Council directs Planning Commission to hold hearing on new local‑improvement‑district code

The Sequim City Council on Aug. 11 directed staff to route a proposed Sequim Municipal Code chapter on local improvement districts to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommended the city return a formal ordinance for council consideration.

Public Works Director Paul Musich presented a draft SMC chapter intended to clarify local procedure for forming local improvement districts (LIDs) and utility local improvement districts (ULIDs). Musich said the draft draws on state statutes but translates the process into clearer local code language so residents understand petitioning, cost estimates, cost deposits for engineering, and the relationship between petitioners and the city.

Musich told council the proposed chapter is prompted by a forthcoming Flores Acres utility LID and observed that neighboring jurisdictions commonly rely on state RCWs rather than a local code. He said the draft would identify the decision‑making body, public‑notice requirements, options for hearings (city council, hearings examiner, or Planning Commission), and the city’s practice of collecting deposits to cover staff and engineering work.

Council action and vote Councilor Dan Butler moved that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing on the proposed LID code, that staff modify the draft ordinance accordingly, and that staff return an ordinance to council at the next available regular meeting. The motion was seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote of 6‑0.

Why it matters: Musich and councilors said the local code will give residents a clearer, more accessible path to ask the city to build and finance infrastructure—roads, water, or sewer—where the residents choose to front repayment over time. The code also identifies who pays the city’s processing costs and how the city will handle deposits and reimbursements.

Key clarifications from staff - The draft would apply to projects inside the city limits and in the urban growth area (UGA); projects in a UGA may also require county review per interlocal requirements. - The staff recommendation was to send the public hearing to the Planning Commission rather than the hearings examiner; Musich cited practical reasons including Planning Commission familiarity with capital and transportation topics and lower up‑front applicant costs for the hearings examiner process. - Engineering and administrative costs incurred while evaluating a petition would be deposited by the applicants; any unused funds would be refunded or applied to the final project costs at the applicants’ discretion.

Next steps Staff will prepare a formal ordinance and public‑hearing materials, submit the proposal to the Planning Commission for hearing and recommendation, then return an ordinance to the council for a future vote. The council’s 6‑0 vote establishes the Planning Commission hearing as the chosen path for now.