The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFINAL 2026 0331 Council Agenda PacketMoses Lake City Council Dustin Swartz, Mayor | Don Myers, Deputy Mayor | Mark Fancher, Council Member | Joel Graves, Council Member David Skaug, Council Member | Victor Lombardi, Council Member | Jeremy Davis, Council Member Special Meeting Agenda Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam Tuesday, March 31, 2026 Call to Order – 6 p.m. Motion 1.Fire Service Feasibility Study pg 2 Presented by Fire Chief Art Perillo Summary: Discussion 2.Comprehensive Plan Contract Amendment pg 26 Presented by Planning Manager Vivian Ramsey Summary: Council to review and consider approval 3.Water and Irrigation Rates pg 30 Presented by Finance Director Madeline Prentice Summary: Discussion 4. Financial Sustainability Plan Follow Up Presented by City Manager Rob Karlinsey and FSP Team Summary: Discussion (Financial Sustainability Site) separate webpage from packet •Budget Comparisons with Other Cities • Additional Data and Charts • Balancing Act Budget Simulation Results • Town Hall Public Input Results pg 41•Scoring Criteria for Enhanced Programs, Cont'd •Next Steps Adjournment NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the in-person meeting who require an interpreter or special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, need to contact the City Clerk at (509) 764-3703 or Deputy City Clerk at (509) 764-3707 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Also contact theCity Clerk's Office before Noon on day of meeting for any printed packet material copies in black and white at no charge. Color copies can be provided for a cost of 25 cents per page. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 1 of 43 City of Moses Lake Fire Services Delivery Model Feasibility Study DRAFT: March 20, 2026 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 2 of 43 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle, Washington 98121 P (206) 324-8760 www.berkconsulting.com “Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures” Founded in 1988, we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm providing integrated, creative and analytically rigorous approaches to complex policy and planning decisions. Our team of strategic planners, policy and financial analysts, economists, cartographers, information designers and facilitators work together to bring new ideas, clarity, and robust frameworks to the development of analytically- based and action-oriented plans. Project Team Katherine Goetz · Project Manager Brian Murphy · Project Director Oliver Hirn · Analyst Andrew Lindstrom · Analyst Chief Don Waller · Strategic Advisor COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 3 of 43 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Context ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 City of Moses Lake.................................................................................................................................................... 1 Moses Lake Fire Department ................................................................................................................................. 3 Surrounding Fire Districts ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Grant County Fire District 5 ................................................................................................................................... 9 Overview of Potential Service Delivery Options ................................................................................................. 13 City Department ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Fire Protection District ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Regional Fire Authority .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Evaluation of Service Delivery Options ................................................................................................................. 16 Evaluative Criteria ................................................................................................................................................... 16 City Department ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Fire District ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Regional Fire Authority .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Summary Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Operating Model ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 Opportunities for Ongoing Improvement .......................................................................................................... 20 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 4 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 1 Introduction The Moses Lake Fire Department (MLFD) provides fire suppression, Advance Life Support, rescue, and other specialized services to the residents and businesses in the City of Moses Lake. The City engaged BERK to evaluate options for delivering fire services that best align with community needs and funding capacity. This study evaluates three options: 1. Maintain the existing City of Moses Lake Fire Department. 2. Convert the existing department to a fire protection district to serve the existing boundaries. 3. Create a Regional Fire Authority with one or more jurisdictions. This report provides an overview of the current department, the general benefits and challenges associated with each option, a summary of how each option meets the evaluation criteria important to the City of Moses Lake, and recommendations. The recommendations are informed by a comparative analysis of MLFD and surrounding districts, financial modeling of different options, and engagement with: City of Moses Lake elected officials and staff. Leadership of surrounding fire districts. Local stakeholders, including representatives from MACC 911, Moses Lake School District, Port of Moses Lake, Samaritan Hospital, and the Moses Lake Downtown Association. Context City of Moses Lake Moses Lake is the population and economic center of Grant County. The City’s 2026 Adopted Budget notes that the City has 27,530 residents and the population can increase to 45,000-55,000 during the day with employees, shoppers, and other visitors coming into the city. Moses Lake is home to a growing manufacturing and technology sector, including advanced battery manufacturing. Fire and emergency service delivery is complex in Moses Lake due to the amount of industrial and commercial space and the potential need for technical or specialized response, such as a hazardous materials response. Moses Lake has a large Urban Growth Area (UGA), and there are a lot of people and businesses outside city limits that feel like they are part of the Moses Lake community. Residents and businesses in the UGA are served by Grant County Fire District 5 (FD5) for fire and basic life support services and private ambulance for advanced life support and emergency medical support (EMS) transport. Exhibit 1 shows the city population and UGA population between 2010 and 2025 and Exhibit 2 is a map of the city limits and UGA. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 5 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 2 Exhibit 1. Moses Lake Population Growth, 2010 to 2025 Sources: Washington Office of Financial Management, 2025; BERK, 2026. Exhibit 2. City of Moses Lake and Urban Growth Area Source: BERK, 2026. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 City of Moses Lake Moses Lake UGA COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 6 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 3 One of the City’s priorities in its 2026 budget is to achieve financial sustainability. The 2026 Adopted Budget states that “over the decades, Moses Lake has expanded and added new city services to keep pace with the needs and wants of residents and to stay in compliance with ever-increasing state and federal mandates. Moses Lake has a strong tax base but the cost of providing services, especially in the General Fund, has caught up with and surpassed revenues.” The City plans to adopt a 6-year financial sustainability plan that keeps reserves for the Street Fund and General Fund above the City Council’s policy level of 15% of operating expenses and that prevents expenses from exceeding revenues for the 6-year period. Another city priority for 2026 is to plan for and obtain funding for a third fire station in the north end of the City. Response times in the north end of the City are comparatively longer and not meeting desired benchmarks for the department. Moses Lake Fire Department Moses Lake Fire Department is a city department that provides 24/7 fire suppression, emergency medical services, advanced life support transport, hazardous materials response, and ice/water rescue within city limits and outside city limits if responding to a mutual aid request. MLFD operates out of two stations (Exhibit 10). MLFD employees are career firefighter/paramedics and firefighter/EMTs. In 2001, MLFD began providing advanced life support (ALS) transport ambulance service. In 2015, MLFD ceased out of area ambulance transports in response to increasing population and emergency calls. Exhibit 3 provides information on MLFD calls from 2023 to 2025. EMS calls consist of medical emergencies, motor vehicle accidents, and local interfacility transfers. Fire calls consist of commercial, residential, outdoor fires, motor vehicle accidents, and assistance with some EMS calls. Fire engines may be dispatched along with the ambulance if the patient is critically ill and requires additional medical providers or manpower. The reduction in calls in 2025 may be attributable to the closure of the Moses Lake Sleep Center. Exhibit 3. MLFD Calls, 2023-2025 Year Total Calls EMS Calls Fire Calls 2023 5,424 4,717 707 2024 5,534 4,791 743 2025 4,726 4,164 562 Note: MACC 911, the emergency dispatch center for MLFD, transitioned to a new system in 2025, there may be differences in how the data is presented across these years. Source: City of Moses Lake, 2026. MLFD has added positions over time in response to increasing call volume, growth in the number of industrial businesses, and annexation of lands into the City (Exhibit 4). The growth in industrial business has also led to an expansion of services such as hazardous materials response. The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in 2026 decreases due to the loss of federal grant funding and a reorganization of functions in the department. The number of FTEs per 1,000 residents has followed the same growth pattern as the number of total FTEs. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 7 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 4 Exhibit 4. Total MLFD FTEs and FTEs per 1,000 Residents, 2018-2026 Note: The 2026 population number is not currently available but is estimated using the same growth rate from 2024 to 2025. Sources: Washington Office of Financial Management, 2025; City of Moses Lake, 2025. Future Demands for Services As Moses Lake considers the best way to deliver fire and emergency medical services to city businesses and residents, it is important to consider both current and anticipated future conditions, ensuring the selected model will serve the community well as it continues to grow and evolve. Within this context, it will also be important to consider a phased approach, with the most appropriate model perhaps changing over time in response to capital and operating needs or other factors. While the City of Moses Lake does not have a clear roadmap for future annexations, its UGA is large and additional extension of the City’s municipal service boundaries is likely at some point in the future. This will be considered in the Evaluation of Service Delivery Options section. Funding for MLFD MLFD is part of the City’s General Fund budget. In the General Fund, the budget for the Fire Department is the third largest after Police and Parks, Rec & Cultural Services. The 2026 General Fund budget for Fire is $7.1 million. The General Fund budget for Police is $13.1 million and the budget for Parks, Rec & Cultural Services is $8.7 million. MLFD’s 2026 General Fund budget of $7.1 million is comprised of $6.1 million in general tax dollars and over $900,000 in dedicated revenues that primarily come from grants.1 There are 30.5 FTEs budgeted in the General Fund for MLFD. The General Fund budget for MLFD decreased from $7.8 million in 2025 to 1 In the City’s 2026 budget, some permit fee revenues are recognized in the Fire Department, but the function moved to the Building Department in 2025. These revenues are included for the Fire Department for the purpose of this analysis. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Budget Total FTEsFTEs per 1,000 residentsTotal FTEs per 1,000 Total FTEs COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 8 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 5 $7.1 million in 2026 due to an administrative restructuring and the expiration of a SAFER grant. Exhibit 5 shows General Fund revenues and expenditures from 2023 to 2026. Fire revenues were highest in 2024 due to the SAFER Grant. The general tax dollars of $6.1 million for MLFD corresponds to a property tax levy rate of $1.5348 per $1,000 based on the assessed value of the City of Moses Lake for the 2026 tax year. This is more than the maximum general levy rate of $1.50 per thousand allowed for fire districts in the State of Washington. The 2026 budget does not include positions that MLFD would like to restore in a future budget, including a Deputy Chief and a Medical Services Officer. Exhibit 5. MLFD General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2026; BERK, 2026. MLFD manages a separate Ambulance Fund, which is an enterprise fund. The Ambulance Fund receives revenue from an ambulance utility fee, ground emergency medical transport (GEMT) fees, ambulance fees, and grants. In the 2026 budget, total revenues are $4.4 million and total expenditures are $4.6 million. The Ambulance Fund has 18.1 FTEs in 2026. Exhibit 6 shows Ambulance Fund revenues and expenditures from 2023 to 2026. In 2023 and 2024, other revenues were higher due to higher grant revenues and a transfer of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. Ambulance utility fees provide approximately 60% of total revenue for this fund. The current monthly utility rate is $18.30 for a single-family residence. The rate for a non-residential property is based on the square footage of an occupied business. The rate is $18.30 per 5,000 square feet or portion thereof up to a maximum of $25.00. In 2026, total ambulance utility fees were budgeted at $2.9 million. This corresponds to a property tax levy rate of $0.7274 per $1,000 of assessed value based on the assessed value of the City of Moses Lake for the 2026 tax year. This is more than the maximum EMS levy rate of $0.50 per thousand allowed for fire districts in the State of Washington. $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Budget 2026 Budget Fire revenues General Fund support Total Expenditures COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 9 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 6 Exhibit 6. Ambulance Fund Revenues and Expenditures Notes: GEMT is the Ground Emergency Medical Transport program, which reimburses qualifying providers for the full, actual cost of emergency ground transportation for Medicaid beneficiaries. Other revenues represent grant funding and transfers from other funds. Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2026; BERK, 2026. The median sale price for a home in Moses Lake is $369,800.2 The median priced home would pay $568 in property tax and annual ambulance fees of $220, for a total annual amount of $787 MLFD services. The cities of Pullman and Walla Walla also operate a city fire department and have a similar sized population to Moses Lake. Exhibit 7 provides some characteristics of each department for comparison, though each city has unique needs, history, and financial capacity that determine how the fire department operates. Pullman and Walla Walla both provide ALS support for part of their respective county, so the service population is larger than the city population. 2 Housing market information from Redfin for December 2025. $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Budget 2026 Budget Ambulance utility fees Ambulance fees GEMT Other Total Expenditures COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 10 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 7 Exhibit 7. Characteristics of MLFD, Pullman Fire Department, and Walla Walla Fire Department Moses Lake Pullman Walla Walla City Population (2025) 27,530 34,380 34,850 Number of Jobs (2023) 14,497 15,586 15,736 Area Served 21 square miles 12 square miles, ALS support for 450 square miles of county 11 square miles, ALS support for 1,270 square miles of county Fire General Fund Budget $7,082,000 $9,962,000 $5,468,000 Ambulance Fund Budget $4,626,000 $0 $4,982,000 Total budget for fire and ambulance $11,708,000 $9,962,000 $10,450,000 Number of Firefighters 45 37 50 Number of Stations 2 2 2 Number of Incidents 4,726 3,706 7,734 Note: Budget numbers have been rounded to the nearest $1,000. Budget numbers for Moses Lake and Pullman are for 2026 and budget numbers for Walla Walla are for 2024, which is the most recent year available on the City website. The number of firefighter positions in Walla Walla is for 2021; more recent information is not available. Pullman ambulance is funded through transport fees, GEMT, and revenues from contract cities. Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2025; City of Pullman, 2025; City of Walla Walla, 2025, CensusOnTheMap, 2025; BERK, 2026. Surrounding Fire Districts Exhibit 8 is a map of all the fire districts and departments in Grant County. The cities of Moses Lake, Ephrata, and Electric City operate city fire departments. Other areas of Grant County are served by fire districts. Ephrata Fire Department has two career staff and over 30 volunteers. They respond to approximately 550 calls a year. Electric City is an all-volunteer fire department and has a small call volume. In comparison, Moses Lake has 45 career firefighters and managed 11,705 responses in 2025. Additional information about Grant County Fire District 5 is provided because it surrounds the City of Moses Lake and would be a logical partner in regional collaboration. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 11 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 8 Exhibit 8. Fire Districts in Grant County Sources: Grant County, 2026, BERK, 2026. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 12 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 9 Grant County Fire District 5 Grant County Fire District 5 (FD5) provides fire suppression and Basic Life Support services to approximately 500 square miles surrounding the City of Moses Lake. Advanced Life Support and ambulance transport are provided by a private ambulance company. FD5 is the largest fire district geographically in Grant County. It is a combination department, with 10 career staff and volunteers. FD5 has 12 stations as shown in Exhibit 10 and summarized in the text box below:  Station 1 is staffed 24/7 at varying levels with a combination of volunteers, residents, career day staff, and one 24/7 career staff.  Stations 5, 8, and 12 are resident stations, which are staffed in the evening by one or two volunteer firefighters in exchange for living facilities.  The other eight stations are volunteer stations which rely on on-call volunteers. Exhibit 9 provides some comparative information about MLFD and FD5 and Exhibit 10 is a map showing the location of MLFD and FD5 stations. Some of the FD5 stations are outside the boundary shown on this map. In interviews, it was noted that there are many FD5 stations just outside city limits and it may not be clear to the community why the closest station is often not the first one to respond to a call. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 13 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 10 Exhibit 9. MLFD and FD5 Information Moses Lake Fire Department Fire District #5 Organizational type City department Fire district Staffing Career staff (48.6 FTE) Career staff (10 FTEs) and volunteers (~80 volunteers) Service area 21 square miles ~500 square miles Number of stations 2 12 Population served 27,530 19,773 Services Fire suppression, emergency medical services (BLS and ALS), hazardous materials response, technical rescue and tactical EMS Fire suppression, emergency medical services, and medical transport through contract with LifeLine Ambulance, Inc. Levy rate $2.2622* $0.9709 Annual incidents (2025) 4,726 1,470 Annual responses (2025) 11,705 2,678 Travel time (90th percentile) 8.40 14.60 Paged enroute time (90th percentile) 2.90 3.50 Total response time (90th percentile) 13.50 19.60 WSRB rating 4 in town, 9 in north corridor 5 Notes: * This is the equivalent levy rate of the amount of general tax dollars and ambulance utility fees that support MLFD. Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau (WSRB) ratings are on a scale of 1 to 10, with lower scores reflecting better protective coverage. Lower scores contribute to lower costs for residential and commercial property insurance. Sources: MACC 911, 2026; City of Moses Lake, 2025; Grant County FD5, 2025; OFM Small Area Estimate Program, 2025; BERK, 2026. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 14 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 11 Exhibit 10. Map of MLFD and FD5 Stations Source: BERK, 2026. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 15 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 12 Summary Points of Comparison between MLFD and FD5 MLFD and FD5 are fundamentally different, with each organization well-adapted to the community it serves. MLFD has evolved to address relatively more urban needs, including structural fires and the emergency medical needs of an urban population. FD5 addresses more rural needs, with a focus on wildland fires. MLFD’s model requires more dedicated staffing than FD5’s service delivery because of call volume density. Staffing and Culture  MLFD is staffed by union career firefighter/EMTs, firefighter/paramedics, and supervisors. Staffing is 45 with 9-13 on shift each day. MLFD averaged 11.13 firefighters per day in 2025 and 11.47 firefighters per day in 2024.  FD5 has 10 career staff and many volunteers who live and work in the area. Level of Service  MLFD provides 24/7 coverage through shift assignments based on minimum response requirements established for each station. Staffing is consistent day and night, with an established ratio of supervisors to line staff. MLFD provides Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) services. MLFD provides hazardous materials response and ice/water rescue.  FD5 stations are staffed differently, with a blend of full-time staff and community volunteers. In some cases, personnel responding to a call may be insufficient to operate the apparatus positioned at the nearest FD5 station.  FD5 contracts with LifeLine Ambulance, Inc. which provides BLS and ALS services countywide.  MLFD’s 90th percentile response time metrics are lower than FD5’s metrics. MLFD’s total response time is 13.5 minutes and FD5’s total response time is 19.6. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 16 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 13 Overview of Potential Service Delivery Options This section provides an overview of service delivery options and their general strengths and challenges. There are a variety of fire and EMS service delivery models used by cities in Washington. For 27 cities between 20,000 and 40,000 residents—similar in size to Moses Lake—11 have a city fire department and the remaining 16 are served by a fire district or regional fire authority. Since 2022, there have been 10 ballot measures to approve cities annexing into fire districts or fire authorities, all of which passed3. City Department A municipal fire department functions as one of multiple city departments, with the fire chief managing the department’s functions and reporting to the city executive. The fire department’s budget is part of the city’s total budget, and any revenues will go to the General Fund as well. Departments can have separate funds with specific revenue and expenditure requirements, such as an ambulance utility. Fire department employees are city employees and receive city benefits or benefits included in a labor agreement. The fire department is served by the city’s central service functions (which may be staffed or contracted), such as human resources, finance, and information technology. Strengths  The fire department receives support from other city departments and benefits from staff expertise in areas such as human resources, legal, finance, and facility maintenance.  The department can have a strong working relationship with other functions that contribute to its success, including police, public works, and the water utility.  The department’s funding comes from the city’s general fund, which has a diverse mix of revenues, not only property tax. Challenges  The fire department is reliant on the city council for its funding allocation and elected officials must prioritize limited resources between many community needs, making the department reliant on the city for messaging to the community and subject to changes in city budget priorities.  The department has limited control over certain expenses, such as central service costs.  Labor laws and practices for a fire department are different than for general employees, which requires expertise in the human resources department.  Long-term planning is challenging, as the amount of annual funding is less certain and any annual budget savings are not designated for the fire department. 3 The number of cities annexing into a fire district include all cities, not those between 20,000 and 40,000 population. Information comes from the MSRC Local Ballot Measure Database, 2025. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 17 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 14  Cities may find it challenging to increase property tax levy rates via ballot measures because of complex budgets and varied support for all programs within policy makers and the voting base. Fire Protection District A fire protection district is an independent municipal corporation and taxing authority. RCW 52.02.160(1) authorizes the legislative authority of a city or town to, by resolution subject to the approval of the voters, establish a fire protection district with boundaries that are the same as the corporate boundaries of the city or town for the provision of fire prevention services, fire suppression services, and emergency medical services. The resolution must be approved by a simple majority of city voters. While a single city jurisdiction fire protection district is allowed under law, one has not been established to date in Washington State. When a fire protection district is established, the city council may transfer governance authority to an elected board of commissioners4. The board hires a fire chief to manage all fire district operations, similar to a city manager. All powers, duties, and functions of the city fire department, except fire code, are transferred to the fire protection district on its creation date. All employees of the city fire department would likely also transfer to the fire protection district on its creation date5. A fire protection district collects a separate general levy property tax at a value up to $1.50 per thousand of assessed valuation. In the first year of fire district operations, a city or town must reduce its regular property tax levy by the total general levy of the fire protection district as implemented by the district. In addition, like all other municipalities, a fire district can collect additional levies such as an EMS levy up to $0.50 as approved by voters, maintenance and operations levies as approved by voters, a fire benefit charge, and a levy for capital bonds as approved by voters. If a fire benefit charge is approved by voters, the general levy must be reduced to no more than $1.00 and the fire benefit charge can be up to 60% of the operating budget. Strengths  A fire protection district is managed by an elected body focused solely on fire services. Priorities are set by the board and the fire chief and enacted by the fire chief.  The district manages its budget and does not have to compete with other services during the budget setting process. Annual budget savings are retained for future years.  Support services, such as legal and human resources, are focused on the district’s needs and the specific needs of firefighters. These services may be provided in-house or contracted.  The cost of providing fire service is clear to the community. This transparency can lead to more reliable support for requests for additional funding.  A district may have the same type of governance as neighboring providers, which builds familiarity and facilitates regional collaboration. 4 RCW 52.14.140(1)(2) 5 RCW 52.02.180(6)(a) COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 18 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 15 Challenges  A district must fund all internal services needs including finance, human resources, information technology, legal, building maintenance, and communications.  Other services such as the water system, fire marshal, permits, and building inspections are not part of the same organization, so the district must develop relationships with these other functions.  Establishing a district requires a vote of the public.  Once established, all personnel, facilities, and equipment would need to be transferred from the city to the district. Regional Fire Authority A regional fire authority (RFA) is a special purpose district created by the vote of the people residing in the affected area (chapter 52.26 RCW). Its boundaries encompass two or more fire protection jurisdictions (fire district, city, town, port district, municipal airport, another regional fire authority, or Indian tribe) located within “reasonable proximity.” An RFA is governed by a board of commissioners made up of current elected officials from the participating fire jurisdictions, regional fire commissioners elected by voters, or a combination of both. The board hires a fire chief to manage district operations. A regional fire authority can collect a general levy of $1.50 and additional levies such as an EMS levy up to $0.50 as approved by voters, maintenance and operations levies as approved by voters, a fire benefit charge, and a levy for capital bonds as approved by voters. If a fire benefit charge is approved by voters, the general levy must be reduced to no more than $1.00 and the fire benefit charge can be up to 60% of the operating budget. Strengths  A regional fire authority is managed by an elected body focused on fire services. Priorities are set by the board and the fire chief. The board can be established to meet the needs of the organization; it can include appointed elected officials and directly elected officials, and the organization can determine the size of the board and the length of commissioner terms.  The RFA manages its budget and does not have to compete with other services during the budget setting process. Annual budget savings are retained for future years.  Support services, such as legal and human resources, are focused on the RFA’s needs and the specific needs of firefighters. These services may be provided in-house or contracted.  The cost of providing fire service is clear to the community. This transparency can lead to more reliable support for requests for additional funding.  Establishing an RFA may achieve some efficiencies, as duplicate services and/or positions can be eliminated immediately or over time. Challenges  An RFA must fund all internal services needs including finance, human resources, information technology, legal, building maintenance, and communications. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 19 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 16  Other services such as the water system, fire marshal, permits, and building inspections are not part of the same organization, so the district must develop relationships with these other functions.  To establish an RFA requires negotiations between the participating organizations and a vote of the public. Evaluation of Service Delivery Options Evaluative Criteria This section includes a discussion about each option and how they meet the following criteria for the City of Moses Lake:  Which option will meet the needs of the community now and in the future?  Which option will provide the best level of service and standards of cover?  Which option will provide the appropriate level of staffing?  Which option is the most financially sustainable?  Which option is most feasible or politically viable? City Department Maintenance of the current overall service delivery model could come with changes designed to improve service to the Moses Lake community and enhance financial sustainability. Meeting community needs. A city department would maintain its services to the City of Moses Lake and the City would continue to explore a third station. MLFD could explore more collaboration with FD5, potentially including automatic aid to facilitate dispatch of the closest unit. Potential future expansion of the Moses Lake city boundary may necessitate purchase of FD5 stations and increases to MLFD’s staff and capital resources. Financial sustainability. MLFD is part of the City’s General Fund budget, so its needs are balanced with those of other departments. City leadership has expressed interest in exploring opportunities for Fire Ballot Measures. From 2022 to 2025 in Washington State, there were 287 ballot measures from a fire district or regional fire authority to approve a levy lid lift, an EMS levy, an excess levy, or a bond. 229 of these measures, or 80%, passed. During the same period, there were 35 ballot measures from a city or town to approve a levy lid lift, excess levy, EMS levy, or bond for fire services. 80% of these also passed. Some city measures included other criminal justice or public services. Some of these represent the same city or town putting forward a one-year excess levy several years in a row. Sources: MRSC Local Ballot Measure Database, BERK, 2026. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 20 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 17 efficiencies and cost savings. MLFD leadership is evaluating all aspects of department spending and operations, including alignment of positions between the General Fund and the Ambulance Fund to increase cost recovery. The City could pursue a levy lid lift or other tax increase, particularly to fund the third fire station, but MLFD does not have control over requests to the community for additional revenue. Stakeholders have asked about the possibility of using volunteers as a way to deliver services at a lower cost. A volunteer program does not easily allow a department to reduce its full-time staffing and as a result lower its operating costs. It typically takes 3-5 part time employees to fill the hours of one full- time employee. To attract and retain volunteers, many programs offer signing bonuses, full medical benefits, or other financial incentives. Some fire departments around the State have found it challenging to operate their volunteer programs and have ended them. Some contributing factors include a lack of applicants (as many people seek full-time employment), increased cost of living, increased call volume, and training requirements.6 MLFD could explore a volunteer program but should consider the costs and benefits and how it would help the department serve the community. Feasibility and political viability. The City Council would maintain its governance role. Some stakeholders expressed the option that there has been some lack of support for the Fire Department. Current conversations with city leadership and inclusion of the third station as a City Council priority indicate a more positive, supportive relationship and a focus on doing what is best for the community and what is also financially feasible. Continued support from the City Council will be important for the long-term success of a city department. Maintaining the status quo would be politically easy because there is no decision required from the voters or from City Council to change the service delivery model. Fire District Meeting community needs. A single jurisdiction fire district would continue to provide services to the City of Moses Lake and may seek to enhance its service levels with a third station, which would then become an initiative of the fire district and not the City (though they could pursue this in partnership). The fire district could explore more collaboration with FD5, which might be easier to facilitate given that both entities would be fire protection districts. As with continuation of a city department, potential future expansion of the Moses Lake city boundary may necessitate purchase of FD5 stations and increases to the new district’s staff and capital resources. Financial sustainability. A fire district would be funded by a separate property tax levy. The fire district could also assess other additional taxes, such as an EMS Levy, M&O Levy, and/or a fire benefit charge. If a fire protection district were created, the City of Moses Lake would reduce its general levy by $1.50. The ambulance utility would no longer operate, but the district could collect an EMS levy to fund ambulance services. Going forward, the fire district would determine its annual budget and the property taxes needed. It would communicate these needs and make its case directly with voters, who would make their decision based on the value they place in fire and emergency medical services. As described 6 A Fire Chief in Snohomish County describes his experience with a volunteer program in an edition of “Fireline”, which is a publication of the Washington Fire Commissioners Association. This aligns with the experience of our team. https://cdn.ymaws.com/wfca.wa.gov/resource/resmgr/news/3rd_Qtr_2024_Fireline.pdf. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 21 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 18 above, it is common for a fire district or RFA to request a levy lid lift or excess levy, and they are generally successful. Personnel costs make up 75% of MLFD’s budget, so the initial costs for the fire district would likely be the same, as the district would cover the same boundary and would initially provide the same level of service. Internal service costs such as finance, human resources, and information technology make up 15% of MLFD’s budget, and these costs may change as the organization matures and aligns internal services with needs. If the fire district needed the same amount of revenues as its current budget, the equivalent levy rates are higher than the maximum rates authorized in state statute ($1.50 for a regular levy and $0.50 for an EMS levy). The General Fund share for MLFD is $6.14 million in 2026, which corresponds to a property tax levy rate of $1.5348 per $1,000 of assessed value. Total ambulance utility fees are budgeted at $2.91 million in 2026, which corresponds to a property tax levy rate of $0.7274 per $1,000 of assessed value. The district would have to reduce its budget, which may be possible through finding efficiencies or lower internal service costs that are shared with other city departments, or the district could seek a voter-approved excess levy or a voter-approved fire benefit charge to collect the same amount of revenues. Feasibility and political viability. The City Council expressed openness to creating a fire district if that was the best option for the community. Establishing a fire district requires voter approval with a simple majority, so outreach to the community would be necessary to create an understanding of the changes and the financial and service impacts. Interviews indicate that the financial impact is an important consideration, suggesting any change should aim to ensure there are no tax increases for the community. This will require further planning to ensure MLFD can meet service levels within the levy limits. Regional Fire Authority By law, an RFA could be established by merging MLFD and any other fire protection jurisdiction within a “reasonable proximity.” Based on our assessment and interviews with fire chiefs of surrounding districts and the geographic location of other districts, FD5 is the logical potential partner for such an endeavor. FD5 is not currently interested in creating an RFA with MLFD due to significant differences in staffing and funding models. This makes the option unlikely, at least in the short term. Meeting community needs. As summarized on page 9, MLFD and FD5 currently provide different levels and types of service. An RFA could establish distinct levels of service for urban and rural areas, such as different response time benchmarks. The fire chief would then determine the appropriate staffing and operational approach to meet those standards. An RFA could potentially operate from both MLFD and FD5 stations, which may improve response times, although additional analysis would be needed to determine whether any facility changes would be required. Financial sustainability. An RFA would be funded by a separate property tax levy, and the RFA planning committee can set the initial rate within the limits of the RFA statute. The RFA could also assess a fire benefit charge. Leadership in both organizations would help identify the appropriate level of staffing to provide the desired service levels, which would determine the operating budget. Going forward, the RFA would determine its annual budget and the property taxes needed, requesting levy lid lifts as appropriate. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 22 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 19 There can be financial benefits to creating an RFA if the participating jurisdictions can find efficiencies, such as reducing duplicate positions or services. This may be more likely if two organizations with similar staffing models or staffing levels explored a merger. Creating an RFA may also be more successful if community members experience only a modest change in taxes, or if larger tax increases are clearly tied to a higher level of service. Taxpayers in FD5 currently pay a much lower rate than taxpayers in Moses Lake. Taxpayers in FD5 would likely pay a higher levy rate in an RFA, as all taxpayers in the RFA pay the same rate and MLFD wants to maintain its current level of service. It is possible that since the cost would be spread over more taxpayers, the levy rate would decrease, but the level of service in the urban area and the rural area and the cost required to provide that level of service would need to be determined in further analysis. Feasibility and political viability. The governance structure would be one element to determine in the RFA planning process. The board may include representatives from the City Council and the FD5 Board of Commissioners, as well as elected representatives. The City Council and FD5 Board would have to be willing to share or relinquish the current authority they have over fire and EMS services. Importantly, our interviews clearly indicated that FD5 is not currently interested in creating an RFA with MLFD. Creation of an RFA requires willing partners who see this option as operationally and financially beneficial. Historically, there has been minimal collaboration between MLFD and FD5, though each agency provides mutual aid response if needed. Prior to exploring a merger, more collaboration between MLFD (or a single-jurisdiction fire district, if formed) and FD5 and continued relationship building will be important first steps. If the two organizations want to pursue an RFA in the future, it must be approved by voters. Summary Findings  An RFA between MFLD and FD5 is currently not feasible.  If the status quo is maintained, there are opportunities to improve the level of service and long-term financial sustainability.  The fire district option presents a greater opportunity for long-term financial sustainability and operational consistency, as fire and EMS service is a standalone service and the community can more clearly see the link between the cost and the services received. The fire district has more flexibility in setting its annual budget, forecasting future revenues and costs, planning for the long term, and requesting additional funding from the community.  Moving to a fire district would require political will and a vote of the people.  The current cost of MLFD’s services exceeds fire district levy limits, so the funding model would have to be further developed. Recommendations The three operating models explored in this study are similar in the near-term with respect to costs for Moses Lake residents and service levels. Regardless of model selected, the most significant impact will come from continuing to advance improvements in service delivery and operational efficiency for the COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 23 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 20 benefit of the Moses Lake community. Our recommendations focus first on the operating model and then on opportunities for ongoing improvement that should be advanced regardless of model. Operating Model Given that establishing an RFA with FD5, or any proximate district, is not a viable option for the foreseeable future, the City can opt to maintain MLFD as a city department or pursue the creation of a single-jurisdiction fire district. Over the long term, the fire district model offers several advantages over the continuation of a city fire department for Moses Lake:  A fire protection district brings a singular focus on fire and EMS services, allowing greater specialization and the opportunity to engage voters directly about the level of funding they would like to see allocated to the fire function. This may be beneficial for MLFD and for other city departments, allowing the City of Moses Lake to separate fire governance and management from other functions and fire funding from the City’s General Fund.  A Moses Lake Fire District would have the same governance structure (e.g., an independent board, a fire chief and head of the organization) as neighboring fire agencies, which would build familiarity and facilitate regional collaboration. A shift to a fire district would also present several important challenges:  It would be a change at a time when the new fire chief is getting established in his role and relationships with staff and regional partners.  There would be work related to transfer of personnel, facilities, and equipment, and setting up internal service functions for a new organization. This may include one-time costs, such as the cost of the election and related communications and rebranding of assets (if desired).  Establishing a district requires a vote of the public. While establishing a new district and taxing authority does not have to lead to increased costs to taxpayers, it may be a concern that undercuts support in the current economic climate. Approval of this change would require trust of the voters that a Moses Lake Fire District would be well-managed, would operate efficiently, and would provide more value than the current model; it will take time to build that trust. We recommend that Moses Lake maintain a city fire department at this time. This will allow MLFD time to pursue opportunities for ongoing improvement including strategic planning, operational planning, and community engagement. Each of these areas of focus is described below. Our recommendation is to maintain the status quo operating model and advance these strategic priorities. Through planning, efficiency, and community engagement, MLFD can create a stable future and develop appropriate service levels, while gaining trust with the community. MLFD and city leadership can continue to evaluate the appropriate time to seek voter support for establishing a single-jurisdiction fire district. Opportunities for Ongoing Improvement Through interviews and research, we have identified several opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Moses Lake fire service regardless of operating model. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 24 of 43 DRAFT March 20, 2026 City of Moses Lake | Fire Service Delivery Model Study 21 Strategic Planning Stakeholders have identified challenges with current service levels, noting areas of the City where response times are longer than desired. The northern, industrial part of the City is an area of focus and city leadership is pursuing the addition of a third station to reduce response times. In addition, the City’s UGA is large and future annexations are possible. It will be important to evaluate staffing and equipment needs to ensure MLFD can serve any annexed areas and maintain desired response times. MLFD should develop a Standards of Cover, which will establish benchmarks for response times, analyze the community’s risks and hazards, determine where fire stations should be located and what apparatus should be stationed where, and identify staffing levels to meet identified benchmarks. A Standards of Cover could include different potential future boundaries, knowing that annexation is a future possibility. It could include the current service area, the UGA on the same side of Moses Lake, and the entire UGA. Having a Standards of Cover will help MLFD justify resource requests and demonstrate value to the community. MLFD should also develop a strategic plan, which provides a roadmap to address identified gaps in the Standards of Cover. A strategic plan includes goals around workforce development, infrastructure development, financial planning, and community relationships. For example, it would identify goals and strategies for meeting response time benchmarks, such as hiring initiatives, mutual aid agreements, or an additional station. It would establish a clear vision and roadmap for the future of MLFD. Developing a Standards of Cover and a strategic plan will help align current elected leaders and management, the community, and future leaders around shared priorities. Maintaining continuity in long-term planning will help ensure initiatives and decisions support long-term goals and enable the efficient and effective use of limited resources over time. The development of a Standards of Cover and a strategic plan is a recommended foundation for ensuring MLFD is a well-managed, high-performing organization. Operational Planning and Refinement MLFD can also pursue refinements to its operations to improve efficiencies and increase outside revenues, to ensure it can maintain the staffing needed to deliver desired service levels at current and anticipated demand, including future call volume and annexations. MLFD leadership is currently exploring ways to realign resources between the General Fund and the Ambulance Fund to maximize insurance reimbursements. Additional operational adjustments may also be possible, including collaboration with FD5 to serve areas in the industrial area and the UGA. Community Engagement As noted above, the community has identified areas where response times are longer than desired. There is also a perception that the City and MLFD should use funding efficiently and avoid requesting tax increases. Community understanding of the services MLFD provides and how they differ from FD5 services is limited. MLFD can leverage data to demonstrate its service levels and communicate its story. These efforts can build community support, whether MLFD remains a City department or eventually transitions to a fire district model. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 25 of 43 Council Agenda Bill Subject Comp Plan Consultant Contract Amendment Department Community Development Presenter at the Meeting Vivian Ramsey, Planning Manager Packet Attachments (if any) SEPA Categorical Exemptions Memo_2.17.26.docx 1.78MB Meeting Date: 3/31/2026 Agenda Item Number: 64357 Proceeding Type Study Session Proposed Council Action/Motion: Information Only Receive and File Discuss Provide Direction Public Hearing Adopt/Approve Authorize Other Motion required. Recommended Motion Authorize the City Manager to amend the Comprehensive Plan 2027 Update contract with Nexus Consulting, LLC. to include additional EIS analysis to support additional SEPA Categorical Exemptions for housing. Summary/Background The Washington State Legislature Passed SB 5412 which allows local jurisdictions to categorically exempt certain development from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)environmental review process. The attached memo from Nexus Planning Services, LLC. (Nexus) reviews the requirements to implement this opportunity for additional exemptions. Nexus is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan 2027 Update. Community Development is requesting that City Council authorize amendment of the contract with Nexus to include the necessary analysis in the EIS so that the City can adopt the additional categorical exemptions from SEPA review. Nexus estimates that the additional cost at $10,000. Following is an excerpt from an MRSC article regarding this legislation. State Environmental Policy Act Exemptions for Housing SB 5412 expands the infill development State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)categorical exemption to include residential housing units, primarily to reduce local governments’ land use permitting workloads; thereby facilitating more housing development. Key points of the bill include: 1. All project actions with one or more residential housing units that meet certain criteria within incorporated urban growth areas (UGAs) or middle housing (see the definition of middle housing as noted in HB 1110) within unincorporated UGAs are categorically exempt from SEPA, as long as these meet the criteria outlined in #2 and #3 below. 2. Cities and counties are required to find that the proposed development is consistent with all development regulations implementing an applicable comprehensive plan. 3. Cities and counties are required to prepare an environmental analysis that considers the proposed use or density and intensity of use in the area proposed for an exemption, analyzes multimodal transportation impacts, and includes documentation that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation have been adequately addressed. These requirements may be addressed in comprehensive plans; subarea plans; development regulations; or other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 4. Prior to finalizing the analysis, an agency is required to give a minimum of 60 days’ notice to affected tribes, relevant state agencies, other jurisdictions that may be impacted, and to the public. If mitigation measures are needed to address specific probable adverse impacts, cities and counties must address those impacts by requiring mitigation identified in the environmental analysis and detailing them in an environmental determination. Fiscal Consideration Amend Nexus contract additional $10,000. City Council Priorities or Budget Objectives Addressed Preamble: The City’s top priority will always be fulfilling its core mission, which includes ensuring public safety, maintaining the City’s infrastructure, complying with state and federal mandates, and safeguarding the City’s finances. #1 - Achieve Financial Sustainability #2 - Secure Sustainable and Reliable Municipal Water Sources #3 - Improve the City's Image and Reputation COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 26 of 43 #4 - Fire Department Service Delivery Model and Third Fire Station #5 - New Police Station #6 - Second Lake Crossing #7 - WSDOT Highway Projects in Moses Lake Reviewed and Approved by: City Manager - Debbie Burke on 3/30/2026 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 27 of 43 To: City of Moses Lake -- Nathan Pate (Senior Planner), Vivian Ramsey (Planning Manager) From: Nexus Planning Services Date: 2/17/26 Re: SEPA Categorical Exemptions - SB5412 Project: Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Update In July of 2023, Senate Bill 5412 was passed in the Legislature, which amended RCW 43.21C.229 titled “Infill and housing development—Categorical exemptions from chapter”. The amendments were made to allow proposed housing developments within urban growth areas (UGA’s) to rely on environmental reviews completed at the comprehensive planning level. Categorical Exemptions: • Development that is categorically exempt can be: o Residential (density must be equal or lower than established in the comp plan) o Mixed-use o Commercial up to 65,000 square feet, excluding retail development • However, the city must have done the following: o The comp plan was previously subjected to environmental analysis through an environmental impact statement (EIS).  The EIS must consider the proposed use or density and intensity of use in the area proposed for an exemption. Another exemption relates to the development of one or more residential housing units within city limits or middle housing within the unincorporated UGA. The following is required for this exemption: • Proposed development is consistent with all development regulations implementing the comp plan. • A prepared environmental analysis that considers the proposed use or density and intensity of use in the area proposed for an exemption and analyzes multimodal transportation impacts, including impacts to neighboring jurisdictions, transit facilities, and the state transportation system. o Such environmental analysis must include documentation that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation for impacts to the environment have been adequately addressed for the development exempted. o The requirements may be addressed in locally adopted comprehensive plans, subarea plans, or adopted development regulations. COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 28 of 43 In July of 2025, House Bill 1491 was passed to add another exemption to this chapter for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). This new exemption is for the purpose of residential or mixed-use development within a “station area”. A “station area” includes the following: • A bus station area “fully or partially within one-quarter mile walking distance of a stop on a fixed route bus system that is designated as a bus rapid transit stop in the transit development plan for which an environmental determination has been issued. o Must feature fixed transit assets that indicate permanent, high-capacity service including, but not limited to, elevated platforms or enhanced stations, off-board fare collection, dedicated lanes, busways, or transit signal priority.” • A rail station area “fully or partially within one-half mile walking distance of an entrance to a train station with a stop on a light rail system, or a commuter rail stop.” COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 29 of 43 3/30/2026 1 Slide 1 Updated Water Rate Design Scenarios March 31, 2026 Slide 2 Introduction / Background ●Previous Water/Sewer rate study in 2020-2021 ●Current Study: Comprehensive Water/Sewer Rate Study 2024-Present »July 22nd 2025 presentations focus: Sewer Utility »October 22nd 2025 presentation: Initial Water Findings and Recommendations »February 17th 2026 workshop: Updated Water Utility Findings and Recommendations –Updated capital plan –Rate design alternatives to address cost of service and support the new capital plan »Today’s focus: Additional Irrigation rate design scenarios –Based on Council feedback –Other customer class adjustments ensure system-wide ability to complete capital plan –Assumes additional 0.3% increase to all non-irrigation customers for 2026 1 2 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 30 of 43 3/30/2026 2 Slide 3 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Single Family Duplex Multi-Family Comm/Ind Irrigation ●±10% is considered within cost of service ●Single Family under-collecting »Result of expanding rate tiers since the 2021 study period. More usage charged at a lower rate ●Duplex over-collecting »Charged 2x base rate of Single Family –Initial 2026 rate adjustment worked to address this ●Irrigation collecting approximately twice the cost to serve those customers »Majority of irrigation water use charged at the highest rate tier ●Rate design proposals will work to align cost of service between classes 2025 Cost of Service Results (Revenue ÷ COS Findings) Slide 4 Rate Design Options ●Option 1: Across the Board increases »3% increases to City’s rate schedule from 2026-2034 »Does not address equity between customer classes ●Option 2: Expanded Three Tier Irrigation Usage Rates »Develop and price new irrigation usage tiers to achieve cost of service ●Option 3: Expanded Three Tier Irrigation Usage Rates – Modified Pricing »Develop and price new irrigation usage tiers to work towards cost of service ●Option 4: Updated Three Tier Irrigation Rates »First tier lowered to 50,000 cf compared to Options 2 and 3 based on Council feedback »Top rate charged for any usage over 100,000 cubic feet »Provides Single-Family with the lowest rate option ●Option 5: Updated Four Tier Irrigation Rates »First tier lowered to 50,000 cf compared to Options 2 and 3 based on Council feedback »Top rate charged for any usage over 300,000 cubic feet »Achieves same end Cost of Service result as Option 3 Previously Presented New Scenarios 3 4 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 31 of 43 3/30/2026 3 Slide 5 0 – 100,000 cf$1.75 per 100 cf70.2% of usage 100,000– 300,000 cf$2.75 per 100 cf20.9% of usage Over 300,000 cf$4.80 per 100 cf8.9% of usage 2026 Irrigation Tiers by Scenario Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 0 – 1,000 cf$0.50 per 100 cf0.4% of usage 0 – 100,000 cf$1.60 per 100 cf70.2% of usage 1,000 – 5,000 cf$1.51 per 100 cf4.1% of usage 100,000– 300,000 cf$2.50 per 100 cf20.9% of usage 5,000 – 10,000 cf$3.01 per 100 cf7.2% of usage Over 300,000 cf$4.50 per 100 cf8.9% of usage over 10,000 cf$4.06 per 100 cf88.3% of usage $640k loss in revenue compared to Option 1 $570k loss in revenue compared to Option 1 0 – 50,000 cf$1.60 per 100 cf48.7% of usage 50,000– 100,000 cf$2.50 per 100 cf21.5% of usage Over 100,000 cf$4.50 per 100 cf29.8% of usage Option 4 $420k loss in revenue compared to Option 1 Option 5 0 – 50,000 cf$1.30 per 100 cf48.7% of usage 50,000 – 100,000 cf$2.25 per 100 cf21.5% of usage 100,000 – 300,000 cf$3.50 per 100 cf20.9% of usage over 300,000 cf$4.50 per 100 cf8.9% of usage $570k loss in revenue compared to Option 1 Slide 6 Comparison of Rate Design Scenarios $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034Ending Fund BalanceMillionsOption 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Minimum Target Option 5Option 4Option 3Option 2Option 1Funding Assumptions $2.0m$2.0m$2.0m$2.0m$2.0m2027 Federal Appropriation $12.5m$12.5m$12.5m$12.5m$11.0m2027 Debt Issuance $43.0m$43.0m$43.0m$42.0m$40.0m2033 Debt Issuance All scenarios designed to maintain minimum target balance throughout the forecast Scenarios 2-5 utilize slightly more debt within the capital plan due to lower Irrigation revenue generation 5 6 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 32 of 43 3/30/2026 4 Slide 7 2034 Forecasted Cost of Service Results 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% Single Family Duplex Multi-Family Comm/Ind Irrigation Option 1: Irrigation supporting underpayment of Single Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family Option 2: All classes within Cost of Service thresholds Option 3: Irrigation supports slight underpayment of Single Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family Option 4: Irrigation supports slight underpayment of Single Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family Option 5: Irrigation supports slight underpayment of Single Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family Slide 8 Sample Bills 7 8 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 33 of 43 3/30/2026 5 Slide 9 2026 vs 2027 Scenario Sample Single Family Bill Option 5:4.0%Option 4:3.5%Option 3:4.0%Option 2:4.5%Option 1:3.0%2026*% of up to UsageUsage (cf) $27.92$27.79$27.92$28.06$27.66$26.852.5%0 $30.52$30.39$30.52$30.66$30.26$29.3532.7%500 $33.12$32.99$33.12$33.26$32.86$31.8555.5%1,000 $40.97$40.79$40.97$41.16$40.66$39.4066.4%1,500 $48.82$48.59$48.82$49.06$48.46$46.9573.7%2,000 $64.52$64.19$64.52$64.86$64.06$62.0584.1%3,000 $80.22$79.79$80.22$80.66$79.66$77.1590.9%4,000 $95.92$95.39$95.92$96.46$95.26$92.2594.9%5,000 $127.22$126.59$127.22$127.96$126.26$122.3597.2%6,000 $189.82$188.99$189.82$190.96$188.26$182.5599.0%8,000 $252.42$251.39$252.42$253.96$250.26$242.7599.6%10,000 $463.42$461.39$463.42$465.96$459.26$445.7599.9%15,000 Based on ¾” meter Winter UsageDifference from 2026 Bill:Option 1: $1.01Option 2: $1.41Options 3 & 5: $1.27Option 4: $1.14 Summer UsageDifference from 2026 Bill:Option 1: $2.51Option 2: $3.51Options 3 & 5: $3.07Option 4: $2.64 *Assumes the final 0.3% increase to rates for 2026. All options show 2027 rates for comparison Slide 10 2034 Scenario Sample Single Family Bill Option 5:4.0% in 27-293.5% in 30-34 Option 4:3.5% in 27-293.0% in 30-34 Option 3:4.0% in 27-293.5% in 30-34 Option 2:4.5% in 27-293.5% in 30-34 Option 1:3.0% in all years % of up to UsageUsage (cf) $35.86$34.52$35.86$36.39$34.012.5%0 $39.16$37.82$39.16$39.69$37.3132.7%500 $42.46$41.12$42.46$42.99$40.6155.5%1,000 $52.56$50.77$52.56$53.19$50.2166.4%1,500 $62.66$60.42$62.66$63.39$59.8173.7%2,000 $82.86$79.72$82.86$83.79$79.0184.1%3,000 $103.06$99.02$103.06$104.19$98.2190.9%4,000 $123.26$118.32$123.26$124.59$117.4194.9%5,000 $163.56$157.02$163.56$165.39$155.5197.2%6,000 $244.16$234.42$244.16$246.99$231.7199.0%8,000 $324.76$311.82$324.76$328.59$307.9199.6%10,000 $596.26$572.82$596.26$603.59$565.4199.9%15,000 Assumes ¾” meter for the fixed charge based on typical Single Family meter size Winter UsageHigh: Option 2 - $42.99Low: Option 4 - $41.12Difference: $1.87 Summer UsageHigh: Option 2 - $104.19Low: Option 4 - $99.02Difference: $5.17 9 10 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 34 of 43 3/30/2026 6 Slide 11 2025 vs 2026 Scenario Sample Irrigation Usage Bill Option 5:Four Tier Update Option 4:Three Tier Update Option 3: Towards Cost of Service Option 2: Within Cost of Service Option 1:3% Increase, No Rate Design2025% of up to UsageUsage (cf) $65$80$88$80$65$6461.19%5,000 $97$120$131$120$141$13769.25%7,500 $130$160$175$160$216$21074.03%10,000 $650$800$875$800$1,840$1,78694.23%50,000 $1,775$2,050$1,750$1,600$3,870$3,75697.98%100,000 $5,275$6,550$4,500$4,100$7,930$7,69699.60%200,000 $8,775$11,050$7,250$6,600$11,990$11,63699.80%300,000 $13,275$15,550$12,050$11,100$16,050$15,57699.84%400,000 $17,775$20,050$16,850$15,600$20,110$19,51699.88%500,000 $22,275$24,550$21,650$20,100$24,170$23,45699.96%600,000 $26,775$29,050$26,450$24,600$28,230$27,396100.00%700,000 $31,275$33,550$31,250$29,100$32,290$31,336100.00%800,000 Sample shows usage only. Options 2-5 have slightly lower meter charges than Option 1 Slide 12 2025 vs 2026 Scenario Bill Difference Option 5:Four Tier UpdateOption 4: Three Tier Update Option 3: Towards Cost of Service Option 2: Within Cost of Service Option 1:3% Increase, No Rate Design% of up to UsageUsage (cf) $1 $16 $24 $16 $2 61.19%5,000 ($39)($17)($5)($17)$4 69.25%7,500 ($80)($50)($35)($50)$6 74.03%10,000 ($1,136)($986)($911)($986)$54 94.23%50,000 ($1,981)($1,706)($2,006)($2,156)$114 97.98%100,000 ($2,421)($1,146)($3,196)($3,596)$234 99.60%200,000 ($2,861)($586)($4,386)($5,036)$354 99.80%300,000 ($2,301)($26)($3,526)($4,476)$474 99.84%400,000 ($1,741)$534 ($2,666)($3,916)$594 99.88%500,000 ($1,181)$1,094 ($1,806)($3,356)$714 99.96%600,000 ($621)$1,654 ($946)($2,796)$834 100.00%700,000 ($61)$2,214 ($86)($2,236)$954 100.00%800,000 Sample shows usage only. Options 2-5 have slightly lower meter charges than Option 1 Red denotes relative savings compared to 2025 rates Differences may be slightly different due to rounding 11 12 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 35 of 43 3/30/2026 7 Slide 13 Summary and Next Steps Slide 14 ●Option 1: Across the Board Increases »3% annual rate increases to all customer class rates and charges »No further adjustment to address cost of service ●Option 2: Expanded Three Tier Irrigation Usage Rates »Update irrigation tiers and pricing to address cost of service; 3% increase thereafter »Single Family and Duplex annual increases of 4.5% and 3.5% »No adjustments to Multi-Family, Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation base rates »Multi-Family and Commercial/Industrial annual increases of 6.5% and 5.5% »By 2034, all customer classes forecasted to be within cost of service ●Option 3: Expanded Three Tier Irrigation Usage Rates – Modified Pricing »Update irrigation tiers and pricing to address cost of service; 3% increase thereafter »Single Family and Duplex annual increases of 4.0% and 3.5% »No adjustments to Multi-Family, Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation base rates »Multi-Family and Commercial/Industrial annual increases of 6.0% and 5.5% »By 2034, Irrigation remains slightly above the Cost of Service range ●Option 4: Updated Three Tier Irrigation Rates »Update irrigation tiers and pricing to address cost of service; 3% increase thereafter »Single Family and Duplex annual increases of 3.5% and 3.0% »No adjustments to Multi-Family, Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation base rates »Multi-Family and Commercial/Industrial annual increases of 5.5% and 5.0% »Provides the lowest rate option for Single Family customers ●Option 5: Updated Four Tier Irrigation Rates »Update irrigation tiers and pricing to address cost of service; 3% increase thereafter »Single Family and Duplex annual increases of 4.0% and 3.5%»No adjustments to Multi-Family, Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation base rates »Multi-Family and Commercial/Industrial annual increases of 6.0% and 5.5% »By 2034, Irrigation remains slightly above the Cost of Service range ●Adopt updated rate plan for earliest implementation »See handouts scenario option rate schedules »2027-2034 rate adjustments to start January 1 Summary and Next Steps 13 14 COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 36 of 43 Single Family and Duplex Rate Schedules Option 1 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Single Family and Duplex Meter Charges 3/4"26.85$ 27.66$ 28.49$ 29.34$ 30.22$ 31.13$ 32.06$ 33.02$ 34.01$ 1"29.80$ 30.69$ 31.61$ 32.56$ 33.54$ 34.55$ 35.59$ 36.66$ 37.76$ 1 1/2"38.70$ 39.86$ 41.06$ 42.29$ 43.56$ 44.87$ 46.22$ 47.61$ 49.04$ 2"83.18$ 85.68$ 88.25$ 90.90$ 93.63$ 96.44$ 99.33$ 102.31$ 105.38$ Single Family Usage Rate (per 100 ccf)Tier 1: 0-1,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 1,000-5,000 cf 1.51$ 1.56$ 1.61$ 1.66$ 1.71$ 1.76$ 1.81$ 1.86$ 1.92$ Tier 3: 5,000-10,000 cf 3.01$ 3.10$ 3.19$ 3.29$ 3.39$ 3.49$ 3.59$ 3.70$ 3.81$ Tier 4: over 10,000 cf 4.06$ 4.18$ 4.31$ 4.44$ 4.57$ 4.71$ 4.85$ 5.00$ 5.15$ Duplex Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-2,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 2,000-6,000 cf 1.51$ 1.56$ 1.61$ 1.66$ 1.71$ 1.76$ 1.81$ 1.86$ 1.92$ Tier 3: over 6,000 cf 3.01$ 3.10$ 3.19$ 3.29$ 3.39$ 3.49$ 3.59$ 3.70$ 3.81$ Option 2 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Single Family and Duplex Meter Charges3/4"26.85$ 28.06$ 29.32$ 30.64$ 31.71$ 32.82$ 33.97$ 35.16$ 36.39$ 1"29.80$ 31.14$ 32.54$ 34.00$ 35.19$ 36.42$ 37.69$ 39.01$ 40.38$ 1 1/2"38.70$ 40.44$ 42.26$ 44.16$ 45.71$ 47.31$ 48.97$ 50.68$ 52.45$ 2"83.18$ 86.92$ 90.83$ 94.92$ 98.24$ 101.68$ 105.24$ 108.92$ 112.73$ Single Family Usage Rate (per 100 ccf) Tier 1: 0-1,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 1,000-5,000 cf 1.51$ 1.58$ 1.65$ 1.72$ 1.78$ 1.84$ 1.90$ 1.97$ 2.04$ Tier 3: 5,000-10,000 cf 3.01$ 3.15$ 3.29$ 3.44$ 3.56$ 3.68$ 3.81$ 3.94$ 4.08$ Tier 4: over 10,000 cf 4.06$ 4.24$ 4.43$ 4.63$ 4.79$ 4.96$ 5.13$ 5.31$ 5.50$ Duplex Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-2,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 2,000-6,000 cf 1.51$ 1.58$ 1.65$ 1.72$ 1.78$ 1.84$ 1.90$ 1.97$ 2.04$ Tier 3: over 6,000 cf 3.01$ 3.15$ 3.29$ 3.44$ 3.56$ 3.68$ 3.81$ 3.94$ 4.08$ Option 3 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Single Family and Duplex Meter Charges 3/4"26.85$ 27.92$ 29.04$ 30.20$ 31.26$ 32.35$ 33.48$ 34.65$ 35.86$ 1"29.80$ 30.99$ 32.23$ 33.52$ 34.69$ 35.90$ 37.16$ 38.46$ 39.81$ 1 1/2"38.70$ 40.25$ 41.86$ 43.53$ 45.05$ 46.63$ 48.26$ 49.95$ 51.70$ 2"83.18$ 86.51$ 89.97$ 93.57$ 96.84$ 100.23$ 103.74$ 107.37$ 111.13$ Single Family Usage Rate (per 100 ccf) Tier 1: 0-1,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 1,000-5,000 cf 1.51$ 1.57$ 1.63$ 1.70$ 1.76$ 1.82$ 1.88$ 1.95$ 2.02$ Tier 3: 5,000-10,000 cf 3.01$ 3.13$ 3.26$ 3.39$ 3.51$ 3.63$ 3.76$ 3.89$ 4.03$ Tier 4: over 10,000 cf 4.06$ 4.22$ 4.39$ 4.57$ 4.73$ 4.90$ 5.07$ 5.25$ 5.43$ Duplex Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-2,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 2,000-6,000 cf 1.51$ 1.57$ 1.63$ 1.70$ 1.76$ 1.82$ 1.88$ 1.95$ 2.02$ Tier 3: over 6,000 cf 3.01$ 3.13$ 3.26$ 3.39$ 3.51$ 3.63$ 3.76$ 3.89$ 4.03$ Option 4 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Single Family and Duplex Meter Charges 3/4"26.85$ 26.98$ 26.98$ 26.98$ 26.85$ 26.85$ 26.85$ 26.85$ 26.85$ 1"29.80$ 29.94$ 29.94$ 29.94$ 29.80$ 29.80$ 29.80$ 29.80$ 29.80$ 1 1/2"38.70$ 38.88$ 38.88$ 38.88$ 38.70$ 38.70$ 38.70$ 38.70$ 38.70$ 2"83.18$ 83.59$ 83.59$ 83.59$ 83.18$ 83.18$ 83.18$ 83.18$ 83.18$ Single Family Usage Rate (per 100 ccf) Tier 1: 0-1,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 1,000-5,000 cf 1.51$ 1.56$ 1.61$ 1.67$ 1.72$ 1.77$ 1.82$ 1.87$ 1.93$ Tier 3: 5,000-10,000 cf 3.01$ 3.12$ 3.23$ 3.34$ 3.44$ 3.54$ 3.65$ 3.76$ 3.87$ Tier 4: over 10,000 cf 4.06$ 4.20$ 4.35$ 4.50$ 4.64$ 4.78$ 4.92$ 5.07$ 5.22$ Duplex Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-2,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 2,000-6,000 cf 1.51$ 1.56$ 1.61$ 1.67$ 1.72$ 1.77$ 1.82$ 1.87$ 1.93$ Tier 3: over 6,000 cf 3.01$ 3.12$ 3.23$ 3.34$ 3.44$ 3.54$ 3.65$ 3.76$ 3.87$ Option 5 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Single Family and Duplex Meter Charges 3/4"26.85$ 27.11$ 27.11$ 27.11$ 26.98$ 26.98$ 26.98$ 26.98$ 26.98$ 1"29.80$ 30.09$ 30.09$ 30.09$ 29.94$ 29.94$ 29.94$ 29.94$ 29.94$ 1 1/2"38.70$ 39.07$ 39.07$ 39.07$ 38.88$ 38.88$ 38.88$ 38.88$ 38.88$ 2"83.18$ 83.99$ 83.99$ 83.99$ 83.59$ 83.59$ 83.59$ 83.59$ 83.59$ Single Family Usage Rate (per 100 ccf)Tier 1: 0-1,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 1,000-5,000 cf 1.51$ 1.57$ 1.63$ 1.70$ 1.76$ 1.82$ 1.88$ 1.95$ 2.02$ Tier 3: 5,000-10,000 cf 3.01$ 3.13$ 3.26$ 3.39$ 3.51$ 3.63$ 3.76$ 3.89$ 4.03$ Tier 4: over 10,000 cf 4.06$ 4.22$ 4.39$ 4.57$ 4.73$ 4.90$ 5.07$ 5.25$ 5.43$ Duplex Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-2,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 2,000-6,000 cf 1.51$ 1.57$ 1.63$ 1.70$ 1.76$ 1.82$ 1.88$ 1.95$ 2.02$ Tier 3: over 6,000 cf 3.01$ 3.13$ 3.26$ 3.39$ 3.51$ 3.63$ 3.76$ 3.89$ 4.03$ COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 37 of 43 Multi-Family and Commercial/Industrial Rate Schedules Option 1 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Mult-Family and Commercial/Industrial Meter Charges 3/4"42.57$ 43.85$ 45.17$ 46.53$ 47.93$ 49.37$ 50.85$ 52.38$ 53.95$ 1"47.26$ 48.68$ 50.14$ 51.64$ 53.19$ 54.79$ 56.43$ 58.12$ 59.86$ 1 1/2"61.34$ 63.18$ 65.08$ 67.03$ 69.04$ 71.11$ 73.24$ 75.44$ 77.70$ 2"131.86$ 135.82$ 139.89$ 144.09$ 148.41$ 152.86$ 157.45$ 162.17$ 167.04$ 3"225.83$ 232.60$ 239.58$ 246.77$ 254.17$ 261.80$ 269.65$ 277.74$ 286.07$ 4"366.87$ 377.88$ 389.22$ 400.90$ 412.93$ 425.32$ 438.08$ 451.22$ 464.76$ 6"507.83$ 523.06$ 538.75$ 554.91$ 571.56$ 588.71$ 606.37$ 624.56$ 643.30$ 8"883.88$ 910.40$ 937.71$ 965.84$ 994.82$ 1,024.66$ 1,055.40$ 1,087.06$ 1,119.67$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Multi-Family 1.01$ 1.04$ 1.07$ 1.10$ 1.13$ 1.16$ 1.19$ 1.23$ 1.27$ Commercial 1.22$ 1.26$ 1.30$ 1.34$ 1.38$ 1.42$ 1.46$ 1.50$ 1.55$ Option 2 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Mult-Family and Commercial/Industrial Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Multi-Family 1.01$ 1.08$ 1.15$ 1.22$ 1.29$ 1.36$ 1.43$ 1.51$ 1.59$ Commercial 1.22$ 1.30$ 1.38$ 1.47$ 1.55$ 1.64$ 1.73$ 1.83$ 1.93$ Option 3 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Mult-Family and Commercial/Industrial Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Multi-Family 1.01$ 1.07$ 1.13$ 1.20$ 1.27$ 1.34$ 1.41$ 1.49$ 1.57$ Commercial 1.22$ 1.29$ 1.37$ 1.45$ 1.53$ 1.61$ 1.70$ 1.79$ 1.89$ Option 4 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Mult-Family and Commercial/Industrial Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf)Multi-Family 1.01$ 1.07$ 1.13$ 1.19$ 1.25$ 1.31$ 1.38$ 1.45$ 1.52$ Commercial 1.22$ 1.29$ 1.36$ 1.43$ 1.50$ 1.58$ 1.66$ 1.74$ 1.83$ Option 5 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Mult-Family and Commercial/Industrial Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf)Multi-Family 1.01$ 1.07$ 1.13$ 1.19$ 1.25$ 1.31$ 1.38$ 1.45$ 1.52$ Commercial 1.22$ 1.29$ 1.37$ 1.45$ 1.53$ 1.61$ 1.70$ 1.79$ 1.89$ COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 38 of 43 Irrigation Rate Schedules Option 1 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Irrigation Meter Charges 3/4"42.57$ 43.85$ 45.17$ 46.53$ 47.93$ 49.37$ 50.85$ 52.38$ 53.95$ 1"47.26$ 48.68$ 50.14$ 51.64$ 53.19$ 54.79$ 56.43$ 58.12$ 59.86$ 1 1/2"61.34$ 63.18$ 65.08$ 67.03$ 69.04$ 71.11$ 73.24$ 75.44$ 77.70$ 2"131.86$ 135.82$ 139.89$ 144.09$ 148.41$ 152.86$ 157.45$ 162.17$ 167.04$ 3"225.83$ 232.60$ 239.58$ 246.77$ 254.17$ 261.80$ 269.65$ 277.74$ 286.07$ 4"366.87$ 377.88$ 389.22$ 400.90$ 412.93$ 425.32$ 438.08$ 451.22$ 464.76$ 6"507.83$ 523.06$ 538.75$ 554.91$ 571.56$ 588.71$ 606.37$ 624.56$ 643.30$ 8"883.88$ 910.40$ 937.71$ 965.84$ 994.82$ 1,024.66$ 1,055.40$ 1,087.06$ 1,119.67$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-1,000 cf 0.50$ 0.52$ 0.54$ 0.56$ 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$ 0.66$ Tier 2: 1,000-5,000 cf 1.51$ 1.56$ 1.61$ 1.66$ 1.71$ 1.76$ 1.81$ 1.86$ 1.92$ Tier 3: 5,000-10,000 cf 3.01$ 3.10$ 3.19$ 3.29$ 3.39$ 3.49$ 3.59$ 3.70$ 3.81$ Tier 4: over 10,000 cf 4.06$ 4.18$ 4.31$ 4.44$ 4.57$ 4.71$ 4.85$ 5.00$ 5.15$ Option 2 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Irrigation Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-100,000 cf 1.60$ 1.65$ 1.70$ 1.75$ 1.80$ 1.85$ 1.91$ 1.97$ 2.03$ Tier 2: 100,000-300,000 cf 2.50$ 2.58$ 2.65$ 2.73$ 2.81$ 2.90$ 2.99$ 3.07$ 3.17$ Tier 3: over 300,000 cf 4.50$ 4.64$ 4.77$ 4.92$ 5.06$ 5.22$ 5.37$ 5.53$ 5.70$ Option 3 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Irrigation Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf)Tier 1: 0-100,000 cf 1.75$ 1.80$ 1.86$ 1.91$ 1.97$ 2.03$ 2.09$ 2.15$ 2.22$ Tier 2: 100,000-300,000 cf 2.75$ 2.83$ 2.92$ 3.00$ 3.10$ 3.19$ 3.28$ 3.38$ 3.48$ Tier 3: over 300,000 cf 4.80$ 4.94$ 5.09$ 5.25$ 5.40$ 5.56$ 5.73$ 5.90$ 6.08$ Option 4 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Irrigation Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-50,000 cf 1.60$ 1.65$ 1.70$ 1.75$ 1.80$ 1.85$ 1.91$ 1.97$ 2.03$ Tier 2: 50,000-100,000 cf 2.50$ 2.58$ 2.65$ 2.73$ 2.81$ 2.90$ 2.99$ 3.07$ 3.17$ Tier 3: over 100,000 cf 4.50$ 4.64$ 4.77$ 4.92$ 5.06$ 5.22$ 5.37$ 5.53$ 5.70$ Option 5 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Irrigation Meter Charges 3/4"41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 41.33$ 1"45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 45.88$ 1 1/2"59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 59.55$ 2"128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 128.02$ 3"219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 219.25$ 4"356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 356.18$ 6"493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 493.04$ 8"858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ 858.14$ Usage Rate (per 100 cf) Tier 1: 0-50,000 cf 1.30$ 1.34$ 1.38$ 1.42$ 1.46$ 1.51$ 1.55$ 1.60$ 1.65$ Tier 2: 50,000-100,000 cf 2.25$ 2.32$ 2.39$ 2.46$ 2.53$ 2.61$ 2.69$ 2.77$ 2.85$ Tier 3: 100,000-300,000 cf 3.50$ 3.61$ 3.71$ 3.82$ 3.94$ 4.06$ 4.18$ 4.30$ 4.43$ Tier 4: over 300,000 cf 4.50$ 4.64$ 4.77$ 4.92$ 5.06$ 5.22$ 5.37$ 5.53$ 5.70$ COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 39 of 43 - 1,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 to to to to to to to to 1,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 999,999 Option 1 Tier 1: $0.50 Tier 2: $1.51 Tier 3: $3.01 Tier 4: $4.06 Tier 4: $4.06 Tier 4: $4.06 Tier 4: $4.06 Tier 4: $4.06 $3.86 Option 2 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 2: $2.50 Tier 3: $4.50 Tier 3: $4.50 $2.05 Option 3 Tier 1: $1.75 Tier 1: $1.75 Tier 1: $1.75 Tier 1: $1.75 Tier 1: $1.75 Tier 2: $2.75 Tier 3: $4.80 Tier 3: $4.80 $2.23 Option 4 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 1: $1.60 Tier 2: $2.50 Tier 2: $2.50 Tier 3: $4.50 Tier 3: $4.50 $2.66 Option 5 Tier 1: $1.30 Tier 1: $1.30 Tier 1: $1.30 Tier 1: $1.30 Tier 2: $2.25 Tier 3: $3.50 Tier 4: $4.50 Tier 4: $4.50 $2.25 - 1,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 to to to to to to to to Total 1,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 999,999 Residential 2 9 10 11 2 - - - 34 Multi-Family - - 3 15 - 1 - - 19 Commerical 9 11 19 19 4 2 - - 64 Industrial - - 2 1 - - - - 3 City 20 32 14 26 3 4 - 1 100 Government - 2 1 9 4 - - - 16 School 4 - - 2 1 5 - - 12 Church 1 2 - 4 1 3 - - 11 Hospital - - - 2 - - - - 2 College - - - 1 1 1 1 - 4 Total 36 56 49 90 16 16 1 1 265 Average Rate per 100 cf Usage Range (cf) Usage Range (cf) Based on irrigation meter usage from August 2025 billing data. Intended to show the highest level of usage a meter captures during the peak irrigation month COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 40 of 43 City of Moses Lake, Washington 401 S. Balsam St. · PO Box 1579 · Moses Lake, WA 98837 Office: 509 764-3701 · Fax: 509 764-3739 · www.moseslakewa.gov Date: March 27, 2026 To: Moses Lake City Council From: Rob Karlinsey, City Manager Regarding: Scoring of Enhanced Programs At your March 24 City Council meeting, you discussed the following scoring criteria for enhanced programs: 1.Economic Vitality. Does the program result (directly or indirectly) in job creation and business retention? Does the program promote vibrant retail and commercial areas? 2.Local Benefit. Does the program primarily benefit Moses Lake taxpayers? 3.Council Priority #3. Does the program improve/promote the City’s image and reputation? Does the program enhance a sense of community and sense of place? 4.Reliance. Must Moses Lake be the only provider, or are there other entities (non-profits, private sector) that can or already are doing the same thing? 5.Cost Recovery. Does the program generate revenue to pay for itself, or is it 100% subsidized? 6.Population Served. How many program users? Does the program benefit the entire community or a very small, specific niche? Is the number of users growing or shrinking? 7.Liability/Risk. What is the level of risk or liability inherent in this program? Even with safety training and standards in place, what is the potential for serious injury or loss of life? Can risk be shifted to another provider? At the March 31 Council meeting, please review and finalize the above scoring criteria. I have one additional question: Do you want to add weight to any of the COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 41 of 43 City of Moses Lake, Washington 401 S. Balsam St. · PO Box 1579 · Moses Lake, WA 98837 Office: 509 764-3701 · Fax: 509 764-3739 · www.moseslakewa.gov above criteria? Some of the above categories may be more important to you than other categories. You could give an extra 10% or 20% weight to higher priority categories, or conversely, you could discount a category by a certain percentage. The Enhanced Programs are as follows: 1. Communications—Quarterly Printed Newsletter 2. Human Services Grants 3. Library Building 4. Larsen Recreation Center 5. Recreation 6. Museum & Art Center 7. Surf n’ Slide Water Park 8. Cascade Campground 9. Ice Rink The following page shows an example of what a scoring sheet would look like. I look forward to discussing this further. --Rob COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 42 of 43 City of Moses Lake, Washington 401 S. Balsam St. · PO Box 1579 · Moses Lake, WA 98837 Office: 509 764-3701 · Fax: 509 764-3739 · www.moseslakewa.gov Enhanced Program Scoring Sheet April 14, 2026 Councilmember __________________________ 1. Economic Vitality. Does the program result (directly or indirectly) in job creation and business retention? Does the program promote vibrant retail and commercial areas? Scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best performing Score Communications—Quarterly Newsletter. Net Cost: $45,000 _________ Human Services. Net Cost: $92,000 _________ Library Building. Net Cost: $143,023 _________ Larsen Recreation Center. Net Cost: $1,527,446 _________ Recreation. Net Cost: $474,722 _________ Museum & Art Center. Net Cost: 700,988 _________ Surf n’ Slide Water Park. Net Cost: 777,313 _________ Cascade Campground. Net Gain: +$30,390 _________ Ice Rink: $366,088 _________ COML Council Packet 3-31-26, Page 43 of 43