4. The basic topography of the lot should not be altered during redevelopment.
5. Key functions of the existing landscaping on a lot should be preserved during
redevelopment.
6. The design of new structures should not obstruct any views from public walkways or
streets that have an established value to the community.
ITEM C - 2
7. Where new buildings are being designed to accommodate large gatherings of people, site
plan design should include measures to mitigate the impacts on neighbors.
8. Where new buildings are being designed to accommodate a large number of domestic
employees, site plan design should include measures to mitigate the impacts on
neighbors.
Planning Commission Review
A draft of a potential site plan review ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission at their
August 2003 meeting is presented at the bottom of this report. The Planning Commission discussed this
matter at four different meetings and held a public hearing at the June, 2003 meeting. In developing their
recommendation, the Planning Commission focused on analyzing how a new site plan review program
would relate to existing land use controls for large homes and how property rights would be impacted. In
particular, the Commission went through a process of further defining items one and two from the
Council's objective statement by discussing the degree to which site plan review should be able to
influence the design of new homes. Key aspects of the Commission's decision making can be
summarized as follows:
May 2003 Discussion of what the threshold for requiring SPR should be, i.e. the
minimum size of project that should go through the process.
June 2003 . Decided SPR should not include architectural design review.
• Decided SPR should not reduce the existing code allowances for
structural coverage and building height.
• Decided SPR should not influence the massing of a building.
July 2003 • Decided SPR should not influence the shape of a building. Result:
SPR would only influence the placement of buildings and other
primary site features on the lot.
• Decided SPR should not alter site plans for the preservation of a
public view beyond the view protection measures already in the
Zoning Code.
August 2003 Reconsidered the decision to not allow SPR to influence the shape of
a building. Decided to allow SPR to influence shape only when the
reviewing body (Planning Commission) makes a finding that
changing a building's shape is the only practical way to mitigate
impacts on neighbors.
The resulting draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission can be summarized as follows:
Program Trigger — Site plan review would be required for new buildings or substantial
alterations to existing buildings on lots greater than 80,000 square feet in area.
Presiding Body — The Planning Commission would facilitate a public hearing and approve the
site plan. The hearing examiner would hear appeals of the commission's decision.
Page 2
ITEM C - 2
Review Criteria — There would be six review criteria considered by the Planning Commission
in their approval / denial of the site plan. These criteria relate very closely to the objective
statement.
Procedure — Site plan review applicants would have the option one or two meetings before
the Planning Commission. The two meeting option is offered because of the tendency for site
plans to evolve slightly through the long design process typical for new homes in Medina. With
this system the first meeting would involve the approval of a preliminary site plan concept and
the second would confirm that the final site plan meets the intent of the Planning Commission's
first approval. The draft ordinance allows for the integration of a site plan review with
construction mitigation plans and variances (potentially all considered in one hearing.)
To summarize how the Planning Commission's recommend ordinance relates to the original objective
statement: most objectives have been refined and one has been eliminated (preservation of public views).
Draft Ordinance Recommended by Planning Commission
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. XXX — SITE PLAN REVIEW
SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
A. Encourage better site planning to help ensure that new development enhances the character
of the city and sensitively fits into neighborhoods.
B. To protect the desirable aspects of natural landscape features of the City by minimizing
undesirable impacts of proposed developments on the physical environment.
C. Improve communication and mutual understanding among developers, neighborhoods, and
the City early and throughout the Site Plan Review process.
SECTION 2. SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED
A Site Plan Review is required to construct or alter a structure where:
1. Total parcel size is greater than or equal to 80,000 square feet
B. Review: Exemptions: The following types of development shall be exempt from Site Plan
1. Interior remodels of existing buildings or structures provided:
a. Alterations do not conflict with any prior approved site plan; and
b. Alterations do not modify the existing site layout.
2. Fagade modifications of existing buildings or structures provided:
a. Alterations do not conflict with any prior approved site plan; and
b. Alterations do not modify the existing site layout;
Page 3
ITEM C - 2
C. Alterations do not significantly increase the exterior bulk of the building or
structure.
SECTION 3. DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
A. The Planning Commission shall review all development subject to Site Plan Review. The
scope of site plan review is intended to evaluate the placement of primary site features on
the site and reduce negative impacts to adjacent properties. In some cases, a minor
change to the shape of a proposed building may be necessary to meet the Site Plan
Review Objectives listed below. Primary site features shall include but not be limited to
all buildings, driveways, decks, patios, and landscaping. The following objectives shall be
satisfied before the Planning Commission approves a Site Plan Review application:
1. Proposed development shall be sited in such as way as to not create excessive visible
bulk from the perspective of the neighboring houses.
2. Proposed structures are placed and scaled in relation to the openness and natural
characteristics of a site, avoiding an overconcentration of structures.
3. Proposed development shall not create significant privacy impacts for neighboring
lots.
4. Preservation of landscape in its natural state by minimizing grade changes and
vegetation and soil removal.
a. The natural topography of the property shall not be dramatically altered.
b. Significant trees and other natural landscaping should be preserved.
5. If applicable, the site plan shall include measures to accommodate large gatherings
and mitigate the impacts (traffic, parking, noise, exterior lighting etc.) on the
neighborhood.
6. If applicable, proposed site plan shall include measures to accommodate a large
number of domestic employees and groundskeepers and to mitigate the impacts
(traffic, parking, noise, etc.) on the neighborhood.
B. Proposed Site Plans must also comply with all other Medina Municipal Code, state,
federal, and county requirements.
SECTION 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE
A. A pre -application conference is required for all projects requiring Site Plan Review. The pre -
application process shall include City of Medina staff and applicant.
B. A Public Notice shall be posted and distributed to residents living within 300 feet of the
proposed development fifteen (15) days prior to the Site Plan Review Hearing.
C. Planning Commission Meeting -- Site Plan Review Hearing
I. The Planning Commission shall review the proposed Site Plan,
Page 4
ITEM C -2
2. At the Site Plan Review Hearing, applicants shall present the following information:
a. An initial site analysis addressing site opportunities and constraints, the use of all
adjacent buildings, and the zoning of the site and adjacent properties;
b. A drawing of existing site conditions, indicating topography of the site and the location
of structures and prominent landscape elements on or abutting the site (including but
not limited to all trees, with species indicated);
c. Programmatic conceptual floor plan;
d. Photos showing the facades of adjacent development, trees on the site, general
streetscape character and territorial or other views from the site, if any;
e. A zoning envelope study;
f. A description of the proponent's objectives with regard to site development.
3. Planning Commission shall review all public comments during the Site Plan Review
Hearing
4. Upon reviewing the Site Plan and receiving all public comments, the Planning Commission
will close the hearing and determine one of the following:
a. Approve the Site Plan as submitted;
b. Approve the Site Plan as submitted with conditions; or
1) The Planning Commission shall have the authority to place reasonable conditions
on or modify a Site Plan in order to satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 3. Such
conditions or modifications may include, but are not limited to, screening, buffering,
building location and orientation, setbacks, paving, landscaping, vegetation
removal, grading, and other mitigation as appropriate.
2) The Planning Commission may impose additional requirements including:
preparation of a landscape plan, preparation of a grading, drainage, and erosion
control plan, and preparation of a vegetation preservation plan.
3) Modification of Plan Subsequent to Site Plan Review: In all cases, if an applicant
can demonstrate that a Site Plan can be made consistent with the review criteria
by alternative modifications to the Site Plan, the Planning Commission shall accept
the alternative modifications as conditions to approval and approve the Site Plan.
c. Reject the Site Plan. If Planning Commission finds that the Site Plan application
cannot be made consistent with the review criteria by reasonable conditions, then the
Site Plan shall be denied.
D. Second Planning Commission Meeting. Site Plan Review applicants shall have the option to
have the project reviewed at two Planning Commission meetings. This procedure would utilize
the first meeting as the public -noticed hearing at which preliminary approval of a site plan
concept would be considered by the Planning Commission. The second meeting would occur
after the substantial completion of all design activities and would involve Planning Commission
review of whether the final design is consistent with their concept plan approval. At the second
meeting, the Planning Commission may approve a revised site plan if it finds that the revisions
meet the intent of the original Planning Commission approval.
E. Review Consolidation with Level 2 Construction Mitigation. When a project undergoing Site
Plan Review is also required to develop a Level 2 construction mitigation plan per MMC 15.20,
Page 5
ITEM C - 2
the Planning Commission Site Plan Review meeting may be expanded to allow for the review
and approval of the mitigation plan.
F. Recording of Restrictive Covenant. To ensure compliance with MMC 17.54.057(A)(3), the
Planning Commission may require as a condition of issuance of a permit under this section
that the applicant impose upon and record a restrictive covenant that prohibits future
nonresidential uses of such property.
G. Expiration and extension of Site Plan approval
1. The final approval of a Site Plan shall expire within two (2) years of the date of approval if a
complete building application is not submitted.
2. Exceptions for phased projects: For development proposed on only a portion of a particular
site, an applicant may choose to submit a Site Plan application for either the entire site or
the portion of the site. In the latter case, the application shall state clearly the area of the
site and the proposed development, including phases, for which Site Plan approval is
being requested.
a. Authority of extension of time: The Planning Commission may grant Site Plan approval
for large projects planned to be developed or redeveloped in phases over a period of
years exceeding the normal time limits of subsection E (1). Such approval shall
include clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase.
b. Expiration of phases: If the time limits of a particular phase are not satisfied then site
plan approval for that phase and subsequent phases shall expire.
H. Review Consolidation with Variance Requests. Where a variance is sought for a project also
requiring Site Plan Review, the applicant shall have the option to request that the review of
both permits is consolidated into a single public hearing before the Planning Commission.
SECTION 5. REVISION OF SITE PLAN
A. The Site Plan may be revised by the applicant from time to time to modify, eliminate or
add measures. Modifications may be made by agreement between the applicant and the
City Manager or City Manager's designee, provided:
1. Future Development. In making the determination under Section 4, the Planning
Commission may consider the likelihood of additions, expansions, or further activity
being planned by the applicant.
2. Public notice of the proposed revision(s) is posted as provided by MMC 14.04.130
and mailed to adjacent property within 300 feet of the project at least fifteen (15) days
prior to approval or denial of the proposed revisions;
3. written objection(s) to the proposed revision(s) is not submitted within fifteen (15) days
of the public notice posting and date of mailing;
4. In the absence of an agreement or when written objection has been submitted within
the time specified in 6 (b), the proposed revisions shall be considered by the Medina
Planning Commission after a public hearing on the proposed revision(s).
SECTION 6. APPEAL
A. Any aggrieved party may appeal an administrative or Medina Planning Commission
decision, which grants or denies approval of a final Site Plan Review application, to the
Page 6
ITEM C -2
Medina Hearing Examiner. Notice of appeal must be filed with the Medina City Clerk
within fourteen (14) days of the date the notice of decision to grant or deny the final Site
Plan Review application. The time for appeal shall be extended for an additional seven (7)
days if the decision includes a determination subject to a SEPA public comment period as
required by WAC 197-11-340. (Ord. 710 § 1, 2001; Ord. 608 § 2, 1996)
SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT
It is the property owner's responsibility to ensure that all work, actions or conditions
comply with this code and all other applicable laws and with the requirements of any
permits and/or approvals granted under this ordinance or any other applicable law,
regardless of any review, approval, inspection or other action of the City or its agents,
consultants, or employees. It shall be the responsibility of the City Manager or City
Manager's designee to enforce the provisions of this ordinance or any approved Site Plan
or revisions thereto.
SECTION 8. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
A. Violations
1. It is a violation of this ordinance for any person to use, construct or allow any structure
within the City of Medina that violates any of the provisions of this ordinance.
2. It is a violation of this ordinance for any person to fail to comply with the terms of an
approved Site Plan Review Application or any revisions thereto.
B. Notice of Violation
If, after investigation, the City's Representative determines that the standards or requirements
of this ordinance or any approved Site Plan Review application or revisions thereto have been
violated, the City's Representative shall serve notice of violation upon the owner, contractor or
other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation shall state separately each
standard or requirement violated; shall state what corrective action, if any, is necessary to
comply with the standards or requirements; and shall set a reasonable time for compliance.
The notice shall be served upon the owner, contractor or other person responsible for the
condition by personal service or certified mail with return receipt requested, addressed to the
last known address of such person. A copy of the notice shall be posted at a conspicuous
place on the property containing the site of the violation. A notice -may be amended at any time
to correct clerical errors or cite additional authority for a stated violation.
C. Civil Penalty
In addition to any other sanction or remedial procedure, which may be available, any
person violating or failing to comply with the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject
to a cumulative penalty in the amount of $500 per day for each violation from the date set
for compliance. The penalty imposed by this section shall be collected by civil action
brought in the name of the City.
D. Criminal Penalties
Page 7
ITEM C - 2
Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance shall
be subject to criminal prosecution and upon conviction shall be fined in a sum not
exceeding $1,000 or be imprisoned for a term not exceeding thirty (30) days or be both
fined and imprisoned. Each day of noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance
shall constitute a separate offense.
E. Stop Work Order
Whenever a continuing violation of this ordinance occurs, the City's Representative may
issue a Stop Work Order, with or without notice, specifying the violation and prohibiting
any work or other activity at the site. A failure to comply with a Stop Work Order shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
F. Additional Relief
The City may seek legal or equitable relief to enjoin any acts or practices and abate any
conditions, which constitute or will constitute a violation of this ordinance.
Page 8
Memo
To:
Medina City Council
From:
Drew Blazey
CC:
City Manager
Date:
01 /20/2004
Re:
Parking Regulations
References:
1. 11 August 2003 City Council Minutes - Complaint by Mr. Fred Gerber
2. Drew Blazey e-mail, 9 August 2003, re: In response to e-mail complaint by Mr. Fred Gerber
3. Memo by Doug Schulze, City Manager, 2 Sep 2003
4. Medina's Comprehensive Plan, 12 Jul 99, pg. 14.
5. MMC Chapter 10.40
Background:
Several citizens' complaints about parking in Medina created the impetus to create a "Policy Statement"
by the City Council. I agreed to draft this policy statement.
Historically, there has been general discouragement of street parking within the city. This sentiment is
reflected in our Comprehensive Plan. There has been an obstructionist perspective to update our
parking ordinance from the Medina City Council from what I have been told.
Our MMC has relatively narrow bands of authority given to our City Manager regarding parking. The
MCC has the statement about "all four wheels of the vehicle off the surfaced portion of the roadway'
which has created some of the parking problems we have here. This restriction has been in place we
think for over 30 years.
I did find a "consultant" that worked with MI on their parking problem. The best discussion I had was
with a traffic engineer in Bellevue who revised the city parking in the old library when it became city
hall. However, both these communities parking problems are larger and more complex than ours.
Searches of the Internet yielded similar results.
Recommended Policy:
There are four broad recommendations I have to update our policy:
1. The City of Medina should have a reasonable, citizen friendly approach to parking. We should try
to accommodate our residents and their guests by facilitating parking.
2. In our core downtown area (from the beach & City Hall to the Post Office including the Green
Store) parking should be tightly controlled to optimize the benefits to the residents and foster a vital
and fun community area.
3. This policy should put the Medina citizens parking needs ahead of the city staff in most instances.
4. There is no desire to put a parking sign in every block of our city.
Other Specifics:
1. Moving the public works trailer to the public works maintenance area where there is room, it would
be out of sight, and most importantly, we would create 4 or 5 parking spaces at the Medina
beach park.
2. Parking the police cars somewhere else when they are not in use so we could free up those prime
parking spaces at Medina City Hall for general parking.
3. Is there anywhere else the dumpster could go to free up more parking spaces for the beach?
4. Highlighting the parking area nearjust south of View Point on 84`h with a sign so people know
about it.
5. Having staff park off -site from the Permit or Restricted Parking areas on EPR during the summer
months (from Memorial through Labor Day). Vans from Medina Elem. might suffice for this time
period. Walking is good exercise, too.
6. Review 30 minute parking across from PO — maybe it should be 4 Hour parking for the beach.
There is plenty of PO parking.
7. To facilitate off road parking for guests (with two wheels off the concrete), post 4 Hour Parking
signs in appropriate rights of way.
8. Discontinue prohibited parking on south end of Upland before it intersects with Overlake Drive
West. These three signs were put in to prevent construction parking at Dr. Simonyi's estate.
9. Standardize signs in a comprehensive manner. Here are several examples:
a. No Parking Anytime
b. No Parking on Pavement
c. No Parking This Side
d. No Parking on Grass
e. No Parking Anytime Bike Route
Action Item:
1. Review the MMC PARKING Chapter 10.40 for possible revision.
0 Page 2
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
' www.ci.medina.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
December 31, 2003
TO:
Medina City Council
FROM:
Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: 2004 Legislative Issues
RECOMMENDATION: Review list of legislative issues and approve 2004 Legislative
Priorities.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The legislative issues are intended to provide direction to City staff
regarding issues of interest that should be monitored. In addition, positions of the City Council
regarding legislative issues should be clarified and understood by City staff as well as individual
members of the City Council.
BACKGROUND: The following list does not represent the entire scope of legislative
issues, but is intended to identify the issues known at this time. Certainly, as the Legislature
convenes and the legislative session proceeds, issues may come up that will be of interest to
the City of Medina. Those issues will be brought to the attention of the City Council and added
to the list of Legislative Issues, if the Council decides it is appropriate.
High Priority Issues
1. Municipal Finance
a. Sales Tax Streamlining
Position: Support Sales Tax Streamlining
Provides sales tax benefits to the City of Medina for delivery of goods to Medina
addresses. Currently, sales taxes are paid to location of distribution centers for
goods purchased for delivery (appliances, furniture, etc.).
b. Tri-Association Legislative Proposal
Position: Support Principles of Tri-Association Proposal (Association of
Washington Cities, Washington State Association of Counties, and the
Washington Association of County Officials)
Tri-Association Principles
• Assist uniquely impacted jurisdictions to secure sufficient resources and
assure that all cities and counties are able to provide basic services.
• Recognize the need to enhance revenues of cities and counties with a
focus on securing permanent resources for criminal justice and public
health.
• Ensure that cities and counties are provided flexibility in the use of
revenues.
• Support legislation that reduces or eliminates state -imposed mandates
and program responsibilities or secures state reimbursement for those
activities.
• Seek legislation that removes the restrictions that limit the efficient
delivery of local government services.
• Assist city and county officials to inform their citizens of the impact of
insufficient revenues on the provision of basic services.
c. Limited Liability Corporation Real Estate Excise Tax Loophole
Position: Support legislation that eliminates loophole, which allows creation of
LLC to avoid payment of R.E.E.T.
State law currently allows transfer of real estate to and from LLCs without
payment of the Real Estate Excise Tax. This practice is common and may be
appropriate for commercial or multi -family dwellings, but when used for single-
family residential property, it is simply a loophole for avoiding R.E.E.T. This
practice has been used several times in Medina and neighboring communities,
resulting in the loss of significant tax revenues in the communities.
2. Municipal Courts
a. Clarify law to allow for cities to contract with other cities to provide
municipal court services.
Position: Support legislation to allow cities to contract with other cities to provide
for a cost effective municipal court alternative outside of their direct municipal
boundaries.
Clarifies City's ability to contract with Kirkland Municipal Court.
3. Transportation
a. Funding
Position: Support a long-term solution to transportation funding needs through a
balanced transportation revenue package that provides additional revenues to
cities and their transportation partners (counties, WSDOT, transit agencies) and
recognizes the special needs of all transportation providers.
b. SR 520/Evergreen Point Bridge
Position: Support replacement/expansion, which includes appropriate mitigation
of adverse impacts associated with air quality, noise pollution, water quality, and
private real estate values.
E
Moderate Priority Issues
1. Unfunded Mandates
Position: Oppose additional state and federal mandates on local governments, unless
such mandates are compelled by a significant public interest and are accompanied by
sufficient financial resources.
2. Officer -Involved Domestic Violence
Position: Support legislation with modifications to reduce the cost to local jurisdictions
and to leave some flexibility for the differing needs of local jurisdictions.
Bill language requires:
• Every police agency to adopt a policy on officer -involved domestic violence;
• Mandatory reporting of officer -involved domestic violence incidents;
• Training;
• Pre -hire screening;
• Explicit protocols for taking actions such as placing an officer on administrative
leave, removing service weapon, or suspending arrest powers — within due
process considerations;
• Separate criminal and administrative investigations; and
• Progress reports to the State Legislature.
No funding is provided for these activities, but legislators are attempting to limit the
negative impacts on local governments.
3. Interlocal Cooperation on Purchasing
Position: Support legislation to clarify local government authority to continue long-
standing joint purchase practices through state agencies or purchasing alliances.
In mid-2003, the State Auditor notified local governments of an informal Attorney
General memo regarding the authority of local governments and state agencies to
purchase through interlocal agreements. The memo concluded that Washington
governments still have to comply with their individually applicable bidding and
advertisement requirements when purchasing through state agencies or purchasing
alliances.
4. Telecommunications & Rights of Way
Position: Protect local authority to manage city rights -of -way and publicly owned
infrastructure. Support the preservation of taxing authority and the right to compensation;
Retain ability to negotiate cable franchise agreements.
This is an ongoing issue that seems to come up at least once each year.
3