Medical Lake council begins rewrite of code enforcement rules, proposes new Chapter 1.21 on civil infractions
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented a phased overhaul of municipal enforcement language that would consolidate civil-infraction procedures in a new Chapter 1.21 and redirect roughly 80 existing citations to that section; council members asked staff to return a draft ordinance for a Feb. 3 public hearing and first reading.
City planner Lisa Rodriguez laid out a phased plan to modernize Medical Lake's municipal code and to consolidate civil-infraction enforcement in a new Chapter 1.21, telling the City Council on Jan. 6 that the current enforcement provisions date to 1967 and lack clear process guidance.
"We want a clear, well organized, enforceable, municipal code that adheres to state law while reflecting our community values," Rodriguez said, summarizing the goals of the revision. She said staff audited the municipal code and found roughly 80 references to specific violations across Titles 4 through 19; under the proposal, those citations would be redirected to Chapter 1.21 as the uniform enforcement reference.
Rodriguez and Code Enforcement Officer David Uhas described the proposed enforcement flow: staff or citizens report a suspected violation; the officer validates it in the field and then chooses among three tools: (1) a violation notification that sets a timeline for correction; (2) a stop-work order for active construction or similar urgent matters; or (3) a civil infraction (a fine) for repeat or immediately appropriate offenses. Rodriguez said civil infractions function like "a ticket" and are processed through municipal court, which recently moved processing from Cheney municipal court to Airway Heights.
The planner emphasized the project is phased. "This first phase is citation changes," Rodriguez said. Misdemeanor offenses and other legacy provisions will be audited and brought back in subsequent phases to avoid trying to rewrite hundreds of pages at once.
Council members asked for clarity on how penalties would align with state court rules and RCW classifications. Rodriguez said she would reference RCW 7.8 for civil-infraction classes and ensure the city's maximum penalties do not exceed state limits; she also said court fees and state surcharges typically make the ticket amount larger than the municipal share.
Some council members asked whether flowcharts or process diagrams should be placed directly in the code. Rodriguez and other council members pushed back: the mayor (unnamed in the transcript) said process language in code can bind the city too rigidly and that educational flowcharts on the city's code-enforcement web page would be preferable. "We could do educational materials that show here's our process," the mayor said.
Staff proposed the following next steps: produce ordinance language in ordinance form, deliver the draft to council members as early as possible for review, schedule a public hearing and first reading on Feb. 3, 2026, and continue to refine language between readings. The council directed staff to return with the draft and additional clarifications requested during the workshop.
Ending
The council did not vote on an ordinance during the Jan. 6 workshop; staff scheduled a public hearing and first reading for Feb. 3, 2026. Council members asked for the ordinance draft in advance and requested staff follow up on alignment with state law and court rules.
