Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Tumwater Planning Commission and General Government Committee recommended that the city council amend Tumwater Municipal Code Title 14, which contains provisions for administering the city’s development (building) code.
The Planning Commission voted to endorse the ordinance on Tuesday, November 12, but with consideration of only one public comment the city received through email.
The General Government Committee reviewed the ordinance on Wednesday, November 13, and voted to endorse it.
Planning Manager Brad Medrud, who briefed the two groups, said the proposed ordinance seeks to bring the city into compliance with SB 5290, passed into law in May 2023, which amended state requirements for local land use permits.
The bill sought to increase the timeliness and predictability of the application process. Local jurisdictions must comply with the bill by the end of the year.
The Tumwater Planning Commission endorsed the ordinance on Tuesday, November 12.
JOLT Staff photo via Zoom
One of the primary changes introduced by the ordinance is establishing three different types of land use permit applications.
The municipal code currently does not allow any organization to divide certain types of applications.
“One of the big things that we really tried to do as part of this process is to make it simplify the process and make it a little bit more understandable for people just trying to come into the process... and so we decided that we would assign different types of permits to different kinds of things,” Medrud told the General Government committee.
Type one applications are minor land use permits that do not require environmental review. Medrud said type one applications include tree removal permits, boundary line adjustments, and short plats.
Type two applications are subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review.
Both type one and two applications only require administrative approval, particularly from the director of the community development department, but only after the recommendation of the Development Review Committee, which comprises staff from the community development department and the transportation and engineering department.
Decisions by the community development department director may be appealed to a hearing examiner.
Type three permits require the approval of a hearing examiner after a public hearing and are appealable to the Superior Court. Permits at this level include binding site plans, conditional use permits, and preliminary plans.
If an applicant has multiple permit applications, the application type defaults to the permit type with the highest level.
Regarding the application process, significant changes are being proposed for the application submittal stage where city staff determine the type of application and what kind of materials the applicant would have to submit.
Medrud said there is a new requirement that applications, in addition to needing a “determination of completeness,” must now also be deemed "procedurally complete.”
“Meaning that we have to be explicit in our code what is required as part of an application. Rather than say, for example, we need a site plan, we need to specify what exactly needs to be in that site plan,” Medrud explained.
The rest of the process stays the same. Once the requirements have been prepared, city staff review the application and make a decision on which the applicant may choose to appeal.
The time limits for each of the application types' three levels are 90, 120, and 170 days, respectively. The current time limit is 120 days for all land use permit applications.
Exemptions include the final plat application, which needs to be processed in 30 days.
In developing the time limits, city staff could shorten the timeline for type one and two applications. Medrud mentioned that state law set the minimum timelines to 75, 100, and 170 days for each of the three types of applications.
The ordinance specifies that the time limit includes the very first day someone applies up until the deciding body issues a decision.
Everything in between, such as the public comment period and public hearings if required, is included in the time limit, but appeals are outside the timeline.
Medrud mentioned that state law now also imposes penalties if jurisdictions are unable to meet the deadlines. According to Medrud, the penalty is a 15% return of the application fee or a 20% return of the permit fees.
When Councilmember Michael Althauser asked Medrud how the penalties would affect the city staff, Medrud said that state law provides flexibility for jurisdictions to determine their own timelines, but applications cannot exceed 170 days.
Medrud added that they can pause the clock on the timeline when information on the application is missing or insufficient, when the city requires additional studies from the applicant, or if an applicant needs approval from an outside agency.
The ordinance also amends the process for approving tax exemptions for multi-family housing developers.
If passed, the community development director would be able to decide on such applications.
Currently, the city council votes to approve the contract granting the tax exemption, but Medrud admitted that the council cannot deny the application.
City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick mentioned that if an application complies with the program's terms, the council must approve the contract.
“I believe the language is something about you shall approve the contract, so actually, you don't really have much leeway there,” Kirkpatrick said.
Althauser asked Kirkpatrick what would happen if the council rejected a contract. Kirkpatrick said it might expose the city to a lawsuit.
The council member said that this part of the ordinance merits its own discussion with the other council members.
“I would be surprised if there isn't a request that that portion be removed for consideration because that's going to blow up the rest of this,” Althauser said.
The ordinance also proposes to require a SEPA determination before the city grants a building permit. Medrud said that the city has several situations where projects have building permits but not land use permits.
The issue occurs in places where endangered species occur, which triggers the applicant to seek a habitat conservation plan with the federal government.
The ordinance also contains provisions amending public notice requirements for project applications and codifies a process for interpreting the land use code.
Medrud explained that there are instances when the interpretation of the land use code is questioned. The city, along with most jurisdictions, allows for a process to let department directors decide on interpretation, which then becomes binding until the next set of code changes.
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
PamelaJHanson
Yes, the MFTE is going to be an issue. It is for builders of apartments and it is a “property tax exemption.” The MFTE is an automatic property tax shift to both homeowners and businesses and then a pass-thru tax to leased properties and renters.
On November 1, 2021 the Tumwater City Council approved the very first Multi Family Tax Exemption to Glen Wells 1st phase of apartments between Toyota and Home Depot, in the city paperwork it stated (in a different math formula, and I did the math over and over again) that it takes an approx. wage of $21.63 per hour "to qualify to rent" a studio apartment - and for that Glen Wells got a "12 Year Property Tax Exemption" (a 12 Year MFTE).
So, the median family income? That is an income based calculation. So, the homeowners and other property owners? That is who they end up taxing.
Well, the City and the Planning Commission, at previous decision times, CANNOT calculate the "taxable value of the property" (as in the massive apartment complexes of Glen Wells) or the property tax exemption dollar amount because of the timing of the new construction 1st valuation from the property tax Assessor’s Office for the tax roll. The City Council votes on it though, until it changes - to a back door automatic approval?
There are people's lives attached to the median family income! Why is Glen Wells and any other developer worthy of an automatic, without a council vote, raising of other people's taxes effort that will line a builder's pocket with a massive, multi-year tax exemption! Pay to play at the golf course? There is a balanced budget buster!
Everyone needs to ask more questions. Thank you The Jolt for bringing this information to press. It is an unfair tax exemption and an unfair tax shift. Even Olympia doesn't support a current year pay increase to around $21.63 that would supposedly guarantee a person a studio apartment in Tumwater, back in 2021.
Saturday, November 16, 2024 Report this