The URL can be used to link to this page

FINAL 2023 0314 Council Agenda PacketMoses Lake City Council Don Myers, Mayor | Deanna Martinez, Deputy Mayor | Dustin Swartz, Council Member | Mark Fancher, Council Member David Eck, Council Member| Judy Madewell, Council Member| David Skaug, Council Member Tuesday, March 14, 2023 Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam or remote access* Executive Session - 6 p.m. – Real Estate Acquisition pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 (1)(b) Regular Meeting Agenda Call to Order – 6:30 p.m. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the Agenda Presentation – Airport Commission Quarterly Report – Assistant City Manager Rich Huebner Citizen’s Communications** Summary Reports: Mayor’s Report -Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Board Member Recognition -Moses Lake Special Olympics Cheer Team Recognition Additional Business City Manager’s Report Motion -Samaritan Hospital District Ballot Measure Resolution 3934 – pg 3 -2022 Year-End Finance Report – pg 6 Consent Agenda Motion All items listed below are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member requests specific items to be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion prior to the time Council votes on the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 1 of 173 March 14, 2023, City Council Meeting Page 2 Consent agenda cont’d… #1 pg 18 a.City Council Meeting Minutes Dated February 28, 2023 b.Claims and Payroll c.Keller Associates Wastewater Pump Design Amendment 3 Old Business #2 Motion #3 Motion #4 Motion pg 41 DOH Associates Police Station Owner’s Rep Contract Presented by Allison Williams, City Manager Summary: Council to review and consider approval pg 58 Municipal Airport Lease Rates Presented by Rich Huebner, Assistant City Manager Summary: Council to review and consider approval pg 64 Sleep Center Location Negotiation Presented by Kirsten Sackett, Community Development Director Summary: Council to review and consider approval New Business #5 Motion pg 152 Fehr and Peers Contract for Travel Demand Model Development Presented by Richard Law, City Engineer Summary: Council to review and consider authorization Administrative Reports Council Committee Reports Adjournment Next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for March 28, 2023 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) 764-3713 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. *Please click the link below to join remote access: https://cityofml.zoom.us/j/81573286494 Or iPhone one-tap: US: +12532158782,,91539733610# or +13462487799,,91539733610# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 81573286494. International numbers available: https://cityofml.zoom.us/u/aelROcwuzZ ** Remote Citizen Comment or Public Hearings Remote speaker request forms must be completed by 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 2 of 173 Council Staff Report Subject Reviewed and Approved by: Expenditure Required:Amount Budgeted:Appropriation Required: To: Mayor and City Council From Allison Williams, City Manager For Agenda of: 3/14/2023 Agenda Item Number: 10019 Department Administration Proceeding Type City Manager's Report Samaritan Hospital District Ballot Measure Resolution of Support City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Action Requested City Council approval of Resolution of Support. Packet Attachments (if any) - DRAFT RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT Overview Samaritan Hospital Leadership will be providing an overview of their ballot measure and will be asking for a Resolution of Support from City Council. Fiscal and Policy Implications N/A Options and Results Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Resolution of Support will be approved. Provide Amended Direction: Staff will bring back options for recommended changes. No Action Taken: Resolution of Support will not move forward. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 3 of 173 RESOLUTION NO. 3934 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT FOR PASSAGE OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITION PROPOSED BY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, (PROPOSITION NO. 1 – BONDS FOR PUBLIC HOSPITAL); AND PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS. Recitals: 1.The Hospital District is serving our growing community and has added services and developed a plan to continue to add services to meet these needs. 2.The current location of the hospital lacks the needed space to expand and is landlocked. 3.The existing hospital building was built in 1947 and as such it is very difficult to expand and is at maximum capacity. 4.The hospital operating rooms require room space to effectively accommodate technologysuch as robotics which is important for retaining and recruiting surgeons. 5.The current emergency department has not been expanded beyond 9 emergency level rooms since 1975 and is operating at 200% above the capacity recommended by theAmerican College of Emergency Services for each room. 6.A new hospital in a new location with more land is vital now and for generations to come. 7.On January 31, 2023, the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of Public HospitalDistrict No. 1, Grant County, Washington (“PHD No. 1”), adopted Resolution No. 1/23-02, which submits to the voters of PHD No. 1, at the April 23, 2023, election, a ballotproposition (Proposition No.1 – Bonds for Public Hospital”). 8.This resolution has come before the Moses Lake City Council at its meeting of March14, 2023, with notice thereof given in manner required by RCW 42.17A.555. 9.At said meeting, members of the City Council and members of the public in attendance were afforded an approximate equal opportunity for the expression of opposing views. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, AS FOLLOWS: The City Council of the City of Moses Lake supports Grant County Public Hospital District No. 1 “Proposition No.1 – Bonds for Public Hospital” authorizing the District to issue general obligation bonds in the principal amount of no more than $130,000,000 for the purpose of paying costs of constructing a new public hospital and related health care facilities, the principal of and interest on Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 4 of 173 such bonds to be payable from annual property tax levies to be made in excess of regular property tax levies. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof held this 14th day of March, 2023. __________________________ Don Myers, Mayor Attest: Debbie Burke, City Clerk Approved as to form: Katherine Kenison, City Attorney Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 5 of 173 Council Staff Report To:Agenda Item Number: From Department For Agenda of:Proceeding Type Subject Reviewed and Approved by: Expenditure Required:Amount Budgeted:Appropriation Required: Action Requested Packet Attachments (if any) Overview Fiscal and Policy Implications Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Provide Amended Direction: No Action Taken: Allison Williams, City Manager 10047 Madeline Prentice, Director Finance 3/14/2023 City Manager's Report 2022 Year End Finance Report City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services 0.00$0.00$0.00$ N/A 2022 Year-end budget report.docx 54.17KB Exhibit 1 - 2022.pdf 111.69KB The 2022 year-end budget revenue and expenditure report is attached for your review and consideration. N/A Options and Results N/A N/A N/A Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 6 of 173 MEMORANDUM To: Allison Williams, City Manager From: Madeline Prentice, Finance Director Subject: 2022 Year-end Budget Revenue and Expenditure Report I am pleased to submit the City of Moses Lake’s 2022 year-end actual results compared to budgeted revenue and expenditure report for all city funds. Beginning Fund Balances shown are subject to final adjustments made as a result of the year-end closing process, which will not be officially concluded until the State Auditor’s work is completed. Overall, the City exceeded budget expectations in most areas at year end. There were typical variances tied to timing of expenditures due to supply chain issues as well as position vacancies that remained unfilled at year-end. We experienced strong growth in sales tax exceeding budget by $3.02M or 139.2% of budget, largely a result of high inflation and conservative budgeting. Public Safety sales tax also experienced strong growth, exceeding budget by $380k or 129.2% of budget. In total, we ended the year 9.3% over budgeted revenues due to strong tax collections and under budget in expenses by 9.8% due to underspending in most funds. This report is summarized by type of fund, and reported by functional type, and includes the following sections: • City-Wide Overview • General Fund Revenue Analysis • General Fund Expenditure Analysis • Other Funds Analysis • Conclusion • Exhibit I—Fund Detail that supports the Summaries Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 7 of 173 City-Wide Overview 2020 ACTUAL 2021 ACTUAL 2022 BUDGET 2022 ACTUAL % OF BUDGET General Fund 25,951,727 30,172,387 29,046,211 31,641,963 108.9% Operating/Enterprise Funds 43,562,989 42,967,336 40,774,347 45,181,365 110.8% Capital Improvement Funds 5,841,751 17,193,330 7,804,543 8,740,977 112.0% Risk Mgmt/Employee Benefit 909,527 966,680 1,436,500 1,165,153 81.1% Debt Service Funds 2,268,797 3,180,950 3,122,750 3,122,748 100.0% TOTAL CITYWIDE REVENUES 78,534,791 94,480,684 82,184,352 89,852,206 109.3% CITYWIDE REVENUE COMPARISON AS OF: DECEMBER 2022 YEAR-TO-DATE 2020 ACTUAL 2021 ACTUAL 2022 BUDGET 2022 ACTUAL % OF BUDGET General Fund 25,319,032 27,350,495 32,079,338 30,256,168 94.3% Operating/Enterprise Funds 39,809,255 38,660,722 43,498,879 37,648,875 86.6% Capital Improvement Funds 7,306,373 9,183,078 18,366,892 16,891,685 92.0% Risk Mgmt/Employee Benefit 989,361 883,993 1,227,791 1,180,704 96.2% Debt Service Funds 2,188,792 2,646,795 3,121,968 2,659,083 85.2% TOTAL CITYWIDE EXPENDITURES 75,612,812 78,725,083 98,294,869 88,636,515 90.2% AS OF: DECEMBER 2022 YEAR-TO-DATE CITYWIDE EXPENSE COMPARISON Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 8 of 173 General Fund Revenue Analysis Property Tax – The 2022 budget was set based on assumptions of new construction and collection rates, and then discounted for collection delinquencies. Even though the levy for 2022 was set at $8.206M, we only budgeted $7.721M due to the uncertainties as we came out of the pandemic. Sales Tax – We conservatively estimated 2022 Sales Tax revenues at $7.7M. However, actual sales tax exceeded budget by $3.02M and is up 10.3% over the prior year, ahead of 2021 by $998k and ending the year at $10.7M. Sales Tax-Public Safety—This represents the 0.3% Criminal Justice Tax. Collections for the Public Safety sales tax exceeded budget estimates of $1.3M by $380k or 29.2% to end the year at $1.68M. 2022 Public Safety sales tax exceeded 2021 actual by $263k or 18.6%. 2020 ACTUAL 2021 ACTUAL 2022 BUDGET 2022 ACTUAL % OF BUDGET 310 - Taxes Property Tax 7,808,702 7,899,047 7,720,700 8,482,243 109.9% Sales Tax 7,509,197 9,721,190 7,700,000 10,718,921 139.2% Sales Tax - Public Safety 982,158 1,416,209 1,300,000 1,679,634 129.2% Utility Tax 3,282,678 3,436,155 3,459,340 3,376,320 97.6% Gambling Tax 130,769 203,027 178,000 229,656 129.0% Other Taxes 34,306 42,359 45,000 64,778 144.0% Subtotal-Taxes 19,747,809 22,717,987 20,403,040 24,551,552 120.3% 320 - Licenses & Permits 920,713 1,098,771 850,622 737,052 86.6% 330 - Intergovernmental Revenues 1,988,660 1,466,318 1,227,180 1,403,463 114.4% 340 - Charges for Goods & Services 822,280 1,932,477 2,187,504 2,442,070 111.6% 350 - Fines and Penalties 643,672 1,030,324 1,029,347 983,385 95.5% 360 - Miscellaneous Revenues 322,820 199,487 267,059 928,767 347.8% 390 - Other Financing Resources 59,863 233,774 - 2,285 0.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 24,505,817 28,679,137 25,964,752 31,048,573 119.6% Other General Fund - Sources Cost Allocations 945,909 993,250 2,488,070 - 0.0% Transfers In 500,000 500,000 593,389 593,389 100.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 25,951,726 30,172,387 29,046,211 31,641,963 108.9% CITY OF MOSES LAKE GENERAL FUND REVENUES AS OF: DECEMBER 2022 YEAR-TO-DATE Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 9 of 173 Utility Tax – This revenue source experiences fluctuations either from rate adjustments or fluctuations in usage. We ended the year at $3.38M, 2.4% below the budgeted estimate of $3.46M and below 2021 actual of $3.44M by 1.7%. Increases in Water, Stormwater, Wastewater, and Solid Waste were offset by a continuing downward trend in telephone and cable TV utility taxes. Gambling Taxes – Gambling tax continued the upward trend despite a reduction in the card game tax rate from 2018 to 2022 and exceeded budget by $52k (29%) ending the year at $230k. Gambling tax revenues exceeded the prior year by $27k or 13.1%. Other Taxes—This consists of Leasehold Excise Tax and Admissions Tax. Leasehold Excise tax ended the year 2.6% ahead of 2021 and 100% of 2022 budget, ending the period at $25k. Admissions Tax continues to make a strong comeback and ended the year at $39.8k or 198.9% of budget and ahead of 2021 by 221%. Licenses and Permits – This revenue is generated by the development community and is difficult to budget because it is volatile by nature. 2022 results are 86.6% of budget, ending the year at $737k. Prior year included some large one-time permits that will translate to future construction sales tax. In 2023, we will be working on a long-term budgeting plan that will ensure the City does not budget for recurring expenses based on these large one-time project revenues to ensure city sustainability. Intergovernmental Revenue – This category includes State-shared revenue ($223k), the PUD privilege tax ($322k), Criminal Justice funding ($470k) and other grants ($389k). State-shared revenue exceeded budgeted estimates by $113k, PUD privilege tax was on budget and Criminal Justice funding exceeded budget by $54k. Overall, the category exceeded budget by 14.4% ($176k) through year-end. Charges for Goods and Services primarily consist of: • Fees charged for Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Programs; • Zoning, Planning and Development Services charges for zoning, subdivision, plan check and annexation fees; • The City Administrative fee charged to funds for the services provided by the executive branch and finance, and; • School Resource Officers reimbursed by Moses Lake School District The fees charged for Parks and Recreation programs exceeded budget by $32.6k or 2.4% and prior year by $334k or 31.8%. The Engineering labor charges for internal projects have been recorded incorrectly as a revenue source and instead should reduce Engineering salaries and benefits costs. Actual costs have been corrected but will need to be adjusted for budget. We are reviewing all internal allocations for accuracy and proper accounting treatment as we prepare for Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 10 of 173 the next audit. Zoning, Planning and Development Services fees exceeded budget by $289k or 45.5% due to a one-time plan check fee received for a large construction project. Fines and Penalties consist almost entirely of fines generated by the red-light camera program. We ended the year 4.5% under budget at 95.5% or $983k compared to a budget estimate and prior year actual of $1.03M each. Miscellaneous Revenues include interest earnings on investments and facility rentals. In January, we received a $46k refund on our Workers Compensation program, leading to Miscellaneous Revenues being over budget by 6.6%, ending the year at $60k. Facility rentals came in 9.7% higher than budget at $168k. It should be noted interest revenue comes into General Fund throughout the year and is allocated out to funds once at the end of the year. We are projecting General Fund interest will exceed budget once the allocation of interest is complete. Other Financing Resources is made up primarily of a transfer from the Water Department of excess maintenance and operating charges as authorized by RCW 35.23.535 ($525k). We are currently evaluating this to determine if this is still an accurate transfer that we can make. Summary -- Overall, General Fund revenue ended the year at $31.64M, which is 108.9% of the total year budget. Significant increases in sales tax, gambling tax, intergovernmental revenues and charges for goods and services more than made up for decreases in utility tax, licenses and permits, and fines and penalties. A change in accounting treatment in 2022 will result in a decrease compared to budget in cost allocations. Going forward, the budget has been adjusted to reflect this change in cost allocation methodology. Total revenue increase by $1.5M or 4.9% from the year-end 2021 actual of $30.17M. Large growth in regular sales tax and public safety sales tax account for $998k and $263k respectively of this increase. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 11 of 173 General Fund Expenditure Analysis In total, General Fund Expenditures for the year are underspent by 5.7% compared to budget but increased by 10.6% or $2.9M over 2021. Salaries, benefits, and overtime costs of $2.3M account for the majority of the increase over 2021 actual expenses, largely due to the 2022 COLA adjustment and addition of the 2% deferred compensation match. Since General Fund is over 60% staffing, events affecting total payroll have a significant impact on budgets. Position vacancies may start out being an “overage” because of the cashout of earned accrued leave balances, but then can produce savings when the position is vacant for any length of time. Most variances in individual divisions are the result of position vacancies, increased costs due to inflation or additional professional services that weren’t budgeted. The Human Resources budget (previously included with the Executive division) increased 12.2% over budget. The increase is largely due to professional services for negotiations of three labor contracts, leadership training through Nash Consulting Services and the installation of software for employee and FMLA tracking that was not budgeted in 2022. The Police budget ended the year up slightly (1.3%) as a result of contract negotiations which increased salaries in 2022 and a City match to employees deferred compensation which was not anticipated in the original budget. Travel and training costs are up slightly as in-person trainings opened back up in 2022. 2020 ACTUAL 2021 ACTUAL 2022 BUDGET 2022 ACTUAL % OF BUDGET Legislative 357,490 263,631 159,765 152,805 95.6% Executive 865,604 608,246 639,280 597,051 93.4% Human Resources 192,726 319,925 495,077 555,547 112.2% Finance 1,203,967 1,157,020 1,254,730 1,116,766 89.0% Community Development 1,640,960 1,672,145 2,247,820 2,027,593 90.2% Legal 211,192 195,236 274,550 203,049 74.0% Misc. Services 2,340,491 1,924,954 1,983,047 1,975,753 99.6% Library 78,269 63,526 71,500 68,543 95.9% Engineering 683,500 1,666,016 2,331,005 1,998,904 85.8% Parks, Rec & Cultural Services 5,161,426 6,525,112 7,611,209 6,999,771 92.0% Police 8,296,331 8,785,836 10,026,549 10,154,954 101.3% Fire 4,287,077 4,168,850 4,984,806 4,405,432 88.4% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 25,319,032 27,350,495 32,079,338 30,256,168 94.3% CITY OF MOSES LAKE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AS OF: DECEMBER 2022 YEAR-TO-DATE Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 12 of 173 All other General Fund budgets ended the year at varying levels compared to budget. Legal had the largest percentage below budget due to the Municipal Court not being fully operational, followed by Engineering due to position vacancies, and the Fire department because of vacancy savings. Conclusion—General Fund ended the year at 94.3% ($30.3M) of amended budget in expenditures. Strong sales tax revenue, intergovernmental revenues, and charges for services more than offset revenues that are more unpredictable and cyclical in nature. General Fund reserves grew by $1.39M resulting in an ending fund balance of $10.03M. The adopted reserve fund policy is to maintain reserves of at least 16.7% of total budgeted operating expenditures or $5.36M. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 13 of 173 Other Funds Analysis Variances in capital funds are related to timing of major projects, as well as capital components in operating funds (such as Building Maintenance, Fleet Maintenance, Central Services and Stormwater capital projects/purchases). Debt Service funds primarily only have interest payments due in the first half of the year—principal payments are typically scheduled for later in the year so the fund can build up the necessary balance. The 2022 debt service budget included amounts for principal and interest repayments on borrowing for the Police Station remodel that did not occur. Hotel/Motel tax made a strong recovery in 2022 to end the year at $1.1M or 137.5% of budget. The revenue estimate remained flat in 2022 due to the unpredictability of travel heading into 2022 but outpaced 2021 revenue by $331k (42.4%), largely due to the transfer of $190k of ARPA funds approved by Council to replace lost revenue due to the COVID pandemic shutdown. Expenditures ended the year 8.5% above budget at $779k due to a 2021 payment that was not made until the 2nd quarter of 2022. REVENUES 2020 ACTUAL 2021 ACTUAL 2022 BUDGET 2022 ACTUAL % OF BUDGET Operating/Enterprise Funds 43,562,989 42,967,336 40,774,347 45,181,365 110.8% Capital Improvement Funds 5,841,751 17,193,330 7,804,543 8,740,977 112.0% Risk Mgmt/Employee Benefit 909,527 966,680 1,436,500 1,165,153 81.1% Debt Service Funds 2,268,797 3,180,950 3,122,750 3,122,748 100.0% OTHER FUNDS - REVENUES 52,583,064 64,308,296 53,138,140 58,210,243 109.5% EXPENDITURES 2020 ACTUAL 2021 ACTUAL 2022 BUDGET 2022 ACTUAL % OF BUDGET Operating/Enterprise Funds 39,809,255 38,660,722 43,498,879 37,648,875 86.6% Capital Improvement Funds 7,306,373 9,183,078 18,366,892 16,891,685 92.0% Risk Mgmt/Employee Benefit 989,361 883,993 1,227,791 1,180,704 96.2% Debt Service Funds 2,188,792 2,646,795 3,121,968 2,659,083 85.2% OTHER FUNDS - EXPENDITURES 50,293,780 51,374,588 66,215,531 58,380,346 88.2% OTHER FUNDS - REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES AS OF: DECEMBER 2022 YEAR-TO-DATE Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 14 of 173 Homeless Services ended the year under budget in both revenue and expenditures. Revenues ended the year at $1.07M or 87.7% of budget and was down from 2021. Expenses came in at 67.6% of budget at $847k compared to a budget of $1.25M. Water/Wastewater Fund revenues exceeded budgeted revenues by 22.6% to end the year at $16.76M and exceeded 2021 actuals by $190k or 1.1%. Expenditures were under budget by 10.6% ($1.6M) and exceeded 2021 actuals by $830k or 6.4%. Stormwater revenues exceeded budget by $511k (50%) mainly due to contributed capital, while expenditures were under budget by $792k (52.5%) largely due to delays in capital spending. The Airport Fund was able to purchase the fuel system that was budgeted in 2021 using CARB loan funds that were approved by Council in 2021. The Airport Fund ended the year under budget in both revenues ($30k, 12.7%) and expenditures ($98k, 33.7%) and exceeded 2021 due to the fuel system purchase. Equipment Rental/Fleet Maintenance ended the year ahead of budget by 4.1% ($110k) due to sales of surplus vehicles. Due to supply chain issues, several capital purchase orders were not received prior to year-end and therefore, expenditures came in under budget by $1.0M or 21.1%. Building Maintenance was on budget in revenues, but under budget in expenditures mainly due to unfilled position vacancies as well as delays in capital expenditures. Expenses ended the year at $1.86M or $779k (29.6%) under budget and $992k (34.8%) less than 2021 actuals. Conclusion Overall, 2022 results outpaced budgeted revenues by 9.3% to end the year at $89.9M, while expenditures were under budget by 9.8% to end the year at $88.6M or $9.66M below budget. All funds ended the year with positive fund balances and overall, we added an additional $1.2M to reserves to end the year with a fund balance of just under $52.0M. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 15 of 173 Exhibit 1BEG. FUND BAL.1/1/20222021 Actual Revenues2022 Amended Budget2022 Actual Revenues% Received2021 Actual Expenditures2022 Amended Budget2022 Actual Expenses% Expended2022 (Use) Gain of Fund Balance 12/31/2022GENERAL FUNDLegislative263,631 159,765 152,805 95.6%Executive608,246 639,280 597,051 93.4%Human Resources319,925 495,077 555,547 112.2%Finance1,157,020 1,254,730 1,116,766 89.0%Community Development1,672,145 2,247,820 2,027,593 90.2%Legal195,236 274,550 203,049 74.0%Misc. Services1,924,954 1,983,047 1,975,753 99.6%Library63,526 71,500 68,543 95.9%Engineering1,666,016 2,331,005 1,998,904 85.8%Parks, Rec & Cultural Services6,525,112 7,611,209 6,999,771 92.0%Police8,785,836 10,026,549 10,154,954 101.3%Fire4,168,850 4,984,806 4,405,432 88.4%TOTAL GENERAL FUND8,641,831$ 30,172,387$ 29,046,211$ 31,641,963$ 108.9%27,350,495$ 32,079,338$ 30,256,168$ 94.3% 1,385,794$ 10,027,625$ OTHER OPERATING/ENTERPRISE FUNDSTourism Activities -102851,778 782,306 810,100 1,113,806 137.5%640,008 718,100 779,399 108.5%334,407 1,186,185 Grants & Donations -1031,018,868 280,986 214,101 213,081 99.5%184,260 314,146 196,318 62.5%16,764 1,035,632 Local Fiscal Recovery -1053,365,063 - 3,361,779 3,365,998 100.1%- 794,604 504,046 63.4%2,861,952 6,227,015 Homeless Services -110252,802 1,366,747 1,219,074 1,069,050 87.7%1,172,558 1,254,481 847,444 67.6%221,606 474,407 Paths & Trails - 11493,213 12,215 2,000 11,881 594.1%4,803 26,000 996 3.8%10,885 104,099 Streets - 1161,176,697 2,700,233 2,072,828 1,906,178 92.0%2,291,194 2,648,742 2,253,674 85.1%(347,496) 829,200 Transportation Benefit District - 170522,393 2,091,136 1,980,500 2,522,574 127.4%1,850,000 2,154,000 2,154,000 100.0%368,574 890,968 Water/Wastewater Operating - 4105,003,563 16,565,385 13,671,602 16,755,617 122.6%13,005,287 15,483,920 13,835,754 89.4% 2,919,863 7,923,426 Sanitation -4901,047,358 4,985,127 4,951,680 5,348,663 108.0%5,703,917 4,836,253 4,828,948 99.8%519,715 1,567,073 Stormwater - 493411,698 1,651,722 1,023,347 1,534,699 150.0%987,748 1,507,420 715,511 47.5%819,188 1,230,886 Airport - 49594,552 12,725 235,000 205,079 87.3%28,472 290,867 192,878 66.3%12,201 106,753 Ambulance - 4981,118,309 3,723,762 3,840,654 3,632,821 94.6%3,486,973 3,983,634 3,747,409 94.1%(114,588) 1,003,721 Central Svc - 517730,160 1,826,749 2,148,968 2,149,006 100.0%2,034,545 2,102,806 1,990,367 94.7%158,639 888,799 Equipment Rental -5193,360,138 4,187,014 2,716,814 2,827,011 104.1%4,423,660 4,749,603 3,746,537 78.9%(919,526) 2,440,612 Build Maint -5281,563,692 2,781,228 2,525,900 2,525,900 100.0%2,847,295 2,634,304 1,855,595 70.4%670,305 2,233,997 TOTAL OTHER OPERATING/ENTERPRISE20,610,283$ 42,967,336$ 40,774,347$ 45,181,365$ 110.8%38,660,722$ 43,498,879$ 37,648,875$ 86.6%7,532,491$ 28,142,774$ CITY OF MOSES LAKEAS OF: DECEMBER 20222022 FUND SUMMARYEND. FUND BAL.REVENUES EXPENDITURES1Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 16 of 173 Exhibit 1BEG. FUND BAL.1/1/20222021 Actual Revenues2022 Amended Budget2022 Actual Revenues% Received2021 Actual Expenditures2022 Amended Budget2022 Actual Expenses% Expended2022 (Use) Gain of Fund Balance 12/31/2022CITY OF MOSES LAKEAS OF: DECEMBER 20222022 FUND SUMMARYEND. FUND BAL.REVENUES EXPENDITURESCAPITAL IMPROVEMENTStreet Repair/reconst -119 4,218,819 4,044,245 3,118,150 3,841,024 123.2%1,361,167 4,816,727 6,754,585 140.2% (2,913,561) 1,305,257 Parks & Recreation Improvement-3147,908,195 11,395,830 66,393 66,393 100.0%4,538,813 6,920,375 6,884,619 99.5% (6,818,225) 1,089,970 Park Mitigation Capital Proj-31533,632 (69,604) 20,000 - 0.0%- 55,849 - 0.0%- 33,632 Water Rights - 4711,065,212 272,860 700,000 933,560 133.4%- 2,164,416 - 0.0%933,560 1,998,771 Water/Sewer Construction-4775,476,691 1,550,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 100.0%3,283,097 4,409,525 3,252,481 73.8%647,519 6,124,210 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT18,702,548$ 17,193,330$ 7,804,543$ 8,740,977$ 112.0%9,183,078$ 18,366,892$ 16,891,685$ 92.0% (8,150,708)$ 10,551,840$ RISK MGMT/EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVESUnemployment Compensation - 50128,850 46,307 85,000 105,237 123.8%30,831 76,500 85,788 112.1%19,449 48,299 Risk Management -503418,706 873,800 1,307,000 1,012,000 77.4%821,075 1,096,291 1,060,118 96.7%(48,118) 370,589 Firemen's Relief & Pension - 611367,642 46,573 44,500 47,917 107.7%32,086 55,000 34,799 63.3%13,118 380,760 TOTAL RISK MGMT/EMPL BENEFIT RSVS815,198$ 966,680$ 1,436,500$ 1,165,153$ 81.1%883,993$ 1,227,791$ 1,180,704$ 96.2%(15,551)$ 799,648$ DEBT SERVICELOCAL Borrowing 21/22 - 282514,213 914,000 1,452,500 1,452,500 100.0%404,355 1,451,536 989,824 68.2%462,676 976,889 GOB 2016 Refunding-286184,597 376,800 375,900 375,900 100.0%376,583 376,150 375,729 99.9%171 184,768 Water-Sewer 2011 Bond-45010,304 565,000 - - 0.0%551,262 - - 0.0%- 10,304 Bond Reserve-2011 451567,600 - - - 0.0%- - - 0.0%- 567,600 Water-Sewer 2004 Bond-4526,444 682,000 686,250 686,248 100.0%650,024 686,850 686,325 99.9%(77) 6,367 Water-Sewer 2004 Bond Reserve-453701,500 - - - 0.0%- - - 0.0%- 701,500 PWTF W/S Debt Serv - 48520,155 567,150 532,100 532,100 100.0%565,486 532,112 532,059 100.0%41 20,196 2015 GO Bond Redempt- 4878,459 76,000 76,000 76,000 100.0%99,085 75,320 75,146 99.8%854 9,313 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE2,013,272$ 3,180,950$ 3,122,750$ 3,122,748$ 100.0%2,646,795$ 3,121,968$ 2,659,083$ 85.2%463,665$ 2,476,938$ -$ TOTAL CITY BUDGET50,783,133$ 94,480,684$ 82,184,352$ 89,852,206$ 109.3%78,725,083$ 98,294,869$ 88,636,515$ 90.2% 1,215,691$ 51,998,824$ 2Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 17 of 173 MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL February 28, 2023 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Myers in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center with audio remote access. Special notice for remote attendance and citizen comment were posted on the meeting agenda. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Myers; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Council Members Eck, Fancher, Madewell, Swartz, and Skaug. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Fancher led the Flag Salute. AGENDA APPROVAL Council Member Fancher requested Consent Item (c) be moved to New Business. Action taken: Council Member Eck moved to approve the Agenda as modified, second by Council Member Martinez. The motion carried 7– 0. CITIZEN’S COMMUNICATION Homeless Encampments on Longview Street Jose Cuellar, Othello, WA discussed the problem of having RV’s and travel trailers parked near Longview Elementary school, and on private property, near his rental. Council discussed the topic with staff, and staff will be bringing recommendations on the issue to a future study session. SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Board Member Recognition Board Member Ryan Holterhoff (not in attendance) recently resigned and was recognized for his service from July 2018 through February 2023. A second resignation will be recognized at the next Council Meeting. Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Board Vacancy Announcement has been posted online for the two vacant positions on the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Board. Application deadline is March 14. AWC Action Days Summary Mayor Myers, Deputy Mayor Martinez, Council Member Swartz and City Manager Allison Williams attended the AWC Action Days on February 15 and 16 in Olympia. They met with State Representatives and Senators to discuss Legislative Agenda items; a swell as with the Governor’s staff to discuss water issues. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 18 of 173 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT Food Truck Court Update Project Surveyor Levi Bisnett advised that “The Compass” food truck court should be open this summer. They are planning to have art, a heritage garden site, and other attributes that will align with the Creative District efforts. Congressionally Directed Spending Request Staff requested Council support to send Congressionally Directed Spending Requests for Water Treatment Facilities. The need over the next 10 years is approximately $230 million. Action taken: Council Member Eck moved to authorize sending the funding requests as presented, second by Council Member Swartz. The motion carried 7 – 0. Staffing Update and Requests Municipal Services and Community Development restructuring requires approval by Council for one new position and addition of benefits from combining two former part-time positions. Action taken: Council Member Swartz moved to approve the staffing update as presented, second by Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0. Sleep Center Security Services Contract Staff requests Council authorization to contract for guard services with Pacific Security. Action taken: Deputy Mayor Martinez moved to authorize execution of contract for services at the sleep center, second by Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0. CONSENT AGENDA #1 a. City Council meeting minutes dated February 7 and February 14, 2023 b. Electronic Transfer: N/A Checks: 159649 - 159794 - $1,351,454.59 Payroll Checks: #64982-64997 - $10,180.11 Electronic Payments: Direct Deposit - $559,551.95 c. moved to New Business d. Larson Sedimentation Pond Rehabilitation Award e. Biosolids Land Application Award General Services Contract f. Investment Grade Energy Audit g. Industrial Waste Discharge Permit No. 25 – Grant County Fairgrounds Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, second by Deputy Mayor Martinez. The motion carried 7 – 0. NEW BUSINESS #2 Fire Department Staffing Grant The Fire Department received an award from the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program in the amount of $3,317,058. This grant will cover costs for nine firefighter’s salaries and benefits, for the next three years, with no strings attached. This is one way to begin succession planning of several Fire Fighters Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 19 of 173 eligible to retire in the next three years. This would also allow reallocation of some ARPA funding that was dedicated to firefighter hires. Action taken: Deputy Mayor Martinez moved to authorize SAFER Grant award as presented, second by Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0. #3 Central Terminals Road Easement Abandonment Resolution 3933 The current property owner, Central Terminals LLC, has requested that the existing road easements be abandoned to clear the way for Group 14 to develop a battery materials manufacturing plant. Action taken: Council Member Eck moved to adopt Resolution 3933 as presented, second by Council Member Swartz. The motion carried 6– 0. Council Member Fancher was recused. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Public Art Fund Program Update – MLMC 2.08.880(E) The Arts Committee held their first meeting on February 27 to discuss budget, care, cleaning, rehabilitation, removal of public art, and bringing back the Summer Concert Series program. They will continue to build on the framework for this committee and plan to meet monthly for the time being. WSDOT SR-17 Project Schedule Update As a follow up to the noise variance granted by Council, City Engineer Richard Law advised that the SR-17 Repaving Project is planned to start around May 30 and finish mid-September. The Nelson Rd to Wheeler Rd paving will require a 10-day time span. The state will provide a presentation to the City Council closer to the project start date. New Petition to Join AFSCME Union Parks Maintenance staff petitioned Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC) to join the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Union. Human Resources Director Shannon Springer is working on a memorandum of understanding that will add them to the current contract. Wellness Program Staff participation in last year’s Wellness Programs has earned us another WellCity Award. This designation qualifies the City for a 2% discount on health insurance premiums paid in 2024 for active employees, spouses, and dependents. Water Updates Staff will attend the Realtors’ Association and Coffee and Commerce meetings to speak on water resource issues. A public presentation will be held on March 9, at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Auditorium to continue the speaker series. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS Council Member Eck shared that the Port of Moses Lake is hosting the first flight of a Hydrogen-powered Aircraft next month. The Port is also preparing for a visit from the Komaki, Japan City Mayor who is coming to Moses Lake in July. (Komaki, Japan is one of the Bridges International student exchange cities) Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 20 of 173 Council Member Skaug thanked Fire Chief Brett Bastian for his team’s efforts in applying for the SAFER Grant program. Council Member Fancher noted progress being made by staff to amend the regulations for water usage and thanked Community Development Department (CDD) staff for providing the project summary handout at the last Community Development, Municipal Services and Parks Committee (CMP) Meeting. He announced that he has been confirmed as a board member for the Grant County Economic Development Council. Council Member Swartz also attended the CMP Meeting where they discussed the pitfalls of covenants. He also expressed appreciation of the CDD projects handout. Deputy Mayor Martinez thanked staff for their work, recognizing that there are a lot of moving parts and organizations that focus on Moses Lake. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Myers called an Executive Session at 7:46 p.m. for 45 minutes to discuss Real Estate Sale or Lease, and Potential Litigation, pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1) subsections (c) and (i). There was no business to follow. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. ______________________________________ Don Myers, Mayor ATTEST____________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 21 of 173 Council Staff Report To:Agenda Item Number: From Department For Agenda of:Proceeding Type Subject Reviewed and Approved by: Expenditure Required:Amount Budgeted:Appropriation Required: Action Requested Packet Attachments (if any) Allison Williams, City Manager 9974 Madeline Prentice Finance 3/14/2023 Consent Agenda Disbursement report since February 28, 2023 City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services 1,111,205.28$1,111,205.28$0.00$ Approve payment of claims as presented. The following amounts were budgeted, and sufficient funds were available to cover these payments: Electronic Transfer: N/A Checks: 159795 - 159988 - $544,888.04 Payroll Checks: #64998-65011 - $7,658.47 Electronic Payments: Direct Deposit - $558,658.77 Vouchers - 03.14.2023.pdf 124.83KB Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 22 of 173 Overview Fiscal and Policy Implications Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Provide Amended Direction: No Action Taken: RCW 42.24 governs the process for audit and review of claims and payroll payments for the City. RCW 42.24.180 requires the review and approval of all payments at a regularly scheduled public meeting on at least a monthly basis. The State Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting Systems (BARS) Manual outlines the above format for approval by the City Council. RCW 42.24.080 requires that all claims presented against the City by persons furnishing materials, rendering services or performing labor must be certified by the appropriate official to ensure that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described, and that the claims are just, due and unpaid obligations against the City. RCW 42.24.180 allows expedited processing of the payment of claims when certain conditions have been met. The statute allows the issuance of warrants or checks in payment of claims before the legislative body has acted to approve the claims when: (1) the appropriate officers have furnished official bonds; (2) the legislative body had adopted policies that implement effective internal control; (3) the legislative body has provided for review of the documentation supporting the claims within a month of issuance; and (4) that if claims are disapproved, they shall be recognized as receivables and diligently pursued. The City meets all these conditions. To comply with the requirements, Finance staff schedule payment of claims and payroll for semi-monthly Council approval on the Consent Agenda. The payments listed in the schedule cover all claims and payroll payments during the period prior to the date of the Council meeting. All payments made during this period were found to be valid claims against the City. Details are attached and any questions should be directed to the City Manager or Finance Director. The City's internal controls include certification of the validity of all payments by the appropriate department prior to submission for payment. The Finance Director has delegated authority for the examination of vouchers and authorization of payments to the Finance, Accounts Payable, and Payroll staff. All payments are reviewed and validated. The Finance Division regularly reviews it processes to ensure appropriate internal controls are in place. Options and Results Approve N/A. Staff would recognize claims as receivables and pursue collections. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 23 of 173 TOTALS BY FUND: FUND NO FUND NAME AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 163,874.33 102 TOURISM 4,298.00 103 GRANTS AND DONATIONS 13,550.66 110 HOMELESS SERVICES 220.00 114 PATHS/TRAILS ‐ 116 STREET 54,900.97 119 STREET REPR/RECON ‐ 286 REFUNDING GO BONDS 2015 ‐ 314 PARK & RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS ‐ 315 PARK MITIGATION CAPITAL PROJECTS ‐ 410 WATER/SEWER 104,492.10 450 2011 BOND FUND ‐ 452 2004 BOND FUND ‐ 471 WATER RIGHTS ‐ 477 WATER SEWER CONSTRUCTION 62,987.07 487 2015 GO BONDS REDEMPTION ‐ 490 SANITATION 35,260.44 493 STORM WATER 393.18 495 AIRPORT 408.85 498 AMBULANCE 35,504.17 501 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION INSURANCE ‐ 503 SELF‐INSURANCE 8,430.00 517 CENTRAL SERVICES 19,295.49 519 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 12,317.90 528 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 20,701.21 611 FIRE PENSION 4,507.92 623 DEPOSIT 3,600.00 631 STATE 145.75 TOTAL 544,888.04$ City of Moses Lake Tabulation of Claims Paid‐Summary by Fund Council Meeting Date‐ 03/14/2023 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 24 of 173 Check Name Check Amount Check Date Invoice Description 159795 ABIGAIL GUIJOSA 41.26 02/14/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159796 BASIN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 8.61 02/14/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159797 DAVID HEPLER/MARGARET S CABLE 61.02 02/14/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159798 MOSES LAKE GRANITE LLC 31.31 02/14/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159799 PERRY DAVIS 327.62 02/14/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159800 SUSAN FULCHER 173.14 02/14/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159801 TIFFANY ALVARADO 230.21 02/14/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159802 2M Company Inc 38.97 02/24/2023 Misc Supplies **$.73 Discount Taken** 159803 A & H Printers Inc 786.44 02/24/2023 Printing 159804 Advanced Analytical Solutions 600.48 02/24/2023 P.E. Samples 159805 Alpha Media, LLC 640.00 02/24/2023 LRC Advertising 159806 Amazon Capital Services, Inc.1,780.93 02/24/2023 Parks Department Amazon Invoice 159807 Badger Meters Inc 23,264.98 02/24/2023 Meters 159808 Basin Septic Services Inc 220.00 02/24/2023 Sanitizer Stations @ Sleep Center 159809 Brian Koblenz 373.98 02/24/2023 Lower Peninsula Work 159810 Bud Clary Ford LLC 611.63 02/24/2023 Misc Parts Eq#128 W/O 550054515 159811 Cascade Natural Gas Corp 883.70 02/24/2023 Gas Jan23 159812 Centurylink 3,876.80 02/24/2023 509‐765‐2240 400B 2.13.2023 159813 Civicplus Inc 657.00 02/24/2023 Software Pro Services 159814 Columbia Basin Herald 392.29 02/24/2023 Public Hearing Notice 159815 Columbia Bearing Bdi 145.10 02/24/2023 V‐Belts Eq#505 W/O 58639 159816 Copiers Northwest Inc 808.38 02/24/2023 Equipment Contract Fees 159817 CSWW, Inc 16.25 02/24/2023 SNS Lubricant 159818 Employment Security Department 9.50 02/24/2023 Work History Research 159819 Faber Industrial Supply 694.56 02/24/2023 Wrenches 159820 Fastenal Company 4,214.38 02/24/2023 SNS Maintenance Supplies 159821 Ferguson Enterprises Inc #3007 11.24 02/24/2023 Aquaseal Stem LH Cold 159822 Ferrellgas 117.58 02/24/2023 Training Prop Gas Tank Rental 159823 Galls LLC 6,075.13 02/24/2023 Uniform‐ 2022 159824 General Fire Apparatus Inc 296.47 02/24/2023 Rosenbauer Switches 159825 GeoEngineers, Inc.15,094.00 02/24/2023 GWMA Water Level Data Evaluation 159826 Grainger Parts Operations 354.72 02/24/2023 Wall Clock 159827 Grimco, Inc.187.54 02/24/2023 .9mm Supersteel Blades 159828 Haglund's Trophies, LLC 80.70 02/24/2023 Plaque‐Employee Recognition 159829 Hajoca Corp 687.25 02/24/2023 Ice Rink Bldg. Water Switches 159830 Home Depot Credit Services 1,686.75 02/24/2023 January 2023 Statement 159831 Home Depot Pro (Supplyworks)2,022.57 02/24/2023 Janitorial Supplies 159832 IAFF #1258/Disab Ins 1,961.18 02/24/2023 IAFF Fire Disability 159833 Inland Empire Fire Chiefs Asso.175.00 02/24/2023 Training Registration ‐ Toto 159834 Jerrys Auto Supply 837.93 02/24/2023 Oil Filters 159835 Kaman Fluid Power LLC 126.53 02/24/2023 Zip Ties For Soccer Goals 159836 Kbsn/Kdrm Radio 1,000.00 02/24/2023 LRC Advertising 159837 Keller Associates 2,348.00 02/24/2023 COF Pump Station Upgrade 159838 Kelley Connect 108.66 02/24/2023 Equipment Contract Fees 159839 Lad Irrigation Company Inc 2,140.42 02/24/2023 Lauzier Infield Irrigation Upgrade 159840 Lake Auto Parts 328.37 02/24/2023 Oil Filters/Fuel Filter 159841 Lexipol LLC 9,672.05 02/24/2023 Policy and Procedure Manual Software City of Moses Lake Checks Issued with Summary Description For March 14, 2023 Council Meeting Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 25 of 173 159842 Med Tech Resource Inc 250.70 02/24/2023 Safety Vests 159843 Moon Security Services Inc 246.83 02/24/2023 Evidence Security Monitoring March 23 159844 Moses Lake Steel Supply 99.72 02/24/2023 Maintenance Supplies 159845 Moses Lake Towing 450.11 02/24/2023 Towing Eq#045 159846 Motion Industries, Inc 107.55 02/24/2023 Tension Tester 159847 National Event Publications 2,500.00 02/24/2023 LTAC Expense 159848 NYS Child Support Prosessing Center 184.61 02/24/2023 Child Support Payment Gilmartin 159849 Oreilly Auto Parts 53.43 02/24/2023 Semi‐Met Pad Eq#121 W/O 58328 159850 P A W 150.00 02/24/2023 A. Harris 2023 Membership 159851 Pacific Aerial Services Inc 430.00 02/24/2023 Dielectric & Boom Inspections 159852 Pasco Tire Factory, INC 2,077.28 02/24/2023 Tires 159853 Pitney Bowes Inc 324.12 02/24/2023 Hard Drive for Postage Machine 159854 Prestige Paving, LLC 44,772.00 02/24/2023 2022 Emergency Sink Hole Repair 159855 Pro Touch Car Wash & Auto Detail LLC 27.64 02/24/2023 Car Washes Jan. 2023 159856 Protect Youth Sports 147.35 02/24/2023 Background Checks 159857 Quill Corporation 374.24 02/24/2023 Office Equipment 159858 Rebuilding & Hard Facing Inc 1,092.67 02/24/2023 Snowplow Blades 159859 Rexel USA 727.41 02/24/2023 Lighting Contactor 159860 RH2 Engineering Inc.20,211.57 02/24/2023 Comp Water System Plan GD2021‐054 159861 Schaeffer Mfg Company 1,498.05 02/24/2023 HTC Supreme 159862 SCL Fence and Supply, LLC 119.46 02/24/2023 Maintenance Supplies 159863 Sea Western Inc 9,332.50 02/24/2023 Bunker Gear ‐ Feeney, Toto, Boyd 159864 SHI International, Inc 7,904.25 02/24/2023 Laptop ‐ CARES Position 159865 Shirtbuilders Inc 361.88 02/24/2023 Uniform Shirts 159866 Signature Graphics Inc 4,295.28 02/24/2023 Spring '23 Brochures 159867 Skaug Brothers Glass 645.85 02/24/2023 Back Window on Seizure Vehicle 159868 Southeast Publications USA, Inc 1,798.00 02/24/2023 LTAC Expense ‐ 2022 159869 Systems Design West, LLC 6,233.85 02/24/2023 EMS Billing Jan 2023 159870 Trilogy Medwaste West, LLC 85.00 02/24/2023 Pharmaceutical Waste Services 159871 Trusteed Plans Service Corp 2,730.00 02/24/2023 Police Disability 159872 UPS Store 2469 23.85 02/24/2023 Postage 159873 Valley Supply Co 1,283.99 02/24/2023 72" Smart Levels 159874 WA St Council Of FF Emp Ben 3,600.00 02/24/2023 MERP 159875 WA State Assn Of Fire Chiefs 350.00 02/24/2023 Training Registration 159876 Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs 50.00 02/24/2023 Training Registration ‐ Deering 159877 Waste Mgt Recycle America Inc 4,583.16 02/24/2023 Commingle Loads 159878 Weinstein Beverage Company 442.25 02/24/2023 Drinking Water 159879 Wenatchee Valley Hospital 1,208.84 02/24/2023 Pre‐Employment Medical Testing 159880 Zoll Medical Corp 522.66 02/24/2023 Medical Supplies 159881 Daisy Cantu 102.97 02/27/2023 Reimbursement for Pants/Boots 159882 Deanna Martinez 285.58 02/27/2023 Mileage for AWC Meeting 159883 Dustin Swartz 285.58 02/27/2023 Mileage for AWC Meeting 159884 Joe Frey 238.48 02/27/2023 Boot Reimbursement 159885 Manuel De La Torre 128.00 02/27/2023 CDL Physical Reimbursement 159886 Kyle Mccain 10,300.00 02/27/2023 Controlled Buy Funding and Replenish 159887 Don Garrison 1,936.91 02/28/2023 February Pension with Retro 159888 Luther Stowers 1,529.52 02/28/2023 February Pension with Retro 159889 Margaret Hinshaw 1,041.49 02/28/2023 February Pension with Retro 159890 AGRIPINA CABRERA 140.11 02/28/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159891 ALISON COPE 57.92 02/28/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159892 Corey Strasser 134.92 02/28/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159893 EKATERINA PODOLYAN 180.91 02/28/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159894 GOOD BUILT LLC 116.39 02/28/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 26 of 173 159895 Sherry Olson 200.56 02/28/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159896 WAYNE GILMORE/BEKKI DENNIS 103.24 02/28/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment 159897 Cascade Natural Gas Corp 8,886.61 02/28/2023 Gas @ LRC December 2022 159898 Rudy Valdez 310.50 02/28/2023 NTOA LL Training March 2023 159899 Kyle Mccain 241.75 02/28/2023 Advanced Swat Training March 2023 159900 Ramon Lopez 241.50 02/28/2023 Advanced Swat Training March 2023 159901 Caleb Martin 241.50 02/28/2023 Advanced SWAT Training March 2023 159902 Robert Hecker 241.50 02/28/2023 Advanced SWAT Training March 2023 159903 Juan Serrato 339.00 03/03/2023 Training Per Diem 159904 Kyle Mccain 339.00 03/03/2023 Zetex Training Per Diem 159905 Omar Ramirez 339.00 03/03/2023 Training Per Diem 159906 Mike Miner 220.50 03/03/2023 HazMat Training Per Diem 159907 Taylor Thomas 220.50 03/03/2023 HazMat Training March 2023 159908 Nick Simonson 220.50 03/03/2023 HazMat Training Per Diem 159909 Juan Rodriguez 100.00 03/03/2023 Leadership Training Week 2 159910 A & H Printers Inc 70.46 03/03/2023 Business Cards K. Law 159911 Abc Hydraulics 72.29 03/03/2023 Misc Supplies For Pump 159912 ADP Lemco Inc 1,657.44 03/03/2023 Volleyball Equipment ‐ LRC 159913 Amazon Capital Services, Inc.14.20 03/03/2023 Supplies 159914 American Linen Inc 379.84 03/03/2023 Ambulance Linens 159915 Assoc Of Washington Cities 31,392.20 03/03/2023 Worker's Comp Retro Membership 159916 Badger Meters Inc 550.88 03/03/2023 Meter Read Services 159917 Basin Septic Services Inc 1,483.99 03/03/2023 ADA Park 159918 Bound Tree Medical LLC 997.07 03/03/2023 Medical Supplies 159919 Brian Koblenz 1,723.56 03/03/2023 Final Lease 159920 Bud Clary Ford LLC 1,714.16 03/03/2023 PTO Repair Eq#219 W/O 58642 159921 Cdw Government 410.27 03/03/2023 Monitors ‐ ART Grant 159922 Centurylink 2,550.91 03/03/2023 Water Shut‐off Notifications 159923 Centurylink 484.30 03/03/2023 509‐764‐5387 088B 2.16.2023 159924 Cobies Fine Dry Cleaning 37.01 03/03/2023 Trousers Tailoring ‐ Walls 159925 Columbia Basin Herald 162.44 03/03/2023 Advertising 159926 Consolidated Disposal Service 29,048.38 03/03/2023 Disposal Loads 159927 Consolidated Electrical Distributors Inc 831.54 03/03/2023 HID Lamps 159928 Copiers Northwest Inc 2,266.37 03/03/2023 Equipment Contract Fees 159929 Corporate Translation Services, LLC 17.34 03/03/2023 Translation Services 159930 Devries Information Mgmt 57.50 03/03/2023 On Site Record Destruction 159931 EMS Connect, LLC 255.50 03/03/2023 EMS Training Program 159932 Fastenal Company 146.01 03/03/2023 T‐Shirts 159933 Ferguson Enterprises Inc #3007 200.36 03/03/2023 Alum Ano Rods 159934 Ferrellgas 96.09 03/03/2023 Propane Eq#595 159935 Galls LLC 1,913.20 03/03/2023 Uniform Shirt ‐ Merritt 159936 Grainger Parts Operations 865.58 03/03/2023 Occupancy Sensor 159937 Grant County Animal Outreach 8,333.00 03/03/2023 February Contact Payment 2023 159938 Grant County Treasurer 19,887.16 03/03/2023 MOSE3500 1st Half Property Taxes 2023 159939 H D Fowler Company 1,517.12 03/03/2023 Joint Couplings/Stiffeners 159940 Hach Company 1,066.76 03/03/2023 Reagent 159941 Hajoca Corp 138.63 03/03/2023 Ratcheting Pipe Cutter 159942 Harris Computers Inc 408.47 03/03/2023 2022 W2 Forms/Envelopes 159943 Hero Industries 2,562.50 03/03/2023 K9 stuffies 159944 Home Depot Pro (Supplyworks)1,751.76 03/03/2023 Janitorial Supplies 159945 Ims Alliance 20.65 03/03/2023 Accountability Tags ‐ Walls/Lebacken 159946 International Code Council 790.81 03/03/2023 Code Books 159947 Jerrys Auto Supply 476.03 03/03/2023 Air Filters Eq#329 W/O 58469 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 27 of 173 159948 Kelley Connect 257.13 03/03/2023 Equipment Contract Fees 159949 L N Curtis & Sons 7,350.60 03/03/2023 Air Cylinders 159950 Lad Irrigation Company Inc 50.35 03/03/2023 Misc Supplies 159951 Lake Auto Parts 104.81 03/03/2023 Misc Filters/Wiper Blades 159952 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP 8.00 03/03/2023 L151431 Short Paid 159953 Leslie Allan Barnett 465.00 03/03/2023 Training Registration 159954 Localtel Communications 1,073.35 03/03/2023 Internet 159955 Lowes 2,256.89 03/03/2023 Lowes Statement 2.2.2023 159956 Matrix Sciences International Inc.3,430.00 03/03/2023 Sample Testing 159957 McKesson Medical‐Surgical 407.28 03/03/2023 Medical Supplies 159958 Multi Agency Comm Center E911 61,756.25 03/03/2023 Dispatch Services 159959 National Academy of Ambulance Coding, In 25.00 03/03/2023 Training Course Book 159960 Norco Enterprises Inc 185.25 03/03/2023 Medical Oxygen 159961 Northstar Chemical Inc 1,993.75 03/03/2023 Sodium Hypochlorite Well #12 159962 Oreilly Auto Parts 85.59 03/03/2023 Hydraulic Filter 159963 Port Of Moses Lake 45.00 03/03/2023 Badge Fees D. Kilmer & A. Arredondo 159964 Protect Youth Sports 113.30 03/03/2023 Background Checks 159965 Pud Of Grant County 5.59 03/03/2023 7203200000 2.17.2023 159966 Qcl Inc 485.00 03/03/2023 Random & Pre Employment Testing 159967 Quill Corporation 449.17 03/03/2023 Date stamps 159968 Rexel USA 314.54 03/03/2023 Misc Supplies 159969 Salt Distributors, INC 52,288.75 03/03/2023 Salt 159970 San Diego Police Equipment 2,625.32 03/03/2023 TRT City Supplies 159971 Schindler Elevator Corp 357.59 03/03/2023 Elevator Maintenance Contract 159972 SHI International, Inc 480.63 03/03/2023 Monitor 159973 Shirtbuilders Inc 170.73 03/03/2023 Uniform T Shirt Printing 159974 Signs Now, LLC 248.73 03/03/2023 10" Round Logo Decals 159975 Sirennet.Com 712.39 03/03/2023 Seat Belt Retractors 159976 Summit Law Group 3,226.00 03/03/2023 HR Pro Services 159977 Traffic Safety Supply Company 747.96 03/03/2023 30" Green EC Film 159978 Trojan Technologies 26,139.96 03/03/2023 Lamp/Sleeve Kits/Sleeve Cup Nuts 159979 Univar Solutions USA, Inc.10,893.39 03/03/2023 Cal Hypochlorite 159980 Ups Freight 44.28 03/03/2023 Shipping & Service Fees 159981 Usa Blue Book 1,244.63 03/03/2023 2022 Misc Supplies 159982 Vimar Equipment Ltd.135.00 03/03/2023 Freight Board Brush Cly & Rod 159983 Wa Cities Insurance Authority 8,430.00 03/03/2023 Large Deductible Program 159984 Washington State Patrol 282.75 03/03/2023 Background Checks 159985 Weinstein Beverage Company 52.85 03/03/2023 Water 159986 WFCA: The Daily Dispatch 344.25 03/03/2023 Job Posting Advertisement 159987 Womer & Associates, Inc.2,786.05 03/03/2023 Plan Reviews 159988 Zoll Medical Corp 241.98 03/03/2023 Medical Supplies 544,888.04$ Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 28 of 173 Council Staff Report To:Agenda Item Number: From Department For Agenda of:Proceeding Type Subject Reviewed and Approved by: Expenditure Required:Amount Budgeted:Appropriation Required: Action Requested Packet Attachments (if any) Overview Fiscal and Policy Implications Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Provide Amended Direction: No Action Taken: Allison Williams, City Manager 9955 Richard Law, PE Municipal Services 3/14/2023 Consent Agenda COF Wastewater Pump Improvement Amendment City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services 19,200.00$19,200.00$0.00$ Staff recommends that City Council motion to approve the Contract Amendment Number 3. Wastewater Comp Plan Amendment No. 2 Fully Executed.pdf 1.23MB Amendment Number 2 Staff Report.pdf 304.78KB ML COF Pump Upgrade - Amendment No. 3 2023-03-02.pdf 739.23KB On August 24, City Council approved a contract amendment for Keller Associates to begin design work for replacing the aging wastewater pumps at the COF (see attached Staff Report and Amendment No. 2). In the course of that work, city staff and Keller Associates have identified additional work and options that should be investigated related to the pump types, discharge header layout, and a new wet well option. Keller Associates has proposed the attached Amendment No. 3. The Amendment Number 3 will increase the current contract limit by an amount of $19,200. The original Amendment cost limit was $65,900; and the new cost limit will be $85,100. Options and Results City Staff will execute Amendment Number 3 with the consultant. Staff will consider options for recommended changes. City staff will pause design efforts for the COF pump improvements.Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 29 of 173 222036 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 1 of 5 AMENDMENT TO OWNER-CONSULTANT AGREEMENT Amendment No. 2 Background Data: Effective Date of Owner-Consultant Agreement: February 11, 2022 Effective Date of this Amendment: Owner: City of Moses Lake Consultant: Keller Associates, Inc. Project: Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan KA # 222036 Nature of Amendment: The Owner is interested in replacing aging pumps, check valves, and pump control panels at their COF (Central Operations Facility) Pump Station located at the southeast corner of W. Cascade Avenue and W. Lakeside Drive in Moses Lake, Washington. The Owner has requested the following additional scope of services. Document Ref: QVTBC-V9HFI-GEME9-JCB4S Page 1 of 5 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 30 of 173 222036 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 2 of 5 Description of Modifications: ADD the following scope of services to Consultant’s work: PROJECT MANAGEMENT Consultant Responsibilities General Project Management. Provide general project administration services including contract administration, project accounting, progress reports, scheduling, and internal project administration. Kickoff Meeting. Participate in a project kickoff meeting. Prepare agenda and minutes. The purpose of this meeting will be to review/establish Owner design team, review the overall project schedule including major milestones and meetings, review objectives of the design, discuss available data and published materials that will be made available by the Owner, and review process for deliverables including process for Owner review and approval. Request for Information. Prepare initial request for information for data to be used in the design process. Owner Responsibilities • Provide meeting space for project meetings. Provide advertising as needed. Assumptions • Project management budget assumes a project schedule of up to four months. • Unless otherwise noted, meetings/workshops may include a combination of in person or virtual attendees. This assumption applies to this task as well as subsequent tasks. Deliverables • Monthly invoices and project update summaries. • Kickoff meeting agendas and minutes. • Request for information. PREDESIGN SERVICES Consultant Responsibilities Design Criteria. Document design criteria that will serve as basis for design. Lift Station Alternatives. Evaluate up to a total of two design alternatives with the Owner. Alternative evaluations are anticipated to be limited to the lift station components below. For each alternative, evaluation to include operations and maintenance considerations, benefits, drawbacks, costs, and consideration of non-cost factors. Pump type selection – vertical/horizontal non-clog or screw centrifugal pumps– flow requirement (1,900 gpm per pump). Both pump types will be evaluated with standard or immersible motors. VFD and soft start comparison for facility. 30% Design. Prepare 30% level mechanical, electrical plan, and instrumentation and control plan sheets for the lift station. Workshop Meeting. Meet with Owner to review concepts and alternatives and select preferred alternatives for design. Owner Responsibilities: • Provide input on lift station design criteria and preferred alternatives. Assumptions: • Pumps sizing will be in-kind with existing pumps capacities (1,900 gpm per pump). Document Ref: QVTBC-V9HFI-GEME9-JCB4S Page 2 of 5 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 31 of 173 222036 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 3 of 5 • Evaluation of pump head requirements (TDH) will not be evaluated and is assumed to match existing pumps (135-feet). • Surge analysis is not included in scope of work. • Primary components that will be replaced include pumps, check valves, pump control panels, and ultrasonic transducer. Deliverables: • Agenda and minutes for Workshop Meeting. FINAL DESIGN Consultant Responsibilities Plan Sheets. Prepare general, mechanical demolition, mechanical, electrical demolition, electrical, and instrumentation and control plan sheets for the lift station. Instrumentation and control plan sheets will include a one-line diagram. Prepare 50% and 95% review sets. Specifications. Prepare technical specifications. Technical specifications will be prepared to detail the materials, processes, and the products that are to be used in the construction of the lift station improvements. Prepare technical specifications table of contents for the 50% review set, and complete draft technical specifications for the 95% review set. 50% Design and Review Workshop Meeting. Submit 50% design review drawings and specifications table of contents to the Owner. Participate in a 50% design review workshop meeting. 95% Design and Review Workshop Meeting. Submit 95% design review drawings and specifications to the Owner. Participate in a 95% design review workshop meeting. Final Approval. Upon Owner review, Consultant will incorporate appropriate revisions into a final set of stamped drawings and specifications that will be used for bidding. Opinion of Probable Costs. Prepare up to two opinions of probable cost for the project at 50% and final design. Owner Responsibilities • Review and provide one set of consolidated comments on the 50% and 95% design deliverables. • Prepare front-end specifications and incorporate technical specifications deliverable into an overall project specifications manual. Assumptions • No modification to power will be required for the new pumping facilities other than possibly temporary power during construction which will be designed by Contractor. • Additional professional time for correspondence and meetings, due to an Owner initiated change in the project design, and/or project support above and beyond that described is considered an additional service. • Pump control panel will be a performance specification for the pump manufacturer. • City’s preference of Allen-Bradley panels will be incorporated into technical specification requirements for new pump control panels. • AutoCAD is to be used to prepare drawings and AutoCAD Civil 3D or Revit may be used for the mechanical and electrical design. • Plans and specifications are not required to be submitted to the Department of Ecology for review for rehabilitation of an existing facility. Record drawings will need to be submitted to Ecology following construction. Document Ref: QVTBC-V9HFI-GEME9-JCB4S Page 3 of 5 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 32 of 173 222036 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 4 of 5 Deliverables • 50% design submittal, including one PDF submittal (prepared in 22”x34” reviewed in 11”x17”). • 95% design drawings and technical specifications, including one PDF submittal (prepared in 22”x34” reviewed in 11”x17”). • 100% stamped design package, including one PDF submittal (prepared in 22”x34” reviewed in 11”x17”). • Opinion of probable cost (50% and final). FUTURE SERVICES The following future services may be added by amendment following the final design phase: • Services during Bidding • Construction Phase Services • Construction Observation Services • Project Closeout Compensation Summary: Task Type Amount Task 1 – Project Management LS $5,200 Task 2 – PreDesign Services LS $13,200 Task 3 – Final Design LS $47,500 TOTAL COST (Task 1 – 3) $65,900 Schedule: Consultant will complete services described within this amendment within 4 months of receiving requested information from the Owner. Document Ref: QVTBC-V9HFI-GEME9-JCB4S Page 4 of 5 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 33 of 173 222036 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 5 of 5 All provisions of the Agreement not modified by this or previous amendments remain in effect. In witness thereof, the parties hereto have executed or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials this Amendment to the Agreement on the respective dates indicated below. OWNER: CITY OF MOSES LAKE CONSULTANT: KELLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Signature: Signature: Name: Richard Law Name: Stillman Norton Title: City Engineer Title: Principal Address: 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, WA 99403 Signature: Telephone: (509) 295-6095 Name: Allison Williams Date: 7/20/2022 Title: City Manager Signature: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name: Katherine L. Kenison Title: City Attorney Date: 2022-08-16 Document Ref: QVTBC-V9HFI-GEME9-JCB4S Page 5 of 5 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 34 of 173 Signature Certificate Reference number: QVTBC-V9HFI-GEME9-JCB4S Document completed by all parties on: 17 Aug 2022 00:16:39 UTC Page 1 of 1 Signer Timestamp Signature Stillman Norton Email: stillman@kellerassociates.com Recipient Verification: Sent:10 Aug 2022 18:25:58 UTC Viewed:10 Aug 2022 18:33:50 UTC Signed:10 Aug 2022 18:34:45 UTC ✔Email verified 10 Aug 2022 18:33:50 UTC IP address: 67.60.199.178 Location: Lewiston, United States Richard Law Email: rlaw@cityofml.com Recipient Verification: Sent:10 Aug 2022 18:25:58 UTC Viewed:11 Aug 2022 16:44:48 UTC Signed:11 Aug 2022 16:45:06 UTC ✔Email verified 11 Aug 2022 16:44:48 UTC IP address: 63.135.54.162 Location: Moses Lake, United States Katherine Kenison Email: kkenison@cityofml.com Recipient Verification: Sent:10 Aug 2022 18:25:58 UTC Viewed:16 Aug 2022 21:33:17 UTC Signed:16 Aug 2022 21:33:37 UTC ✔Email verified 16 Aug 2022 21:33:17 UTC IP address: 63.135.54.162 Location: Moses Lake, United States Allison Williams Email: awilliams@cityofml.com Recipient Verification: Sent:10 Aug 2022 18:25:58 UTC Viewed:17 Aug 2022 00:16:13 UTC Signed:17 Aug 2022 00:16:39 UTC ✔Email verified 17 Aug 2022 00:16:13 UTC IP address: 63.135.54.162 Location: Moses Lake, United States Signed with PandaDoc PandaDoc is a document workflow and certified eSignature solution trusted by 30,000+ companies worldwide. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 35 of 173 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 36 of 173 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 37 of 173 222036-001 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT TO OWNER-CONSULTANT AGREEMENT Amendment No. 3 Background Data: Effective Date of Owner-Consultant Agreement: February 11, 2022 Effective Date of this Amendment: March 2, 2023 Owner: City of Moses Lake Consultant: Keller Associates, Inc. Project: Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan KA # 222036 Nature of Amendment: During the performance of the Comprehensive Wastewater System planning efforts, it was determined that additional wastewater flow would be routed through the COF pump station. This additional flow exceeds the current capacity of the lift station and required additional effort to complete the design. Additional effort includes reevaluating the pumping analysis under the new conditions, updating the pump and control valve sections, reevaluating and revised equipment layout, electrical modifications to accommodate larger equipment and structural modifications to the existing building. Description of Modifications: PROJECT MANAGEMENT ADD the following subtasks. Additional Meetings. Hold two additional coordination meetings: 1) to review updated pump selections, header design, equipment selection and other electrical changes to the project (held on 2/22/2023) 2) to review a 3rd option for a new wet well design located south of the existing attenuation basin. (tentatively scheduled for late March 2023) Task 1 – Assumptions CHANGE project schedule from “four months” to “ten months” Task 1 - Deliverables No Change PREDESIGN SERVICES REPLACE subtask 2.2 in its entirety with the following: Lift Station Alternatives. Evaluate up to a total of three design alternatives with the Owner. Alternative evaluations are anticipated to be limited to the lift station components below. For each alternative, evaluation to include operations and maintenance considerations, benefits, drawbacks, costs, construction phasing and consideration of non-cost factors. Pump analysis – Perform a pumping analysis from the COF pump station to the Dunes WWTP. Pumping analysis will include an evaluation of the system utilizing the existing 20” forcemain (which will be utilized at startup) and an evaluation of the system utilizing a new future 24” forcemain (which will be utilized for build out conditions) Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 38 of 173 222036-001 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 2 of 3 Pump type selection – vertical non-clog or screw centrifugal pumps, with a target combined flow rate of 5,800 gpm for full buildout conditions. Pumps will be evaluated with standard or immersible motors. Mechanical changes – evaluate modifications to existing mechanical header in drywell. Number of pumps – evaluate 1-duty pump up to 3-duty pump configurations with one redundant pump. Wetwell considerations 1) Evaluate the existing wet well and utilizing VFD’s with a flow pacing operation. Evaluate different locations for the VFD’s and impact to the site electrical system including construction phase and any improvements needed for site and backup power. 2) Evaluate the feasibility and size of a new wet well south of the attenuation basin with a volume capacity sufficient to operate the pumps on soft starts with a draw and fill operation. Wet well will be sized to accommodate submersible pumps. The wet well design will meet Washington State and Hydraulic Institute standards for wet well design. The evaluation shall consider options on how to overcome buoyancy forces. Furthermore, the consultant shall provide a high-level opinion of cost for the wet well structure including dewatering costs, provide concept drawings, list of pros and cons, and evaluate preliminary electrical loads for startup and build-out conditions. ADD subtask 2.5 as follows: Site Visit. The consultant will visit the COF pump station to evaluate the existing structure for possible modifications to accommodate new pump equipment and electrical gear (held on 1/19/23, electrical engineer scheduled to visit 3/9/23). Task 2 - Owner Responsibilities: • No Change Task 2 - Assumptions: REPLACE Task 2 Assumptions with the following: • Pump rate is based on 15% larger capacity than projected buildout influent flows from the comprehensive sewer plan (5,800 gpm) and will consider startup conditions and phasing in new pump and electrical equipment over time. • Surge analysis is not included in scope of work. • Primary components that will be replaced include pumps, check valves, pump control panels, and ultrasonic transducer. Task 2 - Deliverables: • No Change FINAL DESIGN • No changes at this time. To be re-evaluated following Owner’s selection of alternative in the pre-design phase. Final design currently only includes in-situ replacement of existing pumps, check valves, and control panels. Design of a new header or design of a new wet well will require additional design effort beyond what is currently scoped and require additional scope and budget. Additionally, if Owner proceeds with a new wet well and submersible pumps, both a topo survey and geotechnical will be needed. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 39 of 173 222036-001 AMENDMENT v2018.05.12 Page 3 of 3 Compensation Summary: Task Type Original Amount This Amendment Revised Cost Task 1 – Project Management LS $5,200 $1,500 $6,700 Task 2 – PreDesign Services LS $13,200 $17,700 $30,900 Task 3 – Final Design LS $47,500 - $47,500 TOTAL COST (Task 1 – 3) $65,900 $19,200 $85,100 Schedule: Consultant will complete remaining work under Task 1-3 within 3 months of execution of this amendment. All provisions of the Agreement not modified by this or previous amendments remain in effect. In witness thereof, the parties hereto have executed or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials this Amendment to the Agreement on the respective dates indicated below. OWNER: CITY OF MOSES LAKE CONSULTANT: KELLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Signature: Signature: Name: Richard Law Name: Stillman Norton Title: City Engineer Title: Principal Address: 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, WA 99403 Signature: Telephone: (509) 295-6095 Name: Allison Williams Date: 3/02/2023 Title: City Manager Signature: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name: Katherine L. Kenison Title: City Attorney Date: Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 40 of 173 Council Staff Report Expenditure Required:Amount Budgeted:Appropriation Required: Action Requested Agenda Item Number: 10031 Department Administration Proceeding Type Old Business To: Mayor and City Council From Allison Williams, City Manager For Agenda of: 3/14/2023 Subject DOH Associates Police Station Owner's Rep Contract Reviewed and Approved by: City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services 389,614.00$150,000.00$150,000.00$ Authorize the City Manager to enter in to the contract with the DOH Associates for Owner's Rep services. Packet Attachments (if any) Copy of estimated fees 230124.xlsx Feb 14 Staff Report and Agreement Overview 10.55KB At the February 14 meeting of the City Council, Council reviewed the potential contract for owner's rep services for the Police Station project. At that meeting, city staff provided an overview of the example of the services as provided for the Larson Recreation Center and how their services were necessary for a project of that size and scope, and in addition, change order savings were achieved that covered the cost of their contract. Council asked that representatives of DOH be present in order to get a better understanding of the services within the contract scope. The scope of services is an estimate of hours to be provided over the life of the project from schematic design to project closeout, including the one year warranty review. They also include special inspections within their contract. The detail is included as an attachment. Fiscal and Policy Implications The addition of an owner's rep for a project of this size is recommended by staff due to their ability to provide specialized oversight of the project on a regular basis. The fee provided is an estimate of hours, and the scope could be limited to start later in the process, however, staff recommends early involvement to ensure the project is also designed and specified with knowledge of local supply chain and bidding climate. Options and Results Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Staff will execute the contract. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 41 of 173 Provide Amended Direction: No Action Taken: Staff will bring back options for recommended changes. The contract will not move forward at this time. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 42 of 173 Code Rate-1 Code Rate-2 Code Rate-3 Code Rate-4 Code Rate-5 Totals Estimate Hours Estimated weekly hours 77.00$ 97.00$ 110.00$ 127.00$ 149.00$ Schematic Design 6-8 weeks 4,400.00$ 5,960.00$ 10,360.00$ 80 10Design Development 10 weeks 4,400.00$ 5,960.00$ 10,360.00$ 80 8 Construction Documents 16 weeks 4,400.00$ 5,960.00$ 10,360.00$ 80 5 Bidding 4-6 weeks Assume 4 site visits 924.00$ 7,920.00$ 8,940.00$ 17,784.00$ 144 24 Construction Administration 12-16 months Assume 70 weeks 48,510.00$ 6,208.00$ 115,500.00$ 83,440.00$ 253,658.00$ 2304 33 Closeout 2 months Assume 8 weeks 3,696.00$ 8,800.00$ 4,768.00$ 17,264.00$ 224 28 Mileage 240 trips 9,828.00$ 329,614.00$ Special Inspection Testing 60,000.00$ 389,614.00$ 2912 24.68 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 43 of 173 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR OWNER’S REPRESENTATION FOR MOSES LAKE POLICE STATION PROJECT CITY OF MOSES LAKE THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into at Moses Lake, Washington this 15th day of February 2023, by and between the CITY OF MOSES LAKE, State of Washington, hereinafter called the "City" and The DOH Associates, PS, a professional service corporation duly authorized to perform consultant services in the State of Washington, hereinafter called the "Consultant". IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS Whenever the term "City" is used herein, it is understood to mean the City of Moses Lake, of Grant County, Washington, or its authorized officers and the term "Consultant" means The DOH Associates, PS, or its authorized representative. ARTICLE II - OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT 1. Basic Services The basic services contemplated to be performed by the Consultant are outlined hereinafter. The City retains the right to perform any and all specific elements of such services and to accordingly reduce the work by the Consultant and remuneration to the Consultant by written modification to this Agreement or any subsequent task order. The basic services to be performed by the Consultant under this agreement are as follows: The scope of work is for providing owner representation for the Police Station project further detailed in Exhibit A. The City shall furnish the necessary information to direct each task order to be performed by the Consultant, and the Consultant shall rely upon the accuracy and completeness of the provided information. A. The Consultant shall supply the City with sufficient data to support their work and conclusions. B. If required by the task order, the Consultant shall, at the conclusion of the work, provide the City with a project report. The Consultant will accept the responsibility for all work involved in the production of the report. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 44 of 173 C. The parties intend that an independent Consultant/City relationship will be created by this Agreement. The City is interested primarily in the results to be achieved; subject to paragraphs herein, the implementation of services will lie solely with the discretion of the Consultant. No agent, employee, servant or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the City for any purpose, and the employees of the Consultant are not entitled to any of the benefits the City provides for its employees. The Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors or representatives during the performance of this Agreement. However, the results of the work contemplated herein must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City’s general rights of inspection and review to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. 2. Special Services Certain special services may be required to support the basic services to complete the tasks and assignments required by the City. The type and extent of such special services cannot be determined at the time of execution of this agreement. However, the Consultant agrees to perform such special services as may be required to accomplish the objectives assigned by the City; providing, however, the Consultant feels capable of performing such special services. Payment for this work shall be as agreed to in writing by both parties prior to beginning said work. Both the City and the Consultant shall mutually agree, in writing, to any special services, additional services, and/or changes in services under this agreement. 3. Nondiscrimination A. The City is an equal opportunity employer. B. Nondiscrimination in Employment. In the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap; provided that the prohibition against discrimination in employment because of handicap shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved. The Consultant shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without discrimination because of their race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. Such action shall include, but not be limited to: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and programs for training including apprenticeships. The Consultant shall take such action with respect to this Agreement as may be required to ensure full compliance with local, state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. C. Nondiscrimination in Services. The Consultant will not discriminate against any recipient of any services or benefits provided for in this Agreement on the grounds Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 45 of 173 of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. D. If any assignment and/or subcontracting has been authorized by the City, said assignment or subcontract shall include appropriate safeguards against discrimination. The Consultant shall take such action as may be required to ensure full compliance with the provisions in the immediately preceding paragraphs herein. 4. Indemnification Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Consultant’s waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 5. Ownership of Instruments of Service The service provided by Consultant is intended for one time use only. The City shall own all reports, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates, plans, specifications, record drawings, and other documents prepared by the Consultant. The Consultant shall provide the City with two hard copies and an electronic copy of any final report(s) required as deliverables of an approved task order. Final payment will not be made until Consultant provides the City with all reports, drawings, documents, and services prescribed under an approved task order. Any reuse of the deliverables beyond the scope of services outlined in a governing task order is prohibited without written authorization from the Consultant. Any reuse of the deliverables, including use by a third party, shall be without liability to the Consultant. 6. Right of Entry The City will provide for the right of entry for the Consultant, its subcontractors, and all necessary equipment in order to complete the work under this agreement. Any damage to property by the Consultant due to negligence of the Consultant or its employees shall be the responsibility of the Consultant. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 46 of 173 7. Control of Work and Job-Site Safety The Consultant shall be responsible only for its activities and that of its employees, sub- consultants, and specialty contractors on any site. The Consultant will not direct, supervise or control the work of other consultants and contractors or their subcontractors. Insofar as job site safety is concerned, the Consultant is responsible only for the health and safety of its employees, sub-consultants, and specialty contractors employed by the Consultant in carrying out its work. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the City of Moses Lake or any other consultant or contractors from their responsibilities for maintaining a safe job site. 8. Taxes Consultant accepts full and exclusive liability as between itself and The City for the payment of any and all contributions or taxes which are measured by wages, salaries, or other remuneration paid to persons employed by Consultant or its subconsultants, or assignees for the work to be performed hereunder, or which arise by virtue of Consultant’s employment, and which now or hereafter may be imposed by any governmental authority. Such contributions or taxes, shall include, but not be limited to, Unemployment Insurance, Worker’s Compensation, Old Age Retirement Benefits, Medicaid, Disability, Pensions or Annuities, and Income Taxes. Consultant shall comply with all laws and administrative regulations relating to such contributions or taxes. Consultant accepts full and exclusive liability for and shall pay all sales, use, gross receipts, and any other taxes arising from the fees paid to Consultant by the City for Consultant’s performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall complete and maintain its registration with the Washington State Department of Revenue and be responsible for payment of all taxes due on payments made under this Agreement. 9. Compliance with Laws and Warranty A. The Consultant, in the performance of this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in this Agreement to assure quality of services. B. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. C. The Consultant represents that it has the skills and knowledge necessary to competently provide the services set forth in Exhibit A and agrees to provide the professional services under this Agreement in accordance with the care and skill ordinarily used by members of the same profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same locality. The Consultant further agrees Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 47 of 173 that it shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished under this Agreement. The Consultant will re-perform at the City’s request any services not meeting this standard without additional compensation. ARTICLE Ill - OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY 1. Authorization The work required under this Agreement or any subsequent task order shall not begin, nor shall the City assume any obligation for the work involved until the Consultant is given authorization to proceed. Such authorization by the City Manager of Moses Lake shall not become effective prior to the date of execution of this Agreement or any task order specifically drafted for the work in question. 2. Information and Data In order to facilitate the work as outlined above, the City shall furnish to the Consultant all information having a bearing on the project that the City has, as requested by the Consultant. 3. Remuneration For the professional services as outlined in Exhibit A, the City shall reimburse the Consultant on a monthly basis for an invoice submitted by the Consultant as approved by the City pursuant to the rates and authorized expenses as outlined in Exhibit B. The City may require the invoice to reflect the Consultant’s original task order fee estimate to complete the work that was accomplished during the invoice period. No payment made to Consultant shall be construed as an acceptance of work or any portion thereof. ARTICLE IV - INSURANCE A. Insurance The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. No Limitation. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the Agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. B. Minimum Scope of Insurance Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 48 of 173 Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an additional insured under the Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using an additional insured endorsement at least as broad as ISO CG 20 26. 3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 4. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. C. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $2,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. 3. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $2,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 policy aggregate limit. D. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: i. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Notice of Cancellation The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation within Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 49 of 173 two business days of their receipt of such notice. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. Failure to Maintain Insurance Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days’ notice to the Consultant to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract. City Full Availability of Consultant Limits If the Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, the City shall be insured for the full available limits of Commercial General and Excess or Umbrella liability maintained by the Consultant, irrespective of whether such limits maintained by the Consultant are greater than those required by this contract or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the City evidences limits of liability lower than those maintained by the Consultant. ARTICLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Termination The City may terminate the Agreement without cause at any time by giving the Consultant 30 days’ written notice of such termination. If any portion of the authorized work covered by this Agreement and begun by the Consultant is abandoned, unreasonably delayed or indefinitely postponed by the City, the Consultant may also terminate this Agreement by giving 30 days written notice. The City may terminate the Agreement immediately at any time if the Consultant is in violation of any of the provisions of the Agreement. In the event of termination of this Agreement by either party, the Consultant shall be paid for all services rendered by the Consultant up to the date of termination, in accordance with the payment provisions of this Agreement. If the Consultant has any property in its possession belonging to the City, the Consultant will account for the same, and dispose of it in the manner directed by the City. 2. Personal Liability of Public Officials Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 50 of 173 Neither the City employees nor any elected official of the City shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or growing out of this Agreement. 3. Time Limitations and Jurisdiction For the convenience of the parties to the Agreement it is mutually agreed by the parties that any claims or causes of action which the Consultant has against the City arising from the Agreement shall be brought within 180 calendar days from the date of the end of the Agreement; and it is further agreed that any such claims or causes of action shall be brought only in the Superior Court of Grant County. The parties understand and agree that the Consultant's failure to bring suit within the time period provided, shall be a complete bar to any such claims or causes of action. It is further mutually agreed by the parties that when any claims or causes of action which the Consultant asserts against the City arising from the Agreement are filed, the Consultant shall permit the City to have timely access to any records deemed necessary by the City to assist in evaluating the claims or action. 4. Assignment and Subcontracting A. The Consultant shall not assign its performance under this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement without the written consent of the City, and it is further agreed that said consent must be sought in writing by the Consultant not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. The City reserves the right to reject without cause any such assignment. B. Any work or services assigned hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement and proper bidding procedures where applicable as set forth in local, state and/or federal statutes, ordinances and guidelines. C. Any technical/professional service subcontract not listed in this Agreement, must have express advance approval by the City. D. The Consultant shall be responsible and liable for the performance of its consultants, subcontractors or assignees who perform any portion of the work or services and shall provide in written agreements with them the same duties and obligations required of the Consultant under this Agreement. The City shall incur no additional costs as a result of any such subcontract or assignment and no liability to any subcontractor or assignee. 5. Changes Either party may request changes to the scope of services and performance to be provided hereunder, however, no change or addition to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such change or addition be in writing and signed by both parties. Such amendments shall be attached to and made part of this Agreement. A change in scope of services shall be approved by the City and executed in writing by the City Manager before Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 51 of 173 any changes in the scope of services are authorized. All terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be applicable to any change in the scope of services. 6. Notice Any notice that any party hereto desires or is required to give the other party shall be made in writing and sent by or certified mail, return receipt requested. Any such notice shall be deemed delivered upon deposit thereof in the United States mail with postage prepaid, addressed as follows: City of Moses Lake The DOH Associates Attn City Manager Attn Larry Gangle, Principal PO Box 1579 7 N Wenatchee Ave Moses Lake WA 98837 Wenatchee WA 98801 Notice may be sent by electronic mail (email). Email notice is accomplished if sent to the following email addresses of the parties. Email notice must be sent simultaneously to all representatives listed below at the listed email address: To City: Allison Williams awilliams@cityofml.com To Consultant: Larry Gangle larry@doharchitects.com Notice sent by email will not be deemed received upon transmission if sent outside of the City’s customary office hours; such notices will be deemed received on the City’s next business day. Emails returned as “undeliverable” shall not constitute an effective email notice. Any party may change the address hereinabove specified by giving written notice thereof to the persons identified in this Section. 7. Severability A. If, for any reason, any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of the United States to be illegal, void or unenforceable, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. B. If it should appear that any provision hereof is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, said provision which may conflict therewith shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith, and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provisions. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 52 of 173 8. Entire Agreement The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Further, any modification of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. Failure to comply with any of the provisions stated herein shall constitute material breach of contract and cause for termination. Both parties recognize time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement. It is also agreed by the parties that the forgiveness of the nonperformance of any provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of the provisions of this Agreement. 9. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when combined, shall constitute one single binding agreement. 10. No Presumption Against Drafter This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for all parties and no presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against the party drafting the document shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 11. Litigation Assistance If required, the Consultant agrees to assist the City in its preparation for arbitration, adjudication, or administrative proceedings and to testify and otherwise to provide evidence on the City’s behalf herein. Compensation for said services shall be based upon a time and material basis to be negotiated and agreed upon by the parties. 12. Waiver Waiver by the City of any default or breach of the Consultant of any provisions of this Agreement shall have no force or effect unless in writing, nor shall any waiver by the City of any default or breach of the Consultant be construed as a waiver of any other future default or breach of the same provision or any other provision of the Agreement. ARTICLE VI - SERVICES I. Scope of Work The Consultant shall assist the City and provide owner representation for the Police Station project as outlined in Exhibit A; II. Consultant’s Payment Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 53 of 173 Payment to the Consultant will be made after the billings have been approved by the City Council. The City Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. Billings received prior to the Tuesday preceding the Council meeting will be processed for the upcoming meeting. Consultant shall submit documentation, signed by the Consultant’s principal, listing personnel and their dates and hours worked. Fees shall be as listed in Exhibit B and are limited to those charges unless written advance authorization is provided by the City. This agreement expires December 31, 2026, unless an extension is mutually agreed to in writing by principals of both parties. CITY OF MOSES LAKE THE DOH ASSOCIATES, PS By:_____________________________ By:_______________________________ Allison Williams, City Manager Larry Gangle, Principal Date:_____________________________ Date:_____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Date:_____________________________ Katherine L. Kenison City Attorney Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 54 of 173 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 55 of 173 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 56 of 173 EXHIBIT B Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 57 of 173 Council Staff Report To:Agenda Item Number: From Department For Agenda of:Proceeding Type Subject Reviewed and Approved by: Expenditure Required:Amount Budgeted:Appropriation Required: Action Requested Allison Williams, City Manager 10036 Rich Huebner, Assistant City Manager Administration 3/14/2023 Old Business Municipal Airport Lease Rate City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Move to adopt the proposed updated Municipal Airport Lease Rate of $0.21, effective January 1, 2024, and to increase annually by the September to September West Coast-B/C All Urban Consumer Price Index, and direct staff to coordinate with the Municipal Airport Commission the finalization of an updated lease incorporating the new rate. Packet Attachments (if any) RCW 14.08.120 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 58 of 173 Overview Fiscal and Policy Implications Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Provide Amended Direction: No Action Taken: At the January 24, 2023 City Council meeting, staff provided an overview of the proposed Municipal Airport lease as submitted by the Municipal Airport Commission. As part of that presentation, staff presented portions of RCW 14.08.120, which relates to the Specific Powers of Municipalities Operating Airports. This section of RCW details the process by which municipalities operating airports may make property available at less than market rate value. While this section of RCW provides a pathway for municipalities to offer airport land at below market value, subsection (i)(v) states that such lease or other contract for community use is not to a for-profit organization or for the benefit of private individuals. To determine the City's current compliance with RCW 14.08.122, staff recommended and the City Council authorized a market rate analysis. Approximately 20 airports were contacted, of which 8 responded providing their current lease rates. One facility was deemed not comparable as it charges a flat rate plus excise tax (regardless of lot size), which does not align with the general industry rate structure, and one other facility was deemed not comparable as it is a regional commercial airport. The following six airports were deemed comparable, and provided the corresponding lease rates (all figures shown as per-square-foot): Brewster: $0.175 (aviation-related) / $0.242 (non-aviation-related) Chewelah: $0.21 Cle Elum: $0.204 Colville: $0.14 Othello: $0.25 Tonasket: $0.09 As reflected in the above list, only one comparable airport has two separate rates, and that facility separates charges into aviation-related and non-aviation-related. Moses Lake currently charges separate lease rates for commercial ($0.0759) and non-commercial ($0.1392) uses. Pursuant to MLMC 18.35.010, the property within the Municipal Airport Zone is "to be used in a manner that is compatible with general aviation airport and aircraft operations". Based on industry standard and the wording of MLMC 18.35.010, staff is recommending the elimination of separate rates and the adoption of one rental rate that will apply to all lessees. The average of the aviation-related and non-aviation-related rates listed above are $0.178 and $0.242, respectively. The average of these two rates is $0.21. This is the amount staff is recommending be adopted as the lease rate, to become effective January 1, 2024 and increase annually by the September to September West Coast-B/C All Urban Consumer Price Index. Based on current rates, the projected 2023 airport lease revenue is $32,983.26. The revenue projection at the proposed lease rate is $81,926.67. This action would go a long way toward stabilizing the Airport Fund 495 Budget. Options and Results Adoption of the updated Lease Rate will bring the City into compliance with the requirements of RCW 14.08.120. Staff will bring back options for recommended changes. Based on the findings of the market analysis, taking no action will keep the City out of compliance with RCW 14.08.120. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 59 of 173 3/8/23, 3:20 PM RCW 14.08.120: Specific powers of municipalities operating airports. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=14.08.120 1/4 RCW 14.08.120 Specific powers of municipalities operating airports. (1) In addition to the general powers conferred in this chapter, and without limitation thereof, a municipality that has established or may hereafter establish airports, restricted landing areas, or other air navigation facilities, or that has acquired or set apart or may hereafter acquire or set apart real property for that purpose or purposes is authorized: (a) To vest authority for the construction, enlargement, improvement, maintenance, equipment, operation, and regulation thereof in an officer, a board, or body of the municipality by ordinance or resolution that prescribes the powers and duties of the officer, board, or body; and the municipality may also vest authority for industrial and commercial development in a municipal airport commission consisting of at least five resident taxpayers of the municipality to be appointed by the governing board of the municipality by an ordinance or resolution that includes (i) the terms of office, which may not exceed six years and which shall be staggered so that not more than three terms will expire in the same year, (ii) the method of appointment and filling vacancies, (iii) a provision that there shall be no compensation but may provide for a per diem of not to exceed twenty-five dollars per day plus travel expenses for time spent on commission business, (iv) the powers and duties of the commission, and (v) any other matters necessary to the exercise of the powers relating to industrial and commercial development. The expense of the construction, enlargement, improvement, maintenance, equipment, industrial and commercial development, operation, and regulation are the responsibility of the municipality. (b) To adopt and amend all needed rules, regulations, and ordinances for the management, government, and use of any properties under its control, whether within or outside the territorial limits of the municipality; to provide fire protection for the airport, including the acquisition and operation of fire protection equipment and facilities, and the right to contract with any private body or political subdivision of the state for the furnishing of such fire protection; to appoint airport guards or police, with full police powers; to fix by ordinance or resolution, as may be appropriate, penalties for the violation of the rules, regulations, and ordinances, and enforce those penalties in the same manner in which penalties prescribed by other rules, regulations, and ordinances of the municipality are enforced. For the purposes of such management and government and direction of public use, that part of all highways, roads, streets, avenues, boulevards, and territory that adjoins the limits of any airport or restricted landing area acquired or maintained under the provisions of this chapter is under like control and management of the municipality. It may also adopt and enact rules, regulations, and ordinances designed to safeguard the public upon or beyond the limits of private airports or landing strips within the municipality or its police jurisdiction against the perils and hazards of instrumentalities used in aerial navigation. Rules, regulations, and ordinances shall be published as provided by general law or the charter of the municipality for the publication of similar rules, regulations, and ordinances. They shall conform to and be consistent with the laws of this state and the rules of the state department of transportation and shall be kept in conformity, as nearly as may be, with the then current federal legislation governing aeronautics and the regulations duly promulgated thereunder and the rules and standards issued from time to time pursuant thereto. (c) To create a special airport fund, and provide that all receipts from the operation of the airport be deposited in the fund, which fund shall remain intact from year to year and may be pledged to the payment of aviation bonds, or kept for future maintenance, construction, or operation of airports or airport facilities. (d) To lease airports or other air navigation facilities, or real property acquired or set apart for airport purposes, to private parties, any municipal or state government or the national government, or any department thereof, for operation; to lease or assign to private parties, any municipal or state government or the national government, or any department thereof, for operation or use consistent with the purposes of this chapter, space, area, improvements, or equipment of such airports; to authorize its Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 60 of 173 3/8/23, 3:20 PM RCW 14.08.120: Specific powers of municipalities operating airports. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=14.08.120 2/4 lessees to construct, alter, repair, or improve the leased premises at the cost of the lessee and to reimburse its lessees for such cost, provided the cost is paid solely out of funds fully collected from the airport's tenants; to sell any part of such airports, other air navigation facilities or real property to any municipal or state government, or to the United States or any department or instrumentality thereof, for aeronautical purposes or purposes incidental thereto, and to confer the privileges of concessions of supplying upon its airports goods, commodities, things, services, and facilities: PROVIDED, That in each case in so doing the public is not deprived of its rightful, equal, and uniform use thereof. (e) Acting through its governing body, to sell or lease any property, real or personal, acquired for airport purposes and belonging to the municipality, which, in the judgment of its governing body, may not be required for aircraft landings, aircraft takeoffs or related aeronautic purposes, in accordance with the laws of this state, or the provisions of the charter of the municipality, governing the sale or leasing of similar municipally owned property. The municipal airport commission, if one has been organized and appointed under (a) of this subsection, may lease any airport property for aircraft landings, aircraft takeoffs, or related aeronautic purposes. If there is a finding by the governing body of the municipality that any airport property, real or personal, is not required for aircraft landings, aircraft takeoffs, or related aeronautic purposes, then the municipal airport commission may lease such space, land, area, or improvements, or construct improvements, or take leases back for financing purposes, grant concessions on such space, land, area, or improvements, all for industrial or commercial purposes, by private negotiation and under such terms and conditions that seem just and proper to the municipal airport commission. Any such lease of real property for aircraft manufacturing or aircraft industrial purposes or to any manufacturer of aircraft or aircraft parts or for any other business, manufacturing, or industrial purpose or operation relating to, identified with, or in any way dependent upon the use, operation, or maintenance of the airport, or for any commercial or industrial purpose may be made for any period not to exceed seventy-five years, but any such lease of real property made for a longer period than ten years shall contain provisions requiring the municipality and the lessee to permit the rentals for each five-year period thereafter, to be readjusted at the commencement of each such period if written request for readjustment is given by either party to the other at least thirty days before the commencement of the five-year period for which the readjustment is requested. If the parties cannot agree upon the rentals for the five-year period, they shall submit to have the disputed rentals for the period adjusted by arbitration. The lessee shall pick one arbitrator, and the governing body of the municipality shall pick one, and the two so chosen shall select a third. After a review of all pertinent facts the board of arbitrators may increase or decrease such rentals or continue the previous rate thereof. The proceeds of the sale of any property the purchase price of which was obtained by the sale of bonds shall be deposited in the bond sinking fund. If all the proceeds of the sale are not needed to pay the principal of bonds remaining unpaid, the remainder shall be paid into the airport fund of the municipality. The proceeds of sales of property the purchase price of which was paid from appropriations of tax funds shall be paid into the airport fund of the municipality. (f) To determine the charges or rental for the use of any properties under its control and the charges for any services or accommodations, and the terms and conditions under which such properties may be used: PROVIDED, That in all cases the public is not deprived of its rightful, equal, and uniform use of the property. Charges shall be reasonable and uniform for the same class of service and established with due regard to the property and improvements used and the expense of operation to the municipality. The municipality shall have and may enforce liens, as provided by law for liens and enforcement thereof, for repairs to or improvement or storage or care of any personal property, to enforce the payment of any such charges. As used in this subsection (1)(f), the term "charges" does not refer to any minimum labor standard imposed by a municipality pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. (g) To impose a customer facility charge upon customers of rental car companies accessing the airport for the purposes of financing, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining consolidated rental car facilities and common use transportation equipment and facilities which are used to transport the customer between the consolidated car rental facilities and other airport facilities. The airport operator may require the rental car companies to collect the facility charges, and any facility Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 61 of 173 3/8/23, 3:20 PM RCW 14.08.120: Specific powers of municipalities operating airports. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=14.08.120 3/4 charges so collected shall be deposited in a trust account for the benefit of the airport operator and remitted at the direction of the airport operator, but no more often than once per month. The charge shall be calculated on a per-day basis. Facility charges may not exceed the reasonable costs of financing, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the consolidated car rental facilities and common use transportation equipment and facilities and may not be used for any other purpose. For the purposes of this subsection (1)(g), if an airport operator makes use of its own funds to finance the consolidated rental car facilities and common use transportation equipment and facilities, the airport operator (i) is entitled to earn a rate of return on such funds no greater than the interest rate that the airport operator would pay to finance such facilities in the appropriate capital market, provided that the airport operator establish the rate of return in consultation with the rental car companies, and (ii) may use the funds earned under (g)(i) of this subsection for purposes other than those associated with the consolidated rental car facilities and common use transportation equipment and facilities. (h) To make airport property available for less than fair market rental value under very limited conditions provided that prior to the lease or contract authorizing such use the airport operator's board, commission, or council has (i) adopted a policy that establishes that such lease or other contract enhances the public acceptance of the airport and serves the airport's business interest and (ii) adopted procedures for approval of such lease or other contract. (i) If the airport operator has adopted the policy and procedures under (h) of this subsection, to lease or license the use of property belonging to the municipality and acquired for airport purposes at less than fair market rental value as long as the municipality's council, board, or commission finds that the following conditions are met: (i) The lease or license of the subject property enhances public acceptance of the airport in a community in the immediate area of the airport; (ii) The subject property is put to a desired public recreational or other community use by the community in the immediate area of the airport; (iii) The desired community use and the community goodwill that would be generated by such community use serves the business interest of the airport in ways that can be articulated and demonstrated; (iv) The desired community use does not adversely affect the capacity, security, safety, or operations of the airport; (v) At the time the community use is contemplated, the subject property is not reasonably expected to be used by an aeronautical tenant or otherwise be needed for airport operations in the foreseeable future; (vi) At the time the community use is contemplated, the subject property would not reasonably be expected to produce more than de minimis revenue; (vii) If the subject property can be reasonably expected to produce more than de minimis revenue, the community use is permitted only where the revenue to be earned from the community use would approximate the revenue that could be generated by an alternate use; (viii) Leases for community use must not preclude reuse of the subject property for airport purposes if, in the opinion of the airport owner, reuse of the subject property would provide greater benefits to the airport than continuation of the community use; (ix) The airport owner ensures that airport revenue does not support the capital or operating costs associated with the community use; (x) The lease or other contract for community use is not to a for-profit organization or for the benefit of private individuals; (xi) The lease or other contract for community use is subject to the requirement that if the term of the lease is for a period that exceeds ten years, the lease must contain a provision allowing for a readjustment of the rent every five years after the initial ten-year term; (xii) The lease or other contract for community use is subject to the requirement that the term of the lease must not exceed fifty years; and Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 62 of 173 3/8/23, 3:20 PM RCW 14.08.120: Specific powers of municipalities operating airports. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=14.08.120 4/4 (xiii) The lease or other contract for community use is subject to the requirement that if the term of the lease exceeds one year, the lease or other contract obligations must be secured by rental insurance, bond, or other security satisfactory to the municipality's board, council, or commission in an amount equal to at least one year's rent, or as consistent with chapter 53.08 RCW. However, the municipality's board, council, or commission may waive the rent security requirement or lower the amount of the rent security requirement for good cause. (j) To exercise all powers necessarily incidental to the exercise of the general and special powers granted in this section. (2)(a) A municipality that controls or operates an airport having had more than twenty million annual commercial air service passenger enplanements on average over the most recent seven full calendar years that is located within the boundaries of a city that has passed a local law or ordinance setting a minimum labor standard that applies to certain employers operating or providing goods and services at the airport is authorized to enact a minimum labor standard that applies to employees working at the airport, so long as the minimum labor standard meets, but does not exceed, the minimum labor standard in the city's law or ordinance. (b) A municipality's authority to establish a minimum labor standard pursuant to (a) of this subsection may be imposed only on employers that are excluded from the minimum labor standard established by such city because the type of good or service provided by the employer is expressly excluded in the text of the city's law or ordinance. (c) This section does not authorize a municipality to establish a minimum labor standard for an employer who was excluded from the city's law or ordinance because it is a certificated air carrier performing services for itself or based on the employer's size or number of employees. (d) The authority granted under (a) of this subsection shall only apply to employers who provide the goods or services at the airport from facilities that are located on property owned by the municipality and within the boundaries of the city that enacted the minimum labor standard. [ 2021 c 106 § 1; 2020 c 96 § 1; 2010 c 155 § 1; 2009 c 124 § 1; 2005 c 76 § 1; 1990 c 215 § 1; 1984 c 7 § 5; 1961 c 74 § 2; 1959 c 231 § 2; 1957 c 14 § 1. Prior: 1953 c 178 § 1; 1945 c 182 § 8; Rem. Supp. 1945 § 2722-37. Formerly RCW 14.08.120 through 14.08.150 and 14.08.320.] NOTES: Effective date—2009 c 124: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [April 17, 2009]." [ 2009 c 124 § 2.] Continuation of existing law—1957 c 14: "The provisions of section 1 of this act shall be construed as a restatement and continuation of existing law, and not as a new enactment. It shall not be construed as affecting any existing right acquired under its provisions, nor as affecting any proceeding instituted thereunder." [ 1957 c 14 § 2.] Validating—1957 c 14: "The provisions of section 1 of this act are retroactive and any actions or proceedings had or taken under the provisions of RCW 14.08.120 through 14.08.150 or 14.08.320 are hereby ratified, validated and confirmed." [ 1957 c 14 § 3.] Appointment of police officers by port districts operating airports: RCW 53.08.280. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 63 of 173 Council Staff Report To:Agenda Item Number: From Department For Agenda of:Proceeding Type Subject Reviewed and Approved by: Packet Attachments (if any) Allison Williams, City Manager 10045 Kirsten Sackett, Director Community Development 3/14/2023 Old Business Authorization for Permanent Sleep Center Negotiations City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services Expenditure Required: $1,438,000.00 Action Requested Amount Budgeted: $ 1,438,000.00 Appropriation Required: $ 1,438,000.00 Authorize the City Manager to enter into negotiations for the acquisition of property identified by City Council intended for the location and development of a permanent Sleep Center facility. 2023-02-17-DRAFT Shelter Feasibility Report.docx 16.82MB Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 64 of 173 Overview Fiscal and Policy Implications Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Provide Amended Direction: No Action Taken: In August 2020, the City of Moses Lake developed a partnership with HopeSource to begin operations of the Open Doors Sleep Center located at 1045 Broadway. The facility was originally opened up as a temporary location offering 35 shelter units for individuals over 18 who were experiencing homelessness. The original lease was for a 2-year period ending in September 2022, however the property owner later agreed to extend the lease for an additional year. In anticipation of the need to find a permanent location the City contracted with ECONorthwest in May 2022 to help identify the best location for a permanent Sleep Center and to evaluate the financial feasibility of long-term operating costs. ECONorthwest originally analyzed a list of twelve potential sites identified for a permanent location, which was later narrowed down to three sites by the City Council Ad Hoc Homelessness Committee. The list of sites and the selection process are described in the attached DRAFT Feasibility Study dated February 17, 2023. Please be advised that this document is not the final version, and identified edits and revisions will be forthcoming. The three sites that were studied in most depth included 1) property owned by the City located on Central Drive (Parcel ID No: 10211300), 2) Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District (MLIRD) property on Wheeler Ave. (Parcel ID No. 91356226), and 3) the location of the former Kyoji's located on Broadway (Parcel ID No. 311282000). After further consideration the Kyoji's site was removed from the list of potential sites. However, the property owner of the existing temporary shelter location approached the City in late 2022 and requested that the existing site be added to the list of properties under consideration. The factors taken into consideration are found on page 8 of the Draft report, the sites are discussed on pages 9 through 14, and the Considerations and Recommendations from the consultant are discussed on pages 24 through 27. The final recommendation from the consultant was to pursue the MLIRD property for the site of a permanent location, for reasons described within the report. During the budgetary process City Council identified $1,400,000 in ARPA funding to be utilized towards the development of a permanent Sleep Center. Options and Results The City Manager will enter into negotiations for the acquisition of property intended for the development of a permanent Sleep Center. Staff will bring back options for recommended changes. The lease for the temporary shelter will end in September 2023 after which time the City will no longer have an overnight option for individuals experiencing homelessness, and will also no longer have the ability to prohibit camping in public. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 65 of 173 Moses Lake Sleep Center Feasibility Study February 17, 2023 Prepared for: City of Moses Lake DRAFT Report Park Place 1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 615 Seattle, WA 98101 206-823-3060 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 66 of 173 This page intentionally blank Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 67 of 173 Acknowledgements ECONorthwest prepared this report for City of Moses Lake. ECONorthwest and City of Moses Lake thank those who helped develop the Moses Lake Sleep Center Feasibility Study. Ad-hoc Homeless Committee Members  Allison Williams, City Manager  Kevin Fuhr, Police Chief  Kirsten Sackett, Community Development Director  Dean Hankins, Mayor  Don Meyers, Council Member  Deanna Martinez, Council Member City of Moses Lake  Allison Williams, City Manager  Kirsten Sackett, Community Development Director Consulting Team (ECONorthwest)  Tyler Bump, Project Director  Lee Ann Ryan, Project Manager  Ed Blackburn, Policy Advisor  Michelle Anderson, Technical Manager  Mackenzie Visser, Associate Client Contact: Allison Williams, City Manager Phone: 509-764-3702 Email: citymanager@cityofml.com ECONorthwest Contact: Tyler Bump, Project Director Phone: 503-200-5095 Email: bump@econw.com Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 68 of 173 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. SITE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 3. CONCEPTUAL OPERATING MODELS ................................................................................................................. 15 4. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 19 5. CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 24 APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 28 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................... 55 APPENDIX C: FEASIBILITY STUDY GUEST OUTREACH .............................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX D: CITY STAFF SITE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX E: FEASIBILITY CHARTS ........................................................................................................................... 75 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 69 of 173 This page intentionally blank Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 70 of 173 1. Introduction Background The City of Moses Lake, and Grant County overall, have seen increases in the number of people experiencing homelessness and at-risk of homelessness in the last few years. A 2022 preliminary point-in-time (PIT) homeless count by Grant County showed that the total number of homeless individuals has risen by 28 percent, from 509 in 2018 to 653 in 2022. During this time the number of sheltered homeless individuals rose, while the number of unsheltered homeless people declined, likely a result of pandemic related efforts. PIT data are often flawed and can paint an inaccurate picture of how homelessness may be trending, but they represent the best available public data source regarding homelessness. During its 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update, the City also identified an ongoing affordable housing crisis, characterized by a lack of affordable housing options for various income levels, exacerbated by low vacancy rates that result in years-long wait times for the too few affordable units. A growing population of those experiencing homelessness and scarce affordable housing options have both contributed to the City’s urgent action in addressing its spectrum of housing needs by providing more accessible and attainable resources, including emergency shelter, transitional housing, rental assistance, and updates to development regulations to help incentivize the production of more affordable units. Open Doors Sleep Center Feasibility Study Against the backdrop of these growing trends, in 2018, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cities could no longer prohibit people experiencing homelessness from camping in public unless they were provided with adequate shelter.1 In response to this decision, the City developed a partnership with HopeSource, a nonprofit service provider operating in the region, to open and operate the Open Doors Sleep Center, an overnight shelter with 35 shelter units for individuals 18 and older. The shelter opened in August 2020. With the lease for the Open Doors Sleep Center site set to expire in September 2023, the City seeks a permanent location for the facility and recognizes that there are many available resources and services for those experiencing homelessness and those who might be at-risk of homelessness, and that an improved Sleep Center can be an asset to congregate and leverage these resources. In May 2022, the City hired ECONorthwest to help identify the best location for 1 Robert Martin; Lawrence Lee Smith; Robert Anderson; Janet F. Bell; Pamela S. Hawkes; and Basil E. Humphrey v. City of Boise, 2018. Opinion No. 15-35845. Point-in-time (PIT) is a snapshot of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night. PIT counts are limited for several reasons: Counting methods vary across time and place, rely heavily on volunteers, and can be disrupted by weather. Community effort to produce an accurate count is not uniform across the country. Homeless populations tend to be transient by nature. These factors mean that despite best efforts, counts and data quality vary from year to year and from region to region. While comparisons across time and geographies can be valuable, the inherent inconsistencies in methods and accuracy must be kept in mind. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 71 of 173 the Sleep Center’s permanent location and evaluate the financial feasibility of operating it as 24/7 shelter. The City seeks options for combining current programs into one location while partnering with community service providers, to better meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness or those who may be at-risk of homelessness. Context Demographic and Market Analysis To better understand the needs of Sleep Center clients and how to leverage housing assistance and other resources, the City requested a citywide market analysis that sought to answer the following questions: (1) What demographic and economic trends in the region are contributing to homelessness? (2) What factors related to the housing market are contributing to homelessness? Building upon relevant information in the 2021 Moses Lake Housing Action Plan, ECONorthwest completed an updated demographic, socioeconomic, and housing profile of Moses Lake, with a particular focus on rental housing affordability and included a market analysis to better understand current factors affecting affordability and homelessness. The analysis revealed the City is experiencing a confluence of pressures, some of which are unique to the Moses Lake community and some which reflect broader statewide trends. Below are a set of key findings. The full analysis can be found in Appendix A.  Moses Lake has a greater share of renters than the County and the state, and more of these renters are very low-income (earning less than $25,000 per year).  Between 2010 and 2020, Moses Lake renters have experienced negative income growth while the market-rate for a 2-bedroom apartment grew by 30 percent. Not surprisingly, the share of renters who are cost-burdened – meaning they pay more than 30 percent of income toward housing costs – has grown while the statewide number has fallen.  Grant County’s population is younger and tends to live alone – and has grown more so over the past ten years -- in an area where housing unit growth has been predominantly single-family homes and second homes in areas of high recreational value.  Multifamily vacancy rates have generally been in decline in Moses Lake since the early 2010s. Low vacancy rates not only put upward pressure on housing prices, but can also make programs and policies such as Housing Choice Vouchers less effective as these approaches also require market vacancy.  Moses Lake’s median home sales price is unattainable to families earning less than 130 percent of the median family income (MFI) of $97,000, and current market rate rents for a 2-bedroom unit are not attainable for those earning 80 percent MFI and below. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 72 of 173 Stakeholder Engagement Throughout the project, ECONorthwest collected stakeholder input from community service providers (including HopeSource), city and county officials, and city staff in Moses Lake. The stakeholder interviews and focus groups informed each part of our analysis, helping our team to better understand the resources, needs, and barriers of people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity in Moses Lake, as well as the overall service landscape. Below is the list of groups ECONorthwest interviewed. Service Providers Regional Partners City Staff  HopeSource  Grant County Commissioner  Planning  Renew  Housing Authority of Grant County  Public Works  New Hope  City Manager  Serve Moses Lake  Moses Lake Food Bank Key themes emphasized by HopeSource staff included:  Community need: Limited affordable housing stock, inflation, and low vacancy rates have all contributed to rising housing costs in Moses Lake, putting many households at risk of eviction and homelessness.  Capacity: The Sleep Center is currently at capacity, with pressure increasing on service providers across Moses Lake as need for community resources increases.  Community partnerships: The on-site presence of community partners is an important aspect of the Sleep Center’s service model. HopeSource would like to expand opportunities for on-site partnerships and discussions. Key themes from the service provider focus group included:  Changing community: The needs and demographics of people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness are changing in Moses Lake as rising costs of living place economic strain on the community, leading to higher utilization of community service organizations.  Coordination: Increasing coordination between service providers is an important tool in efficiently connecting clients with services and resources, whether at the Sleep Center or in the community. In general, service providers expressed a desire for improved communication between organizations.  Barriers to service provision: Some clients have expressed frustration with Sleep Center power dynamics and protocols, and some members of the community are unwilling to engage due to an inability to bring pets, family members, or certain belongings. In addition, some clients have expressed a desire for more community gathering spaces and opportunities at the Sleep Center. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 73 of 173 2. Site Analysis The City originally leased a site at the intersection of Highway 17 and East Broadway Avenue for the Open Doors Sleep Center, with an understanding between the City and the property owner that it would be temporary (a maximum of three years). Exhibit 1: Site of Open Doors Sleep Center, Moses Lake Source: Grant County GIS Since the current lease agreement is set to expire in September of 2023, prior to engaging ECONorthwest to complete a feasibility study, the City began their own internal process of identifying potential new sites for a permanent location. While the City had an initial list of sites under consideration, staff were still open to identifying additional sites during the study. This section will provide a brief overview of the sites previously considered by the City, new sites identified by ECONorthwest during the site analysis, and context for how the final three sites were chosen to move forward with for the feasibility analysis. Potential Sites Previous Sites Examined The City began its search for a permanent location for the Sleep Center by first inventorying vacant publicly-owned parcels throughout the City and adding a few additional privately owned parcels that were either vacant or no longer in use. The table below shows the sites city staff provided to ECONorthwest for further analysis. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 74 of 173 Exhibit 2: Previous Sites Examined by City Officials and Staff Source: City of Moses Lake Additional sites Staff also wanted assistance in identifying any other possible sites for the Sleep Center outside of those that had been previously considered. Information from stakeholder interviews were valuable in helping ECONorthwest better understand important context for choosing a permanent location. The criteria used to identify additional sites was fairly simple, as there were a few critical components that would limit the number of available properties. 1. The site should be zoned for commercial uses, specifically C-2, since the City currently only allows “Sleep Shelters” in the C-2 zone per Ordinance 2969.2 2. The site should be for sale since the City is on a tight timeline for finding and setting up a new shelter by September 2023. Sites that are not for sale add risk that the property owner is either unwilling to sell or negotiations related to the acquisition may be too time consuming. 3. The site should be located in an area that is generally accessible to shelter guests. During interviews, ECONorthwest discovered that people experiencing homelessness often gathered near the library downtown because it offered access to computers and other services during the daytime. Areas near medical services such as the existing and future site of Samaritan Hospital were also considered. Site size would become more relevant in narrowing down the sites as additional information from stakeholder interviews and shelter spacing requirements was discovered. 2 “Sleeping shelters,” as defined in Section 18.03.040, shall be permissible for use in C-2 Zones when such shelters are administered by a public agency and/or nonprofit organization in conjunction with a public agency, when such public agency and/or nonprofit organization shall administer the use of sleeping shelters for the purpose of housing indigent people. The Building and Planning Officials may exempt any applicable building code regulations, planning regulations and/or permitting requirements as deemed necessary for such use after review, as permitted by WAC 51- 16-030, Exemptions for indigent housing guidelines. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 75 of 173 Utilizing this basic criteria and CoStar, a commercial real estate data source, ECONorthwest added four additional sites to consider as part of the site analysis. The table below shows the four sites added. Exhibit 3: Search Results for Additional Sites Source: ECONorthwest Site Evaluation Criteria Given that only three sites would be included in the feasibility analysis, the list of potential sites needed to be narrowed. The analysis under which the three sites would be selected was largely a qualitative exercise, focused on identifying opportunities and constraints for each site and scoring them accordingly. The table below summarizes site analysis criteria used to help determine the three most suitable sites for the feasibility analysis. Exhibit 4: Summary of Site Analysis Scoring Criteria Source: ECONorthwest Location In evaluating the site’s location, two major factors were taken into consideration: concerns raised from Moses Lake’s residential communities during previous siting discussions and accessibility for shelter guests. During the City’s internal process to identify possible sites for the shelter, members of the Moses Lake community raised concerns over siting the shelter near schools and parks. Staff and service providers also wanted to evaluate the sites based on their accessibility, both in terms of transportation and walkability to services such as the hospital or Renew, the library, or grocery stores like Safeway. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 76 of 173 Size Site size was an important consideration in narrowing down the site list, especially after conducting site planning exercises to balance fire protection requirements (e.g., shelter spacing and onsite fire truck circulation) and additional shelter units needed. The existing site is approximately 1.5 acres, and while walking the site and meeting with staff, it was clear that space for adding any additional units beyond the current 35 would be a challenge. Therefore, the site would need to be either the same size with more flexibility (e.g., a building on site for congregate shelter options or adjacent vacant land that offered expansion potential in the future) or it would need to be larger than 1.5 acres. Zoning As previously mentioned, the City currently only allows shelters in their C-2. To be realistic about the timeframe under which the shelter needed to move and become operational again (September 2023), it would be pragmatic to maintain the C-2 zoning to avoid a potentially lengthy rezoning process. Utilities Access to utilities onsite was another consideration made when selecting the three sites, as utility extension and installation can be costly. City staff coordinated internally with the Moses Lake’s Public Works Department to weigh in on each site’s existing utility access. The primary utilities taken into consideration were water and sewer. Public Works weighed in on other factors as well, including the presence of wetlands that could limit development potential. A memo summarizing their findings has been included in Appendix D. Site Acquisition Since the City had identified several sites that it already owned, which could help reduce costs, it was important to factor in whether the site would need to be acquired or not. Both an acquisition price and time required for possible negotiation and sale to occur (again in the context of a tight timeline to move the shelter by September 2023) were considered negative in the site evaluation. Existing Structures Sites were also evaluated on whether they had existing structures that could be used for additional shelter, office, and/or community space. This would prove valuable since HopeSource and city staff both agreed that additional indoor spaces would be useful and welcomed given the limited indoor space on the existing site. Level of Development Similar to acquisition, a site that would require a substantial level of development (e.g., vacant site with no existing onsite utility infrastructure) could quickly increase the level of investment. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 77 of 173 Sites that already had an existing building were assumed to have some level of onsite infrastructure and were considered positive attributes. Site Analysis Results Exhibit 5 below shows how each site scored relative to the evaluation criteria outlined in Exhibit 4. Green boxes indicate the site met or exceeded the criteria (e.g., the Irrigation District received a green square for location, as it is walkable to existing services or resources located downtown). Yellow boxes indicate a site met part of the criteria (e.g., the land adjacent to Samaritan Hospital was considered neutral in looking at site acquisition because it required acquisition, but it was also for sale, which would eliminate one barrier during the acquisition process). Red boxes indicate that a site did not meet the evaluation criteria (e.g., Longview tracts was considered negative when looking at zoning classification because it is not zoned C-2). Exhibit 5: Site Evaluation Scoring Summary Source: ECONorthwest Central Drive, Kyoji’s, and the Irrigation District Once the site evaluation was complete and after a discussion with city staff and the ad-hoc committee, it was decided that the study should move forward with evaluating the feasibility of using Central Drive, Kyoji’s, and the Irrigation District as options for the Sleep Center’s permanent location. Of note, the site shown on the far right side of Exhibit 5 also scored highly using the site evaluation. However, it was determined to be inappropriate for the Sleep Center given its close proximity to schools, the small lot and building size. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 78 of 173 Central Drive The Central Drive site is located between Central Drive and SR 17, near Home Depot. The City currently owns on the site and it has been under consideration for a new police station. The site is approximately five acres, which could be large enough to accommodate the new police station and the Sleep Center if the current preferred site plan option (2-story option) for the police station is selected (shown in Exhibit 6). The site plan as shown would need to be reconfigured to accommodate both. Some of the site’s challenges include being located near a new residential development, a park and located further away from downtown services. However, the Moses Lake Food Bank will be relocating to a site nearby Central Drive. Other challenges and cost factors are related to the level of development required to prep the site for the Sleep Center, as it is currently vacant with no paving. An aerial of the site is shown in Exhibit 7. Exhibit 6: Moses Lake PD Master Plan 2-Story Option, Central Drive Source: Moses Lake Police Department Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 79 of 173 Exhibit 7: Aerial View of Central Drive Site Source: Grant County GIS Irrigation District The Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District (MLIRD) site is located 932 East Wheeler Road, east of SR 17 and just south of the existing Sleep Center site. The site is privately owned but was most recently leased by the Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District. It was for sale as of January 2023. The site scored high primarily because of its location, the existing structure, and the minimal level of development it would require. The existing structure offers a level of flexibility the other sites did not, as it’s in very good condition and offers a variety of indoor spaces that could be used for congregate sleeping arrangements, office and community space, and a paved site where the individual shelter units could be placed. Some of the site’s challenges include its size at around 1.4 acres (slightly smaller than the existing site) and the fact that the City would need to acquire the site. Exhibit 8 below shows the MLIRD site. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 80 of 173 Exhibit 8: MLIRD Site Source: Grant County GIS Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 81 of 173 Exhibit 9: MLIRD Site Source: Google Maps Kyoji’s The former Kyoji’s restaurant site is located near Melva Lane and West Broadway Avenue, just off Interstate 90. The site is privately owned and was not listed for sale as of January 2023, though when approached by City staff regarding the site’s status, the property owner expressed interest in potentially selling the site. The site scored well in the site analysis primarily because it has an existing structure that could possibly be utilized (though city staff grew concerned over the structure’s integrity given that it has been vacant for several years), it had access to utilities, and it is already paved, meaning shelter units could be placed on site without much site preparation. However, after further evaluation and some site planning exercises, it was determined that the site was likely too small to accommodate the number of existing shelter units the City maintains at the Sleep Center while providing adequate fire access. The site also has an access easement that would further limit its development potential, though a title report would need to confirm its size and exact location. Given these challenges and the site’s lack of flexibility for further expansion, as well, City staff, the ad-hoc committee, and ECONorthwest all agreed to remove the site from further consideration. However, by the time that decision was made, the cost analysis for the site had already been completed so it has been provided for context. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 82 of 173 Exhibit 10: Kyoji's Site Source: Grant County GIS Exhibit 11: Kyoji's Site, Existing Structure Source: Google Maps Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 83 of 173 Existing Sleep Center Site In mid-December the property owner of the Sleep Center’s existing site approached the City, requested that the existing site be considered as a possible permanent location. Previously the owner had not been interested in continuing to lease the site to the City, nor had they expressed interest in selling the property. However, since Kyoji’s was removed from the list of sites, the existing site was added to the analysis. The Sleep Center’s existing site is approximately 1.5 acres and is largely surrounded by vacant land which offers room for possible expansion if necessary. It’s located at the corner of SR 17 and East Broadway Avenue. To prepare the site for the Sleep Center, it was hooked up to necessary utilities and the ground was leveled. Since the site currently houses the Sleep Center, the City would not have to spend additional money on moving the shelter operation. Exhibit 12: Existing Sleep Center Site Source: Grant County GIS Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 84 of 173 Exhibit 13: Moses Lake Sleep Center Shelters Source: ECONorthwest 3. Conceptual Operating Models As part of this project, the City of Moses Lake also wanted to understand ways in which the Sleep Center could offer a central location to gather and leverage other existing community resources for those at risk of or experiencing homelessness. There is a wide variety of emergency shelter operating models, some only operate overnight like the Open Doors Sleep Center, while some are open 24/7 and provide wraparound services onsite (typically considered to be an Enhanced Emergency Shelter). Emergency shelters can consist of free-standing units or congregate facilities within existing buildings. Each jurisdiction should work with local services providers to better understand needs and develop an operating model tailored to best meet those needs. Through meetings with city staff, the ad-hoc committee, local service providers, and HopeSource staff that work in the Sleep Center, ECONorthwest helped develop several conceptual operating models to help the City better understand costs associated with longer term goals. The operating models cover a range of options from maintaining the status quo on the existing site (since it became an option late in the project timeline) marginal improvements to the existing Sleep Center operation (i.e., bike racks, additional storage and shelter units) to 24/7 operation within a new building that could accommodate community and office space for additional onsite service provision, congregate sleeping arrangements, showers, laundry, and a kitchen for meal service. This section will provide an overview of each conceptual operating model to better understand the cost analysis presented in the next section. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 85 of 173 Exhibit 14: Sleep Center Conceptual Operating Models Source: ECONorthwest Scenario 0: Status Quo on Existing Site When the site became an option late in the project timeline, it was important to pivot and consider the site as a permanent option for the Sleep Center since it would help the City eliminate costs associated with moving the operation to a new site (which will be presented in Scenario 1). While there are no new costs to the City under this scenario, it’s important to highlight it as an option. Scenario 1: Status Quo + Moving costs + Site Upgrades Knowing that a new shelter operating model could be a substantial investment for the City to make and given that these new policy issues the City is grappling with, we felt it was important to provide a series of operating models that could also act as incremental steps towards the more long-term goal of providing shelter and wraparound services onsite at a central facility. Scenario 1 is intended to represent a possible next phase for the Sleep Center (depending on the site selected). The scenario is based on the existing operating model but includes additional “wish list” items we gathered through stakeholder engagement and conversations with HopeSource and city staff. These upgrades to the existing model include:  Site preparation costs, including grading, paving, or graveling sites  Excavation for utility work and utility connection costs  Installation of five additional shelters, for a total of 40  Air conditioning and heat upgrades to shelters Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 86 of 173  One additional bathroom trailer, in addition to relocation and installation of current trailer  Additional storage areas  Installation of a bike rack  Staff time associated with upgrade operations These costs vary by site, and not all costs would be applicable to every site; for example, the MLIRD utility costs would be much lower, given the existing functional building on the site. We felt it was important to evaluate these costs given the City’s initial timeline of needing to relocate the Sleep Center by September 2023. Given the short timeframe, moving costs (outside of a potential site acquisition cost) would be the City’s first set of expenses. Scenario 1 also accounts for the moving costs associated with relocating the existing Sleep Center, including the existing shelters, office trailer, and bathroom trailer. Moving costs presented in the next section include the following components:  Temporary sleeping arrangements for current Sleep Center guests during moving operations (these costs do not apply to the existing site or the MLIRD, as clients could remain onsite at either location)  Relocation and installation of office and bathroom trailers  Relocation and installation of shelters  Staff time associated with moving operations Scenario 2: New Central Building Scenario 2 introduces a major step towards achieving the long-term goal of providing a centralized facility previously mentioned. This scenario introduces the investment of constructing a new building on the vacant sites (MLIRD is the only site with a ready to use building that could likely meet many, if not all, of the City’s long-term goals). Major cost components of this scenario include:  Constructing a new building or upgrading the MLIRD: costs were estimated for a 6,000 square foot building, containing community space, storage, office space, as well as dormitory, bathrooms, laundry, and kitchen areas. In addition to construction costs, total costs include soft costs and contingency fees for the planning and development of the site. Costs included considerations for Central Washington market costs, prevailing wage requirements, and local taxes.  Moving to a 24/7 operating model: costs include promoting existing five part-time peer specialists to full time and hiring an additional full time “Sleep Center lead”. Costs assume there are always at least two peer specialists onsite, benefits (such as healthcare and PTO costs) scale by hours worked, and consider minimum wage increases and annual wage escalations. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 87 of 173 Scenario 2 also moves the shelter from an overnight shelter to a 24/7 operating model, which may help resolve issues that arise from incongruent operating hours with other community services. For example, since the existing shelter only operates from 6pm-8am, when a guest is seeking housing assistance from the Housing Authority of Grant County, they may be able to fill out the application at the Sleep Center but they are unable to file their application that same day time or receive assistance with their application since the Housing Authority likely closes at 5pm. Aligning business hours with other community services could help streamline processes and increase follow-through with assistance programs. Additionally, because Sleep Center guests must vacate the facilities at 8am each day, guests must transport themselves and their belongings to wherever they will spend their day. Because guests do not have a place to store their belongings, they must also bring their belongings to any appointments or errands they have to attend to (such as healthcare appointments, housing case management, or dropping off paperwork). In addition, guests must ensure they are back at the Sleep Center early enough to secure shelter for the night. The time and energy spent accessing safe shelter each day can be a significant barrier to guests achieving more long-term housing stability. Scenario 3: New building + Additional Onsite Services Scaling back to more incremental investments, Scenario 3 includes the new facility introduced in Scenario 2 but also includes costs associated with providing additional onsite services to guests of the Sleep Center. Both city and HopeSource staff have expressed the importance and desire of providing more centralized services for shelter guests to help eliminate the need to travel (often on foot), reducing barriers to services such as behavioral health services, housing and employment assistance to help facilitate more successful outcomes for guests. Scenario 3 would also operate under a 24/7 model, and includes the addition of onsite partner service providers, such as mental healthcare providers, substance use counseling, or housing case manage. Costs associated with these services included:  Two onsite partner service providers, each onsite for eight hours total per week  One part-time “services coordinator” to manage onsite service provision, onsite for 20 hours per week Scenario 4: New Building + Additional Onsite Services + Meal Service Scenario 4 is very similar to Scenario 3, but again offers another step towards achieving the City’s long-term goal of providing a comprehensive set of services in one central location. The key differentiator between Scenario 3 and 4 is the provision of meal service. Initially, meal service was included in Scenario 3 alongside onsite service providers, but since it can be a costly service to provide, the ad-hoc committee wanted to isolate those costs in another scenario to bookmark another service goal for the longer term. Assumptions for providing meal service on site include: Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 88 of 173  Cold breakfast, such as a granola bar, pastry or cereal  A sack lunch, similar to sack lunch currently provided by Care Moses Lake  A hot dinner, prepared in bulk (such as soup or pasta) 4. Feasibility Analysis While a major goal for this study was to help the City identify an appropriate permanent location for the current Sleep Center, the City also has more long-term goals of creating a center facility to congregate services and resources. The feasibility analysis for the Moses Lake Sleep Center provides high-level costs associated with the suite of operating scenarios (designed to achieve long-term goals) outlined in the previous section, so local decision-makers understand the level of investment required to achieve each scenario. ECONorthwest developed low and high end costs for each scenario, and the costs in this section represent the high-end. The range of costs can be found in Appendix E. The feasibility analysis consists of three key components: the operational analysis, development analysis and the financial analysis. Operational Analysis Covered in the previous section, the City wanted to evaluate the feasibility of several new operating scenarios, understanding that implementation of the City’s long-term goals would likely be incremental. The operational analysis includes the four scenarios previously outlined, along with their associated costs and various considerations for operating them. Development Analysis A development analysis was necessary to understand the potential range of necessary capital investments related to implementing each scenario. This could include things like moving the existing operating model to a new site, extending any necessary utilities, purchasing new shelter units, retrofitting the units with air conditioning and heat, installing a fence, or building a new structure. Financial Analysis The financial analysis covers the ongoing operating costs over a 10-year horizon so the City can understand the level of investment needed annually to operate the various operating scenarios. Summary of Results Exhibit 15 shows high-level capital investments needed, including the construction costs of a new facility on the vacant sites proposed under Scenario 3 and 4. The costs below include the price range in which acquisitions costs for a new property might fall, costs for moving the existing shelter program to a new site along with necessary and desired upgrades, and construction costs for the new facility proposed under Scenarios 2-4. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 89 of 173 Kyoji’s would likely require the most capital investment given the potential purchase price and assuming likelihood the existing structure on site would need to be demolished given to its long-term vacancy and observed condition. However, as noted previously, it was determined that staff and the ad-hoc committee were no longer interested in considering the site given its high costs and size constraints. Central Drive offers the lowest capital investment at around $1.6 million, as the city already owns the site and would not have to factor to acquisition costs. The existing site could cost up to $1.7 million in investments depending on acquisition costs (which are fairly low compared to the other sites given its assessed value). MLIRD could cost up to $1.9 if the property sells for the listing price of about $1.26 million (as of January 2023). Capital costs by category are discussed in more detail below. Exhibit 15: Capital Costs, All Scenarios Land Prices Land prices are a challenging variable in this analysis, as only the MLIRD site was on the market with an asking price to work from. We also knew it could be potentially detrimental to the City’s negotiating power to assume a market rate sales price for the other sites not currently on the market without thorough and necessary research, which was outside the scope of this analysis. We also knew that comparing assessed value to an actual sales price would not be an accurate comparison since land does not always trade close to assessed value. Given these uncertainties, we have shown a range in which a sales price might fall, using the MLIRD site as a proxy since we knew both its assessed value and its asking price. The MLIRD site was on the market as of December 2022, with an asking price of $1.26 million (seen on CoStar), and the property’s assessed value was about $620,000 (2022). We applied the same markup observed on MLIRD to the other sites to establish the possible range of sale price Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 90 of 173 for a better comparison. However, this method is imperfect as well. For example, the assessed value on the existing site is much lower compared to the other sites and without a title report to review, it is difficult to know why. The site could be encumbered by an easement or wetlands or other factors that may limit its development potential, causing it to be valued much lower. The site is also vacant with few improvements (outside of the existing temporary shelter) which is likely a contributing factor. Exhibit 16: Conceptual Land Prices Source: Grant County Assessor, Co-Star, and ECONorthwest Moving Costs and Site Upgrades Exhibit 17 shows high-level moving costs and site upgrades assumed to occur when the City selects a site and moves the existing shelter operation (Scenario 1). As discussed earlier in the report, the sites will require some upgrades to support the existing operation (e.g., fencing, utilities, etc.) and there were also several “wish list” items (e.g., bike racks, additional storage, etc.) the City and Hope Source staff wanted to incorporate once the permanent location was decided upon. Those costs are represented in yellow, alongside the land prices discussed in the previous section. Isolating the moving costs and site upgrades, Central Drive will require the most investment as the site is currently undeveloped and would require some site leveling, paving, and utilities in order to support any shelter scenario. The MLIRD site would require some necessary utility upgrades to prepare the building for any additional water service. The costs shown below represent the total costs for acquiring the site (if necessary), moving the existing shelter to the new site, and making both necessary and “wish list” upgrades. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 91 of 173 Exhibit 17: Upfront Moving Costs and Site Upgrades Source: ECONorthwest New Building In Scenarios 2-4, it is assumed a new building will be built on the vacant sites and upgrades made to the MLIRD site and building. Exhibit 18 shows the new facility costs across all the sites. Considering this is a high-level analysis, and a much more detailed construction cost estimate would be needed prior to advancing to Scenario 2, our study assumes the building itself would cost the same, approximately $1.23 million, to construct on any of the vacant sites. Therefore, it does not account for any unique opportunities or challenges associated with new construction on a particular site. The building is assumed to be around 4,000 square feet, including 1,000 square feet of dorm space, 700 square feet of community space, a 1,200 square foot bathroom and shower space, a kitchen, storage, and an office. The $400,000 for the MLIRD site would include building upgrades such as a laundry room, kitchen, and new bathrooms. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 92 of 173 Exhibit 18: New Shelter Facility Costs Source: ECONorthwest Ongoing Operating Costs Exhibit 19 shows the 10-year annual average operating costs by scenario, including annual adjustments for inflation. A more detailed breakdown of annual costs over the 10-year period for each scenario is included in Appendix E. These annual operating costs do not include the one-time capital costs discussed in the previous sections, they are considered to be the maintenance and operation dollars after one-time investments are made. Maintaining the current shelter model (Scenario 0)3, which is a year-round, overnight 16-hour operation, requires an annual average of approximately $590,000. This represents current ongoing costs of the existing Sleep Center. If the Sleep Center, as it exists today were to move to a 24/7 model (Scenario 2), ongoing average annual operating costs increase to about $810,000. If the City were to maintain a 24/7 operating model and add two onsite partner service providers and one part-time “services coordinator” to manage onsite service provision (Scenario 3), it would require approximately an additional $80,000 annually. Operating costs nearly double (approximately $1.13 million) from current operating costs if the City were to operate the shelter as a 24/7 model, add additional onsite service providers and include meal service (Scenario 4). 3 Scenario 1 is not included in the ongoing operating costs, as Scenario 1 represents the Sleep Center’s current model plus additional capital investments of moving to a new site and making one-time upgrades. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 93 of 173 Exhibit 19: 10-Year Average Annual Ongoing Operating Costs Source: ECONorthwest Note: Operating costs were modeled off the existing site operations, but sites are assumed to be similar in terms of operating costs except for the MLIRD site because the building already includes bathrooms and offices. MLIRD site is assumed to cost approximately $20,000 less annually. 5. Considerations and Recommendations Moses Lake finds itself sharing a housing crisis with many of its peers up and down the West Coast. Overpriced housing and a growing number of households who are either experiencing homelessness or at risk of falling into homelessness, are making homeless policy a more prevalent and urgent challenge than both Moses Lake and Grant County have had to face in the past. The City and County’s homeless population also face personal challenges, but research demonstrates that housing market factors are the primary drivers of homelessness compared to substance abuse, physical disabilities, or mental disabilities. Put simply, the state, the region, and the county do not have enough housing for all who want to live here. The homeless crisis will not abate until localities embark on production strategies that keep pace with future household formation and address the legacy of underproduction. Identifying, and acting on, the numerous ways regional agencies could support production is among the most important homeless-reduction work. Given the nature of the problem, possible solutions to help address homelessness would need to work in four areas: 1) sustained, increased production of housing units at all price points, 2) increased funding for rental subsidies for poor and near-poor households, 3) expansion of services and supports for those who are currently homeless or at high-risk of becoming Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 94 of 173 homeless, and 4) expansion of emergency shelter beds and new alternatives.4 While potential solutions must address the four areas, Moses Lake is focused on its existing emergency shelter program, and how to both optimize and expand its operation to create a place for those who most immediately need safe shelter. Considerations Site Selection and Central Facility When it comes to selecting one of the sites analyzed, acquisition costs are where the City has the most room for negotiation and can quickly level the playing field among sites in terms of up- front capital costs, making a seemingly more expensive investment like the MLIRD site more comparable to Central Drive and the existing site. If a lower-than-expected sales price is negotiated, more qualitative components may be the deciding factor such as location, access to services, or ability to reach long-term goals more quickly. Selecting a site with existing site improvements such as a parking lot and a building, mitigate the need to construct a new building when looking to achieve Scenario 2 and beyond. Constructing a new building introduces time and risk for costs to escalate, as it can take more than a year to design, permit, construct, and operationalize a new facility. Selecting a site with a building also eliminates some of the ongoing costs for trailer rentals, which currently add up to around $30,000 annually. The City would continue to sustain those costs during construction of a new facility in order to keep the Sleep Center running. While selecting a site with an existing building could require a more substantial upfront investment, it helps the City achieve major components of Scenario 2 in far less time. Whereas the City may not achieve Scenario 2 for a few years if a vacant site is selected and the shelter continues to operates as-is. There are potential cost-saving mechanisms available to the City when considering the operating costs for adding a central building to the current shelter model. A building, whether through the MLIRD site or constructed by the City, offers an option to share space with community partners that could help offset costs through monthly rent. The MLIRD site also offers the immediate opportunity for sanctioned RV parking, as unsanctioned RV parking was mentioned as a growing issue in Moses Lake. This could also occur on the existing shelter site or Central Drive, but not on a paved surface. Policy Considerations Making a higher cost policy choice, such as investing in a new permanent location for the Sleep Center or constructing a building to better centralize services and resources, is challenging, especially for small rural cities with tight budgets that are grappling with new issues. However, higher-cost policy choices such as investments in homelessness infrastructure, financial assistance programs, or permanent supportive housing could help the City to reach struggling households and community members in more impactful and sustainable ways. More 4 Ingrid Gould Ellen and Brendan O’Flaherty, How to House the Homeless (Russell Sage Foundation, 2010). Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 95 of 173 investment in resources may not only directly help those at-risk or experiencing homelessness, it could also help improve service provider conditions. Funding to provide additional service at the Sleep Center may help increase the number of service providers and reduce caseloads, or increase staff pay to help prevent overload and burnout. Recommendations Moses Lake’s challenging housing market limits the near-term policy options. It took more than a decade to create the legacy deficit of housing units in the state and region, and it will take more than a few years to correct it. As long as rental vacancy rates remain low, rents elevated, and the production of affordable housing marginal (in comparison to the overall market) the City will be in the position of managing the crisis rather than mitigating it. While the City should develop longer term plans to bolster housing production and affordable housing production, in the coming months it must focus on the need for continued short term intervention and select a permanent location for the Open Doors Sleep Center that can meet the City’s short-term needs of relocation and offer the opportunity to achieve its long-term goal of providing a facility with more centralized services. ECONorthwest recommends the City of Moses Lake purchase the MLIRD site as the permanent location for the Sleep Center for several reasons:  Existing building: the MLIRD site offers an existing building that is or has recently been operational and will likely be in suitable condition for immediate use, whereas constructing a new facility to achieve better service provision will take several more years and more time introduces more risk, particularly when looking at construction cost escalations.  The building also allows the City to achieve many of the components in Scenario 2 nearly immediately, helping the city towards its long-term goals must faster than if a new building was constructed. HopeSource staff that work onsite at the Sleep Center would have additional working space, and guests could have more privacy during check-in and service visits. The additional indoor space also offers shelter from the elements while guests wait for check-in.  The building also offers temporary sleeping arrangements for guests while the City moved the shelter units to the new site. Otherwise, the City would likely incur costs sheltering guests while they relocate the shelter operation to its permanent location5.  The building also offers the option for more capacity in an indoor congregate setting. This could be additional capacity for just women, families with children, or more additional capacity for all those over the age of 18, depending on best practices.  Acquiring this type of asset offers the potential to sell the site in the future should that need arise. It also creates an opportunity to bank land that could be used for 5 Temporary shelter costs would only occur if the City selected Central Drive. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 96 of 173 affordable housing development in the future if the shelter is moved or no longer needed.  Parking lot: the paved parking lot offers site area to maintain the outdoor portion of the shelter operation as it exists today.  The parking lot also creates an option for sanctioned RV parking.  Surrounding vacant land: the site is also surrounded by vacant land to the north and east, which could provide additional opportunities for expansion by adding more outdoor shelters, RV parking, facility expansion, or transitional housing, depending on need. Central Drive would require full site development to in order to accommodate even the existing shelter model, as it lacks extended utilities from the right-of-way and would need some kind of site leveling work before structures could be placed. Additionally, the site is located in an area where new residential development has and will continue to occur, which will likely create concern from residents. The site is also under consideration for a new police station, which could limit the amount of developable area for a shelter operation. It should also be noted, that while some stakeholders interviewed saw a shared site between the shelter and the police station as a benefit given the enhanced security aspect, other stakeholders felt it could deter people from using the shelter. The existing site became an option late into the study when the property owner requested the site also be considered for the permanent location, even though they had previously declined the City’s attempt to negotiate another lease extension to keep the shelter on that site. While the existing site would eliminate moving costs, the site would still require significant site development if a building were to be constructed. The amount of developable land on the site would require additional study. Being at the intersection of two state highways would likely require significant right-of-way improvements and could retract from buildable area. It is also possible the site has wetlands or access easements that could also limit its current and future development potential. These factors could possibly help explain its low assessed value. As previously mentioned, city staff, the ad-hoc committee, and ECONorthwest all agreed that Kyoji’s would not be an appropriate site given its size, location, and lack of flexibility for any kind of future expansion. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 97 of 173 Appendix A: Demographic and Housing Market Analysis Executive Summary The City of Moses Lake has engaged ECONorthwest to evaluate options for the permanent relocation of its Open Doors Sleep Center, which has served the City’s homeless population for almost two years. To inform this evaluation, ECONorthwest conducted a market analysis to identify demographic, community, economic, and housing-market-related trends impacting homelessness. Our findings reveal that the City is experiencing a confluence of pressures, some of which are unique to the Moses Lake community and some which reflect broader statewide trends. Among them:  Moses Lake has a greater share of renters than the County and the state, and more of these renters are very low-income (earn less than $25,000 per year).  Between 2010 and 2020, Moses Lake renters have experienced negative income growth while the market-rate for a 2-bedroom apartment grew by 30 percent. Not surprisingly, the share of renters who are cost-burdened – meaning they pay more than 30 percent of income toward housing costs – has grown while the statewide number has fallen.  Grant County’s population is younger and tends to live alone – and has grown more so over the past ten years -- in an area where housing unit growth has been predominantly single-family homes and second homes in areas of high recreational value.  Multifamily vacancy rates have generally been in decline in Moses Lake since the early 2010s. Low vacancy rates not only put upward pressure on housing prices, but can also make programs and policies such as Housing Choice Vouchers less effective as these approaches also require market vacancy.  Moses Lake’s median home sales price is unattainable to families earning less than 130 percent of the median family income (MFI) of $97,000, and current market rate rents for a 2-bedroom unit are not attainable for those earning 80 percent MFI and below. Ultimately the housing stock in Moses Lake is not meeting the needs of many of its residents, particularly its lowest income earners, leaving them homeless or at risk of homelessness. Scarce housing resources and options, low vacancy rates, and an existing housing stock that is not attainable to many of the City’s low-income earners are also contributing factors. The following information is presented to help the City as it makes decisions regarding housing and homeless-related resources. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 98 of 173 Introduction Background The City of Moses Lake, and Grant County overall, have seen increases in the number of people experiencing homelessness and at-risk of homelessness in the last few years. A 2022 preliminary point-in-time (PIT) homeless count by Grant County showed that the total number of homeless individuals has risen by 28 percent, from 509 in 2018 to 653 in 2022. During this time the number of sheltered homeless individuals rose, while the number of unsheltered homeless people declined, likely a result of pandemic related efforts. PIT data are often flawed and can paint an inaccurate picture of how homelessness may be trending (see Sidebar), but they represent the best available public data source regarding homelessness. Against the backdrop of this trend, the City and County have taken important steps to develop programs and leverage resources to mitigate growing concern from the community. Additionally, in 2018, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cities could not prohibit homeless people from camping in public unless they were provided with adequate shelter.6 In response to this decision, the City developed a partnership with HopeSource to open and operate the Open Doors Sleep Center, an overnight shelter with 35 shelter units for individuals 18 and older. The lease for the Open Doors Sleep Shelter is set to expire in September 2023, and the City seeks a permanent relocation for the facility. The City recognizes that there are many available resources and services for those experiencing homelessness and those who might be at-risk of homelessness, and that an improved Sleep Center can be an asset to congregate and leverage these resources. Purpose of the Market Analysis The City hired ECONorthwest to help identify the best location for the Sleep Center’s permanent location and evaluate the financial feasibility of operating it as an overnight or a 24/7 shelter. The City seeks options for combining current programs into one location while partnering with community service providers, to better meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness or those who may be at-risk of homelessness. To better understand the needs of Sleep Center clients and how to leverage housing assistance and other resources, the City seeks answers to the following questions: (3) What demographic and economic trends in the region are contributing to homelessness? 6 Robert Martin; Lawrence Lee Smith; Robert Anderson; Janet F. Bell; Pamela S. Hawkes; and Basil E. Humphrey v. City of Boise, 2018. Opinion No. 15-35845. Point-in-time (PIT) is a snapshot of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night. PIT counts are limited for several reasons: Counting methods vary across time and place, rely heavily on volunteers, and can be disrupted by weather. Community effort to produce an accurate count is not uniform across the country. Homeless populations tend to be transient by nature. These factors mean that despite best efforts, counts and data quality vary from year to year and from region to region. While comparisons across time and geographies can be valuable, the inherent inconsistencies in methods and accuracy must be kept in mind. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 99 of 173 (4) What factors related to the housing market are contributing to homelessness? Ultimately the housing stock in Moses Lake is not meeting the needs of many of its residents, particularly its lowest income earners, leaving them homeless or at risk of homelessness. Scarce housing resources and options, low vacancy rates, and an existing housing stock that is not attainable to many of the City’s low-income earners are all contributing factors. Building upon relevant information in the 2021 Moses Lake Housing Action Plan, this memo provides an updated demographic and socioeconomic profile of Moses Lake, with a particular focus on rental housing affordability. It also includes a market analysis to better understand current factors affecting affordability. Housing Market Factors Influence Homelessness More than Personal Circumstances The theoretical tie between housing affordability and homelessness is relatively straightforward. The cost of housing at the extreme low- end of the market rises to levels that crowd out spending on food, clothing, childcare, and essential items to such a degree that some individuals and families have no other choice but to move onto the streets or into emergency shelters. In other cases, individuals and families may face an emergency expense (such as a car repair or medical bill) and, without adequate income or savings, are evicted. For many households, private struggles collide with low incomes and high-cost housing, leaving too little cushion to deal with everyday challenges and still maintain stable housing. In each of these situations, supply-side factors relating to access to housing at a range of affordability levels come into play as well as extenuating circumstances. Much research empirically demonstrates this link between housing and homelessness.7 In 2001, economists John Quigley and Steven Raphael linked housing affordability—rather than personal circumstances—as predictive of rates of homelessness across the United States. In 2018, UCLA economist William Yu identified the same strong links and described homelessness as an unfortunate conjunction of difficult personal circumstances “in the wrong kind of housing market.”8 This study identified five primary housing market and income factors that statistically significantly affect homelessness: 1) median home values, b) median rents, c) median household incomes, d) housing supply growth, and e) population density. 7 See for example: John M. Quigley and Steven Raphael, “The Economics of Homelessness: The Evidence from North America.” European Journal of Housing Policy 1, no. 3 (2001): 323-336. Maria Hanratty, “Do Local Economic Conditions Affect Homelessness? Impact of Area Housing Market Factors, Unemployment, and Poverty on Community Homeless Rates,” Housing Policy Debate 27, no. 4 (March 20, 2017): 1- 16, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2017.1282885; Chris Glynn and Emily B. Fox (2017). “Dynamics of homelessness in urban America,” (Durham, NH: College of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire). 8 William Yu, “Homelessness in the U.S., California, and Los Angeles,” June 18, 2018, video, 15:30, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOxcDJY3ens Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 100 of 173 More recently, in 2020 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed the factors influencing changes in homelessness in 20 continuums of care (CoCs) across the country.9 This econometric analysis controlled for a variety of housing, demographic, and economic variables and consistently found that changes in a CoC’s median rent were positively linked to increases in the homelessness rate, and determined that nationally, a $100 increase in the median rent resulted in a 9 percent increase in the incidence of homelessness in that CoC. In addition, increases to the share of housing stock that was renter occupied were statistically significantly related to decreases in the rate of homelessness in that CoC (indicating that housing supply and production are vastly important). Demographic Analysis To help the City better understand its community members and how they interact with the housing market, following is a brief demographic analysis that examines population growth, age trends, household size, and income. Most data are presented as trends over time (comparing 2020 to 2010) and comparing Moses Lake to Grant County and to Washington state. The most important factors from the demographic analysis in understanding inflows into homelessness are income and housing tenure by income. Key Takeaways  Moses Lake has grown much faster than the County over all since 2000. Moses Lake’s population grew by 74 percent, while the County grew by 36 percent overall.  Housing unit growth has outpaced household growth. This is likely due to the number of second homes held in Grant County, particularly in areas like Crescent Bar, Quincy, and around Moses Lake.  Moses Lake and Grant County have a very young population who live alone relative to the state. Fifty-four percent of the population of Moses Lake is under the age of 35, compared to 46 percent statewide. Most Moses Lake households are single-person households, including nearly half of renters.  Moses Lake renter income, already lower than the state, is experiencing negative growth while market rents are growing. A higher percentage of renters in Moses Lake and Grant County earn less than $50,000 per year than the state overall, and 48 percent of them are cost-burdened. Between 2010-2020, the median household income for renters in Moses Lake decreased slightly while incomes for Grant County and the state increased by over 20 percent during the same time period. At the same time, the market- rate rent for a 2-bedroom apartment grew by 30 percent in Moses Lake. 9 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Better HUD Oversight of Data Collection Could Improve Estimates of Homeless Population,” GAO-20-433 July 2020, Available from: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-433. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 101 of 173  Grant County’s homeless population grew by roughly 28 percent between 2018-2021. However, the PIT data in 2021 is challenging to work with due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and may not accurately represent the true state of the issue. Population Change and Housing Units Moses Lake’s population grew twice as fast as the County and the state between 2000 and 2022, but housing unit growth outpaced growth in households. Between 2000 and 2022, Moses Lake’s population increased by about 76 percent, adding 11,000 residents, which accounted for approximately 41 percent of Grant County’s total population growth. Moses Lake’s average annual population growth rate (AAGR) also outpaced both Grant County and the state over the 2000 to 2022 period. See Exhibit 1 for change in population. Exhibit 20. Change in Population, 2000–2022 Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, intercensal population estimates for 2000, 2010, and 2020; postcensal estimates for 2022. Over the 2010 to 2020 period, Moses Lake’s households have grown about 12 percent while its housing unit stock grew by about 23 percent. Grant County and Washington State saw increases in households in similar ranges (8 percent and 13 percent respectively), but the state’s increase in households outpaced the increase in housing units (13 percent and 11 percent, respectively). Exhibit 21. Change in Households and Housing Units, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2010–2020 Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates (for household counts); Washington Office of Financial Management (for housing unit counts). Household Count Housing Unit Count 2010 2020 Diff. Pct Chg 2010 2020 Diff. Pct Chg Moses Lake 7,402 8,283 881 12% 8,365 10,257 1,892 23% Grant County 29,427 31,908 2,481 8% 35,083 38,635 3,552 10% Washington 2,577,375 2,905,822 328,447 13% 2,886,948 3,202,239 315,291 11% Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 102 of 173 Age characteristics Moses Lake’s population is younger than the state overall. Moses Lake has a relatively young population, with 54 percent of the population under the age of 35. Over the 2010 to 2020 period, Moses Lake’s age distribution has remained relatively similar, with a slight increase in the share of residents 65 and older. Exhibit 22. Moses Lake’s Change in Population Distribution by Age Category, 2010–2020 Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 103 of 173 The age distribution of residents in Moses Lake and Grant County are quite similar. Both Moses Lake and Grant County have a larger relative share of residents 20 or younger compared to the state. Exhibit 23. Population Distribution by Age Category Comparison, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2020 Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2020 5-year estimates. Tenure and Renter Household Income Moses Lake has a greater share of renters than the County and the state, and more of these renters are very low-income (earn less than $25,000 per year). Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 104 of 173 The share of residents’ tenure (owner or renter) in Moses Lake has remained mostly the same over the 2010 to 2020 period, with only a slight increase in owner occupancy. Grant County saw a similar shift during that time period.  Moses Lake has a slightly higher percentage of renter-occupied units than both Grant County and the state, overall. Exhibit 24. Tenure of Residents Comparison, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2010–2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates.  Over the past decade, the income of Moses Lake renters has increased less than that of the State and Grant County. Renters earning over $100,000 have increased by more than 13 percent at the state level, compared to only 3.7 percent in Moses Lake and 4.6 percent in Grant County.  At the other end of the income distribution, Grant County and the state have seen a much more dramatic decrease in the number of renters earning less than $25,000 than has Moses Lake. Exhibit 25. Change in Distribution of Renters by Household Income Tranche, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2010–2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates. Household characteristics Moses Lake has many more single-person rental households than the County and the state. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 105 of 173  Nearly half (46 percent) of all renters in Moses Lake were single-person households in 2020. By comparison, about 28 percent of Grant County renters were single-person households, and about 37 percent of renters statewide were single-person households.  Two-person renter households comprised 23 percent of all renter households in Moses Lake, compared to 20 percent in Grant Count and 29 percent across the state. Exhibit 26. Household Size by Tenure, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020 5-year estimates. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 106 of 173 Household Income In Moses Lake, renters’ income decreased, compared to growth at the County level and statewide When adjusted for inflation, the median household income of Moses Lake renters slightly decreased by about one percent (or, $410) between 2010 and 2020.  The median household income of renters across Grant County and the state, however, increased.  Over the 2010 to 2020 period, the median household income of Grant County renters increased by 23 percent (or, by about $7,750). Statewide, the median increased by 25 percent, or by about $10,300. Exhibit 27. Median Household Income of Renters Comparison, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2010–2020 (in 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates. Employment The cyclical nature of Grant County’s unemployment could be a result of seasonal work, such as farming. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 107 of 173 The unemployment rate in Grant County is more cyclical than the state. In quarter one (winter) of every year since 2012, the unemployment rate peaks and then subsequently declines into quarter two and quarter three (spring and summer). The unemployment rate in quarter four of each year tends to be higher than quarter two and quarter three.  The cyclical nature of the County’s unemployment may have implications for homelessness and the Sleep Center, which may also deal with seasonality. Exhibit 28. Change in Unemployment Rate, Grant County and Washington, 2012Q1–2022Q2 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS). Estimate of the Population Experiencing Homelessness The count of people experiencing homelessness grew in Grant County between 2018 and 2021, though the count of unstably housed people has declined. Reliable measurement is key to defining a public policy problem, and measurement of homeless populations is inherently challenging. The most commonly cited source of data on homelessness is the Point-in-Time Counts (PIT) organized by US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Conducted by local Continuums of Care (CoCs), HUD requires a count of the total number and characteristics of all people experiencing homelessness in each CoC’s region on a specific night in January. CoCs count people living in emergency homeless shelters, transitional housing, and Safe Havens every year, and count unsheltered homeless persons every other year. Population Experiencing Homelessness in Grant County Grant County and several of its neighbors are part of the “Balance of State” CoC, which means that the detailed data on homelessness in the community are rolled up and reported in aggregate with numerous other communities. This makes analysis of the population challenging. The Washington State Department of Commerce oversees the state’s PIT efforts and, while it does report some county level information, information is limited. Below represents the publicly available information on the population in Grant County experiencing homelessness. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 108 of 173 Exhibit 29. Grant County Homeless Persons by Household Type, 2018-2021 Source: Washington State Department of Commerce Supplemental PIT Reports, https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving- communities/homelessness/annual-point-time-count/ 2018 2019 2020 2021 % Chg Minor Household (<18), No Children (<12) 0 <11 0 <11 N/A Youth (age 18-24) 67 78 60 65 -3% Adult (>25) Only Households 284 322 358 420 48% Single Parent with Minors (<18) 95 107 82 113 19% Two Parents with Minors (<18) 63 92 69 52 -17% Unknown Household Type 0 0 0 <11 N/A TOTAL 509 600 569 653 28% As Exhibit 29 demonstrates, Grant County has had roughly 500-600 individuals experiencing homelessness in the past several years, but this increased to 653 in 2021. The PIT data in 2021 is challenging to work with due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and may not accurately represent the true state of the issue. The US Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is not comparing 2020 and 2021 PITs due to the data disruptions, suggesting that counts are too low in 2021. 10 The Council describes several of the reasons that the data are incomplete, including the following:  Many communities did not complete a full unsheltered count.  Many shelters had to decrease total capacity due to social distancing protocols.  Many volunteer counting efforts may have seen lower volunteer turnout and may have had a harder time counting people experiencing homelessness due to social distancing protocols in place at the time.  Many communities used Federal stimulus funds to house those experiencing homelessness or provide rent assistance to keep people from losing their homes.  Federal and state eviction moratoria and unemployment benefits were also in place at this time, meaning that those who might have lost their homes due to the economic consequences of the pandemic were not evicted (many of whom would have ended up homeless). Grant County System Performance Exhibit 30 demonstrates a few performance metrics for Grant County’s homeless system compared to state averages for 2017 and 2019. Most statistics have worsened both at the state and in Grant County. Grant County has shorter average stints of homelessness, but lower successful exits to permanent housing and higher returns to homelessness. These worsening performance metrics speak to the multifaceted and systemic challenges of providing homeless 10 US Interagency Council on Homelessness. 2022. “Findings—and Limitations—of the 2021 Point-In-Time Count.” https://www.usich.gov/news/findingsand-limitationsof-the-2021-point-in-time-count/ Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 109 of 173 assistance services in the face of rising home prices and rents. As the state and local housing markets have seen price and rent increases in the past decade, the influx of people entering homelessness has overwhelmed many response and assistance systems. Exhibit 30. Homeless System Performance Metrics, Grant County & Statewide, 2017 & 2019 Source: Washington State Homeless System Performance County Report Cards, https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/comhau Category Region 2017 2019 Length of time homeless (days) Grant Co 28 57 State Avg. 87 157 Successful exit to permanent housing Grant Co 38% 52% State Avg. 42% 43% Return to homelessness Grant Co 6% 14% State Avg. 10% 19% Population Experiencing Homelessness in Moses Lake Recent publicly available data on the homeless population in Moses Lake specifically does not differentiate by household type. In both 2020 and 2021, the City counted 54 individuals as experiencing homelessness (33 were unsheltered in 2021; shelter status was not available for 2020). Preliminary data for 2022 counted 59 individuals with 20 listed as unsheltered. ECONorthwest is conducting focus groups and interviews to learn more about the Sleep Center’s clients and the population experiencing homelessness in Moses Lake. Once the stakeholder engagement is completed, this section will be supplemented with those findings. Populations at Risk of Homelessness in Grant County Exhibit 31 demonstrates information on people who are considered to be unstably housed in Grant County, by household type. A quick comparison of Exhibit 31 below and Exhibit 29 above demonstrates that there are many more people considered at risk of homelessness compared to those actually counted as experiencing homelessness.11 Page 48 provides information on the number of renter households in Moses Lake specifically who are experiencing cost burdening. Low-income renter households who are paying a high share of their income on rent are at significant risk for eviction and homelessness. Exhibit 31. Grant County Unstably Housed Persons by Household Type, 2018-2021 Source: Washington State Department of Commerce Supplemental PIT Reports, https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/homelessness/annual-point-time-count/ 2018 2019 2020 2021 % Chg Minor Household (<18), No Children (<12) 0 <11 0 <11 N/A Youth (age 18-24) 235 187 168 156 -34% 11 Commerce used two state databases to estimate the data in Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 12. It defines unstably housed as people who reported their current living arrangement as “homeless with housing” in one database or as those who are engaged with homeless prevention services in the other database. Source: https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/b6agnullntw2a8sq4q68sztdood4g8wm Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 110 of 173 Adult (>25) Only Households 801 828 826 945 18% Single Parent with Minors (<18) 471 422 306 361 -23% Two parents with Minors (<18) 253 239 234 154 -39% Unknown 0 0 0 <11 N/A TOTAL 1,760 1,677 1,534 1,620 -8% Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 111 of 173 Market Analysis ECONorthwest conducted a housing market analysis to understand if the City’s housing stock is meeting the needs of its residents. According to the literature discussed in the introduction, the most pertinent information from the market analysis for understanding the risk of homelessness are:  Rents and changes in rent  Vacancy rates and changes in vacancy rates  Rental cost burdening by income  Production of units  Stock of attainable rental units  Stock of regulated affordable units This section of the memo examines Moses Lake’s performance in each of the indicators above, both in the current market and as a trend over time. Key Takeaways  Grant county is overproducing housing units relative to household formation, but they are largely single-family homes and second homes in areas of high recreational value. Given the low vacancy rates and the degree of which renter households are burdened, the majority of units recently produced are likely financially unattainable for many Moses Lake residents, particularly low-income renters.  57 percent of the housing units built between 2016 and 2020 are single-family and 42 percent of the units are multifamily.  Between April 2021 and April 2022, Moses Lake permitted an additional 191 housing units, 82 percent of them were single-family units. These units have not been confirmed as finalized (or rather, built) yet.  Moses Lake has a relatively large supply of income-restricted units compared to some other larger cities in central and eastern Washington. However, it is an older housing stock and the City has not seen any recent income-restricted developments.  The share of renters who are severely cost-burdened increased by 7 percent between 2010 and 2020, whereas the share of severely cost-burdened renters across the state decreased by 2 percent during that same period. Low-income renter households who are paying a high share of their income on rent are at significant risk for eviction and homelessness.  Median home sale prices and rents are unattainable for many Moses Lake residents, especially for the lowest income earners. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 112 of 173  Since December 2019, Moses Lake’s median home sales price rose to $387,000 in May 2022. A household would need to earn 130 percent of the median family income (MFI) to afford the median sale price.  Market-rate multifamily rent for all bedroom sizes increased by 53 percent in Moses Lake over the 2012 to 2022 period to $1,243 per month. Two-bedroom units had the largest rate increase at 57 percent to $1,437 per month in 2022. These rates are unattainable for households earning less than 80 percent MFI.  Between 2010-2020, the median household income of Moses Lake renters decreased by one percent, when adjusted for inflation. At the same time, the market-rate rent for a 2-bedroom apartment grew by 30 percent in Moses Lake.  Very low rental vacancy rates create steep competition for what few attainable rental units might exist. Multifamily vacancy rates have generally been in decline in Moses Lake since the early 2010s. Low vacancy rates not only put upward pressure on housing prices, but can also make programs and policies such as Housing Choice Vouchers less effective as these approaches also require market vacancy. Market Trends Since the 1960s, the U.S. has created about 1.10 housing unit for every household that has formed. Households form when people move into a new area, when children leave their parents’ homes, or when roommates come together or split up. A ratio higher than 1:1 allows for a natural amount of vacancy, the presence of second homes, and units falling into obsolescence. Exhibit 32 shows the ratio of housing units to household formation by county for the state of Washington. Grant County shows a ratio of 1.85, which means that Grant County has produced more than enough housing units to support the number households that have formed in the County between 2010 and 2020. However, while enough housing units have been produced to account for the number of households forming in Grant County, the housing units are likely not meeting the specific needs of many of the County’s households (i.e. homes built are not financially attainable for many residents in Moses Lake). This section will explore residential market trends in Moses Lake to better understand housing production relative to the population’s demographics. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 113 of 173 Exhibit 32. Ratio of Housing Units to Household Formation, Grant County 2010-2020 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management Existing Housing Stock  As of 2020, Moses Lake’s housing stock is primary single-family residential o For this table, multifamily is defined as any housing type that is attached. Exhibit 33. Number of Occupied Housing Units by Tenure in Moses Lake, 2020 Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates. Total Units Renter- Occupied Share Single Family 6,254 1,359 22% Multifamily* 2,029 1,974 97% Total 8,283 3,333 40% Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 114 of 173 Recent Development Trends  Between 2016 and 2020, there were nearly 800 housing units issued and finalized. Approximately 52 percent of them were for single-family homes. o About 42 percent of the finalized units were multifamily and 5 percent were townhomes.  Data for April 2, 2021 to April 1, 2022 is limited, and thus, is not reported in the chart. However, over that period, 191 total housing units were associated with housing permits. Of those units, 82 percent were 1-unit structures, two percent were 2-unit structures, eight percent were 3-unit structures, and an additional eight percent were 4-unit structures apiece. Exhibit 34. Number of Housing Units with Finalized Permits in Moses Lake, 2016–2020 Source: Redfin. Home Sales Median home sale price has accelerated since the pandemic. Moses Lake’s monthly median sales price for single family homes closely tracks Grant County’s.  Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the median home sales price in Moses Lake reached a peak of $280,000 in December 2019 ($246,000 for Grant County).  Since December 2019, Moses Lake’s median home sales price rose to $387,000 in May 2022, a change of $107,000 (or, 38 percent growth). Exhibit 35. Median Single-Family Home Sales Price Comparison, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, Feb 2012 – May 2022 Source: Redfin. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 115 of 173 Rental Rate Trends Moses Lake median rents have grown more almost 40 percent since 2010. The figure below shows median monthly rents in Moses Lake from 2010 to 2020. Multifamily rents have risen steadily since 2012, increasing more sharply since 2020. With too few regulated affordable housing units (those that are income or rent restricted to be affordable to how income households) in the county, many low-income households are at risk of rising rents and increasing rates of cost burdening. Moses Lake’s median gross rent (which includes utility costs) increased by 39 percent over the 2010 to 2020 period.  At the same time, Grant County’s median gross rent increased by 34 percent, and the state’s grew by 52 percent. Exhibit 36. Change in Median Gross Rent, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2010–2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates. Median Gross Rent Change, 2010–2020 2010 2020 Difference Pct Chg Moses Lake $692 $965 $273 39% Grant County $606 $813 $207 34% Washington $882 $1,337 $455 52% According to CoStar, the market-rate multifamily rent for all bedroom sizes increased by 53 percent in Moses Lake over the 2012 to 2022 period, from $813 to $1,243 per month (a change of $430).  Grant County’s market-rate multifamily rents followed a similar growth trajectory to that of Moses Lake, increasing by $411 per month over the 2012 to 2022 period.  Washington’s market-rate rents increased three percentage points faster than Moses Lake’s, growing from $1,191 per month in 2012 to $1,858 in 2022. Exhibit 37. Change in Market-Rate Multifamily Asking Rents (All Bedroom Sizes), Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2012–2022 YTD Source: CoStar. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 116 of 173 Rents for all multifamily bedroom types have increased in Moses Lake, albeit at varying rates.  Two-bedroom units had the largest rate increase at 57 percent, from about $917 per month in 2012 to $1,437 in 2022.  Three-bedroom units had the smallest rate increase at about 28 percent, from about $1,145 per month in 2012 to $1,469 in 2022.  One-bedroom units increased by about 50 percent (an increase of $742 per month to $1,114), and studio units increased by about 37 percent (an increase of $530 per month to $725). Exhibit 38. Change in Market-Rate Multifamily Rents by Bedroom Type in Moses Lake, 2012–2022 YTD Source: CoStar. Over the last ten years, the median household income of Moses Lake renters decreased by one percent, when adjusted for inflation. At the same time, the market-rate rent for a 2-bedroom apartment grew by 30 percent in Moses Lake. While the median renter income at the state and county level is not keeping pace with the change in asking rents, they are tracking much closer than Moses Lake. Exhibit 39. Median Household Income of Renters Compared to 2-Bedroom Multifamily Asking Rent, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2010–2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates; CoStar. Renter HHI (2020 Constant Dollars) Market-Rate 2-Bedroom Asking Rent 2010 2020 Difference Pct Chg 2010 2020 Difference Pct Chg Moses Lake $38,453 $38,039 (414) (1%) $902 $1,175 273 30% Grant County $33,020 $40,774 7,754 24% $892 $1,157 265 30% Washington $41,698 $52,022 10,324 25% $1,161 $1,672 511 44% Rental vacancy rates over time Multifamily vacancy rates have generally been in decline in Moses Lake since the early 2010s.12 Low vacancy rates not only put upward pressure on housing prices, but can also make 12 High vacancies in 2017 and 2018 were the result of new units being delivered to the Moses Lake housing market. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 117 of 173 programs and policies such as Housing Choice Vouchers less effective as these approaches also require market vacancy. Exhibit 40. Multifamily Vacancy Rates in Moses Lake, by Bedroom Type, 2012 – June 2022 Source: CoStar. Housing Affordability When housing costs exceed what a household can typically afford, that household is considered cost burdened, which is also called rent burdened. HUD considers the affordability threshold to be 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income on all housing costs, including utilities and maintenance. Severely cost-burdened means a household pays more than 50 percent of its income on housing. While cost burdening can occur for homeowners, the issue is more salient for renters since rents can change month to month or year to year, while mortgages are generally fixed for a longer period. Cost burdening is particularly challenging for low-income households who may have insufficient income remaining for other necessities after housing costs. As expected, cost burdening rates in Moses Lake are higher for renter households (see below). From 2010 to 2020, the share of renters in Moses Lake that are severely cost burdened increased by seven percentage points, from 18 percent in 2010 to 25 in 2020. Comparatively, the share of renters in Grant County and the state that are severely cost burdened slightly decreased by one percentage point and two percentage points, respectively. Spending a high share of a small income on rent leaves too little available for emergencies and unexpected expenses, heightening the risk for eviction and homelessness. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 118 of 173 Exhibit 41. Comparison of Cost Burdening by Tenure, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington, 2010–2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates. Attainability The City of Moses Lake falls within the Grant County, WA Fair Market Rent (FMR) area and is subject to the same income and affordability limits as the rest of the cities in this area (meaning properties developed in Moses Lake will use the same affordability limit as properties developed elsewhere in the county). This section utilizes the 2020 HUD Income Limits for Grant County to make accurate comparisons to the other major data source in this document, the 2020 ACS 5-year estimates. However, it’s worth noting that the MFI for Grant County has decreased substantially since 2020, from $74,600 to $67,900 in 2022. In 2020, the Grant County, WA Fair Market Rent (FMR) Area, the MFI was $74,600 for a family of four. HUD adjusts the income limits up or down based on family size and provides income limits for 30% of MFI, 50% of MFI, and 80% of MFI (see Exhibit 42 below). Exhibit 42. HUD 2020 Income Limits for Grant County, WA HUD Metro FMR Area Source: HUD (see https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html and select the year and metro area from the list). Affordability Level Family Size (Number of People) 1 2 3 4 5 30% $14,600 $17,240 $21,720 $26,200 $30,680 50% $24,300 $27,800 $31,250 $34,700 $37,500 80% $38,850 $44,400 $49,950 $55,500 $59,950 100% $74,600 Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 119 of 173 Exhibit 43 shows how much residents of Grant County could afford to pay for their housing costs without being cost-burdened, given their income bracket. As of May 2022, Moses Lake’s median home sales price reached $387,000, meaning you would need to earn approximately 130 percent of the MFI ($97,000) in order to afford the median sale price. Current market rate rents for a 2-bedroom unit are attainable for those earning 80 percent MFI and above. Exhibit 43. Housing Attainability in Grant County, 2020 Source: U.S. Department of Urban Housing and Development; U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-year estimates, 2020. If your households earns… 30% of MFI 50% of MFI 80% of MFI 100% of MFI 120% of MFI $26,200 $34,700 $55,500 $74,600 $89,520 Then you can afford… 30% of MFI 50% of MFI 80% of MFI 100% of MFI 120% of MFI $655 $868 $1,388 $1,865 $2,338 in monthly rent in monthly rent in monthly rent in monthly rent in monthly rent OR OR OR OR OR $78,600 – $104,100 – $194,300 – $261,000 – $313,000 – $91,700 $121,500 $222,000 $298,000 $358,000 in home sales price in home sales price in home sales price in home sales price in home sales price Exhibit 25 below shows the share of households within the MFI income brackets. Approximately 46 percent of Moses Lake households are considered to be low income, earning less than 80 percent MFI. Of particular note, 21 percent of households in Moses Lake are extremely low income, earning less than 30 percent of the MFI (about $26,000 per year). Since a household would need to earn above 130 percent MFI to afford the median home sale price in Moses Lake, this means over 70 percent of households cannot afford to purchase a home at the current median sale price. With market rents for a two-bedroom unit only attainable to those earning 80 percent MFI or above, this means about 46 percent of households in Moses Lake are unable to afford the current asking rent for a two-bedroom unit. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 120 of 173 Exhibit 44: Share of Moses Lake Households in MFI Income Brackets Source: U.S. Census Bureau It is important to note that Median Household Income is not directly comparable to HUD’s MFI. HUD’s MFI calculation relies on underlying Census data related to family incomes, and the 100% median is set for families of four. This MHI is for all households – not just families – and households can have a wide range of compositions (e.g., roommates) compared to families. In the City of Moses, the median household only has 2.8 people and the median household size for renters is 2.4 people. An area’s MHI is typically lower than its MFI. While MHI does not directly compare to MFI, the fact that Moses Lake’s MHI is lower than the HUD MFI, means that households and families in Moses Lake may have a more difficult time finding housing that is affordable within their income ranges. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 121 of 173 In 2020, the median household income of Moses Lake renters was on-par with HUD’s very low-income estimate for the Grant County. Exhibit 45. Comparison of Moses Lake’s Renter Median Household Income to HUD’s Income Limits, 2020 Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2020 5-year estimates; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY 2020 Income Limits Summary. Income 13 Moses Lake Median HHI $60,136 Moses Lake Renters (Median HHI) $38,039 Grant County MFI (FY 2020) $74,600 Low-Income Limit (80%) $55,500 Very Low-Income Limit (50%) $34,700 Extremely Low-Income Limit (30%) $26,200 Income Restricted Housing Stock The Moses Lake Housing Action Plan identified approximately 184 income-restricted units in the City. However, the previous inventory appeared to exclude many Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects. LIHTC projects will set rents that are affordable for a specific lower- income brackets (usually 60% AMI or below), but do not adjust based on individual household incomes. Therefore, not all LIHTC developments will have rents affordable to the lowest income earners, but they are still important to inventory when considering more attainable rental housing stock. 13 Note: The income limits shown in the exhibit pertain to the standard family of four threshold. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 122 of 173 Name Number of Assisted Units Assistance Bedrooms Clientele Possible Expiration14 Pioneer Village Retirement Community 84 LIHTC 1-2 bedroom units Senior Housing 2037 Moses Lake Meadows 25 LIHTC 2-4 bedroom units (majority 3 bedrooms) Large households and persons with disabilities 2027 Heron Creek Apartments 94 LIHTC 1-3 bedrooms (majority 2- bedrooms) 2036 Pelican Horn 35 LIHTC 1-bedroom units Elderly 2035 Pelican Place 18 LIHTC/Section 521/515 1-3 bedroom units (majority 2 bedrooms) Families 2033 Chestnut Grove 22 LIHTC/Section 521/515 1-bedroom units Elderly 2042 Lakeland Pointe II 25 LIHTC 2-4 bedroom units (majority 3- bedrooms) 2032 Lakeland Pointe I 25 LIHTC 2-4 bedroom units (majority 3- bedrooms) 2028 Pershing Apartments 25 LIHTC 2-4 bedroom units (majority 2 and 3- bedroom units) 2033 Capehart - Wherry Apartments 50 LIHTC 2-4 bedroom units (majority 2 and 3- bedroom units) 2031 14 Note: Expiration dates reported online are difficult to verify and provided inconsistently. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 123 of 173 Chaparral II 25 LIHTC 3-4 bedroom units 2034 Chaparral Apartments 25 LIHTC 2-4 bedroom units (majority 3-bedrooms) 2029 St. Martin’s Court 20 Section 202/8 1-bedroom units (a few efficiency units) Elderly 2041 Lakeview Manor 26 Section 515 1-bedroom units Elderly 2023-2036 Larson AFB Housing 47 Section 8 2-4 bedroom units (majority 2- bedrooms) Families 2025 Moses Lake Estates 26 Section 8/515 2-3 bedroom units Families 2031-2034 Northwest Estates I 12 Section 202/8 1 bedroom units Developmentally Disabled 2045 Northwest Estates II 17 Section 202/8 1-2 bedrooms (majority 1-bedrooms) Chronically Mentally Ill 2051 TOTAL 601 income-restricted units Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 124 of 173 Appendix B: Summary of Stakeholder Interviews Purpose of Focus Groups ECONorthwest collected stakeholder input from community service providers in Moses Lake, including HopeSource.15 The goal of these meetings was to better understand the resources, needs, and barriers of people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity in Moses Lake, as well as the overall service landscape. Questions asked Both the interview and the focus group were conducted in a semi-structured interview style, where conversations included the following topics and questions:  Services provided: ECONorthwest asked organizations to describe their services to better understand the service landscape in Moses Lake, including barriers and gaps. Questions asked included:  What services does your organization provide?  What resources are you able to provide people experiencing homelessness or housing instability?  What referrals to other services do case managers typically make?  Partnership with HopeSource: ECONorthwest asked focus group organizations to describe their relationship with HopeSource to understand how other community service providers interact with HopeSource and provide services to clients needing housing support. Questions asked included:  What is your relationship with the HopeSource Sleep Center?  In your estimation, how much overlap is there between your clients and Sleep Center clients?  Where do you currently meet with clients who are also engaged with the Sleep Center?  Do you serve clients who may be eligible for Sleep Center services, but choose not to engage? 15 ECONorthwest conducted one interview (with HopeSource) and one focus group to collect stakeholder input. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 125 of 173  Community housing resources: ECONorthwest asked providers about housing programs available in Moses Lake and Grant County to better understand the resources available to households needing housing support. Questions asked included:  What types of housing services or programs are available in Moses Lake? What is the process for accessing these programs?  What is the case management or other provider support like across different community housing programs?  What eviction prevention or diversion funding is available? What is the process for accessing this resource?  Client and community needs: ECONorthwest asked service providers to describe any observations, themes, or common experiences among their clients to better understand the resources, needs, and experiences of people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity in Moses Lake. Questions asked included:  In your opinion, what are some of the major causes of housing insecurity and homelessness in this community?  Are there any common themes or experiences among the clients you serve?  In your opinion, what organizations are generally the first point of contact for residents experiencing housing instability? Summary of HopeSource Interview HopeSource Interview Key Themes Key themes emphasized by HopeSource staff were:  Community need: Limited affordable housing stock, inflation, and low vacancy rates have all contributed to rising housing costs in Moses Lake, putting many households at risk of eviction and homelessness.  Capacity: The Sleep Center is currently at capacity, with pressure increasing on service providers across Moses Lake as need for community resources increases.  Community partnerships: The on-site presence of community partners is an important aspect of the Sleep Center’s service model. HopeSource would like to expand opportunities for on-site partnerships and discussions. HopeSource Sleep Center Services The interview began with an overview of Sleep Center Services, included below: Services: Upon checking into the Sleep Center, staff generally provide the following services: Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 126 of 173  Basic intake into HopeSource services.  Set up Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) profile  Make community referrals, including to public benefits, WorkSource, domestic violence services, and more.  Specific referrals for veterans and youths  Refer to appropriate housing services and connected with Coordinated Entry Coordinated Entry One purpose of the Sleep Center is to support clients in reaching the next step towards achieving stable housing, rather than staying at the Sleep Center long-term. As shown in the figure below, community housing resources generally fall along a continuum from outreach (least intensive) to Permanent Supportive Housing (most supportive). In Grant County, the first step toward connecting with more permanent housing resources is through accessing Coordinated Entry. Clients access a web-based platform, where they answer ten questions about their current situation. Within 24 hours, a case manager will contact the client to discuss their housing options based on their responses. If available, eligible clients will then be referred to appropriate housing resources, such as Rapid Rehousing assistance or Transitional Housing programs. Figure 1: Continuum of Housing Resources Source: ECONorthwest In Moses Lake, the Housing Authority of Grant County is the main distributor of Rapid Rehousing, Housing Choice Vouchers, and other housing assistance. HopeSource Interview Feedback Summary Key feedback and themes from the HopeSource interview are summarized in the table below: Street Outreach Diversion and Homeless-ness Prevention Hotel Vouchers Shelter and Enhanced Shelter (Sleep Center) Rapid Rehousing Supportive and Transitional Housing Permanent Supportive Housing/ Housing Choice Vouchers Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 127 of 173 Themes Stakeholder Feedback Community Needs Many people in the community are not able to afford housing costs and are at risk of eviction.  There is not enough affordable housing stock in the community, and market rate rent is not attainable for many.  Inflation has exacerbated existing financial stress in the community.  Family members, neighbors, and other community members are less able to provide resources or other supports.  Many people in the community are living on the borderline of not being able to afford their rent or other bills.  There is concern over what the impact on the community will be over the next year as eviction prevention and other COVID-19 government support programs come to an end. Creative solutions are necessary to help clients find and maintain stable housing.  There is a very low vacancy rate in Moses Lake, which makes finding housing difficult, especially when the main form of housing assistance is Rapid Rehousing.  Rapid Rehousing programs generally last four to five months.  There has been success using Housing Navigators, who make connections with landlords to maximize the private housing stock. Sleep Center Capacity Facilities Sleep Center facilities are currently at full capacity.  When the facilities were opened, there were twelve beds; there are currently more than 35 occupants and since May 2022 the Sleep Center has been at full capacity.  Providing additional units will not present ongoing costs, even if they go unused.  It is better to have additional units that are unused than to not have enough capacity.  There tend to be higher rates of Sleep Center utilization in the summer than winter. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 128 of 173 Themes Stakeholder Feedback  There is a hypothesis that friends and family members are more willing to provide a place to sleep or other resources when the weather is cold. Pressure on the Sleep Center and other service providers has continued to increase.  Other service providers are also at capacity, and funding is limited across Moses Lake.  HopeSource is currently conducting interviews to understand recent changes in unhoused populations.  Seeking to understand why people may be seeking services and why their needs may have changed. Sleep Center Partnerships and Facilities The on-site presence of community partners is an important aspect of the Sleep Center’s service model.  The on-site presence of other service providers has been important for the stability of services and has been an important factor in building relationships.  Provides an opportunity to make introductions and warm handoffs between service providers.  The on-site model is unique to this type of service center.  The most consistent partner is currently WorkSource, with other organizations sending staff when schedules align.  HopeSource has a few staff who provide services onsite, including a Recovery Navigation Coordinator.  The Moses Lake hospital is an important community partner and should provide useful feedback on the new Sleep Center Location. HopeSource would like to provide a larger space for other providers to be onsite.  HopeSource would like to build a consistent schedule of service providers.  Having agreements in place with providers would be useful to providing consistent care (both onsite and in the community).  Provide a space for providers to interact with each other and have discussions.  Goal of once or twice a week for roundtable connections.  ECONorthwest may want to consult with current staff and participating service providers to assess the needs and uses of this space. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 129 of 173 Themes Stakeholder Feedback Sleep Center clients are generally mobile around Moses Lake.  Sleep Center is currently accessible by public transit.  Resources across town are fairly accessible due to the relatively small footprint of the City.  Many clients come and go via foot or bicycle.  Clients sometimes receive transportation to the Sleep Center from law enforcement or other service providers. Summary of Service Provider Focus Group ECONorthwest interviewed three Moses Lake community organizations: Renew, New Hope, and Serve Moses Lake. These organizations were chosen because of their expertise, connections to the community, and range of clients served and services provided. Focus Group Key Themes  Changing community: The needs and demographics of people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness are changing in Moses Lake as rising costs of living place economic strain on the community, leading to higher utilization of community service organizations.  Coordination: Increasing coordination between service providers is an important tool in efficiently connecting clients with services and resources, whether at the Sleep Center or in the community. In general, service providers expressed a desire for improved communication between organizations.  Barriers to service provision: Some clients have expressed frustration with Sleep Center power dynamics and protocols, and some members of the community are unwilling to engage due to an inability to bring pets, family members, or certain belongings. In addition, some clients have expressed a desire for more community gathering spaces and opportunities at the Sleep Center. Focus Group Providers’ Services The focus group began with an overview of each participating organization’s services. This feedback is summarized below: Renew Renew is a behavioral health provider in Moses Lake. ECONorthwest spoke with members of the mobile outreach team, who spend time in the community connecting with clients and potential clients. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 130 of 173 The outreach team typically:  Provides hygiene and care packages, clothing, food, water, and other supplies.  Spends time at established locations, such as the library, where clients know to find them.  Helps clients get connected with medical insurance, food banks, safe syringe exchanges, and other services, including the Sleep Center.  Works under a “first contact” style outreach approach, in which case managers make introductions, meet immediate needs, and give information about available services. Renew services also include mental health support, chemical dependency treatment, housing case management, and crisis support. New Hope New Hope is an agency serving domestic violence survivors, sexual assault survivors, and crime victims. ECONorthwest spoke with [Suzi – title?]. New Hope typically:  Provides shelter to clients in need of safe housing.  Provides trauma-informed advocacy.  Provides referrals to housing resources and other community service providers.  Provides financial assistance for security deposits, rent, and other needs. Serve Moses Lake Serve Moses Lake is a volunteer-run organization that distributes resources provided by local churches to unhoused and low-income people. ECONorthwest spoke with [Lynn – title?]. Serve Moses Lake typically:  Provides food, water, shower vouchers, gas vouchers, and other supplies.  Provides referrals to other community service providers.  Conducts interviews to assess need and connect clients to resources and financial assistance. Focus Group Feedback Summary Key feedback and themes from the service provider focus group are summarized in the table below: Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 131 of 173 Themes Stakeholder Feedback Community Needs Rising costs of living are putting economic strain on the community, leading to higher rates of housing insecurity.  Rent and costs of housing (including utilities) are continuing to rise, making stable housing unattainable for many in the community.  Boeing allots workers $2500 for rent expenses, driving up the market rate.  Jobs available in Moses Lake are often unable to cover costs of living, including rent.  Service providers across Moses Lake and Grant County are strained and reaching maximum capacity due to increased community need. Demographics of people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness are changing in Moses Lake.  Service providers are seeing an influx of younger clients (around ages 20 to 40).  Service providers have seen an influx of couples.  Some clients have moved from larger, more expensive cities in search of a lower cost of living but are still unable to afford market rate rent in Moses Lake. Community Partnerships Between Moses Lake Service Providers Having certain providers at the shelter is important for making connections and effective referrals.  Renew is beginning to be at the Sleep Center more regularly at HopeSource’s request.  Provide a similar style of case management as mobile outreach.  Repeated contact with clients can contribute to building rapport and trust necessary to successfully connect clients with services. Regardless of whether organizations are on- site, a strong referral system is important for connecting clients with services.  Because there is not substantial overlap between New Hope and Sleep Center clients, New Hope did not feel it was important to be onsite.  However, noted the importance of sharing resources and information about services so staff can make appropriate referrals between agencies. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 132 of 173 Themes Stakeholder Feedback  Increased communications between service providers could improve efficiency of resource provision and prevent client triangulation between organizations.  Many service organizations serve the same clients, and increasing ROIs and MOUs between organizations could improve communication and wraparound services. Increasing coordination between service providers could be an important prevention tool.  Providing services prior to eviction or homelessness could create a more robust safety net in the community.  Service organizations are seeing an increase in requests for eviction prevention. Sleep Center Experiences Providing a community gathering space at the Sleep Center could provide a space for clients to build community with each other as well as service providers.  Currently, clients mostly spend time in individual units.  Clients have expressed a desire for a space to eat together, play games, etc.  Expanding Sleep Center hours could also provide greater opportunities to develop rapport, trust, and community between clients and Sleep Center staff.  Renew providers have found meeting potential clients in a reliable and safe environment (like the library) can help build connections and trust with service organizations. Some clients have expressed frustration toward Sleep Center protocols and dynamics.  Some clients have expressed frustration over power dynamics between themselves and Sleep Center staff.  Some clients have expressed frustration with decision making protocols and have felt unheard and unrecognized by staff.  Additional support and input from other community service organizations could help mitigate power differentials between staff and clients.  Some clients have expressed frustration with a lack of flexibility for Sleep Center rules.  Some clients have advocated for a more case-by-case approach for how rules are enforced. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 133 of 173 Themes Stakeholder Feedback  Perceived unfair or mistreatment of a Sleep Center client by staff can breach trust with other Sleep Center clients and the unhoused community at large. Some clients have expressed barriers to staying at the Sleep Center.  Inability to bring pets to the Sleep Center is a barrier to many clients.  Lack of storage can present barriers to clients coming to and staying at the Sleep Center, who may have too many belongings to bring to the Sleep Center or may have concerns about the security of their items.  Clients are currently each given a [x]-gallon storage bin.  Sleep Center services are set up for single individuals, so couples and families are likely to seek services elsewhere. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 134 of 173 Appendix C: Feasibility Study Guest Outreach Moses Lake City staff put together a small survey to help engage Sleep Center guests on the topic of a permanent location. Below are the results of that survey. To ensure success of the program and to continue to focus on collaborative solutions, the City is including input from guests of the Sleep Center. To allow for honest feedback, a suggestion box method was used for guests to anonymously respond to specific questions. Survey 9/30/22-10/6/22: What changes would you make to the current shelter units? • No PB&J's; they are tiring to eat- Thank you • Outlets for heaters and phone charger cords that way we don't have to come into the office all the time • Power in Unit • No stupid people • Power in Unit • Power in Unit • Power in Unit • I would change that they are not permanent and allow people to establish their space and personal belongings Survey 10/7/22-10/13/22: What type of service providers would be the most helpful to have come on-site for appointments? *Unfortunately, the suggestion box was stolen over the weekend, so there is a summary of responses from discussions with guests. • Top priority: o Employment o Substance use treatment • Somewhat needed: o Mental Health • Mentioned: o DSHS Appendix D: City Staff Site Review August City Staff Site Review City Staff conducted review of all sites initially considered during the site analysis. Below are city staff notes from August 18, 2022. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 135 of 173 Moses Lake Staff Site Analysis Meeting (Planning + Development Engineering) Critical Areas (in general) • Need direction from City Council to look into using wetland areas for shelter, but typically try to avoid • Wetlands could be considered for mitigation purposes and to possibly bank credits Longview Tracts • Far from services and not considered pedestrian friendly, but not too far from new Food Bank or bus route • There is a clinic on the Base, but not sure if bus route goes all the way • Depending on zoning, conducive to multi-family development. • Original location and still recommended site from Police Chief’s perspective Central Drive • Pros: close to services and bus route • Cons: close to park and somewhat close to Knolls Vista/Park Orchard Elementary • From zoning perspective, not highest/best use for C-2 because hard to expand use Wetlands by Sleep Center • Generally avoid critical areas • Can remove wetlands but would require mitigation- identify, classify, delineate • Concerns of what other habitat may be in the area because flora/fauna can’t always be mitigated. • This may be a lower quality wetland, which may be easier to mitigate than others • Might require pressurized system for water, which is more costly than gravity. Samaritan • No zoning issues but includes critical areas/wetlands • Site surrounded by water/sewer, services, and transportation • High water table + a lot of groundwater – could be problematic for construction of facilities Kyoji’s • Pros: near bus route, grocery, fire station; Cons: near Larson Rec Center and Marijuana dispensary • Easily connect to water/sewer services and no critical areas • Not sure if land adjacent to property available or have community support Near Shari’s • County property, zoned urban commercial • Flat, no critical areas, near Ernie’s Bus Stop but far from downtown and main service providers Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 136 of 173 • Location proposed to have sewer force main and proposed lift station on Road L; potential gravity sewer from this location, but can’t confirm either way Blue Heron • City owned, zoned Public • Water/sewer through Park; could connect at corner of parcel • Cons: includes wetlands, remote from services, no bus, need to be rezoned • Not recommended location Church E Nelson • Decent location but near residential, water/sewer available • Property not available because of Journey Church/daycare Land by Home Depot • Sewer main through parcel, easy to connect but includes reimbursement Overall • Behind Shari’s Samaritan, Blue Heron not recommended • Kyoji’s location ready to go in terms of zoning/utility infrastructure • Kinder Rd getting revitalized so Longview Tracts area might be all right; best from water/sewer perspective • Some properties might have easements/deed restrictions, so once we get to top 3-5 choices, need to do a title report September City Staff Site Review City staff met again in September to discuss the three sites the feasibility analysis would be be focused on. Below are the summary notes from that meeting on September 19, 2022. Category Considerations Notes Engineering: Utility Infrastructure Costs / Constraints Records indicate a 10” AC water main and an 8” PVC sewer main. This building has services installed. A 2” water service is installed for Former Kyoji’s 311282000 440 S. Melva Ln Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 137 of 173 the building. (Adequate for services) Water & Wastewater: Utility Maintenance Costs / Constraints Already set up, no major concerns Fire Access Building requirements (spacing) 20 ft. access easement from adjacent property goes through parking lot Planning Zoning / Site Plan C-2 General Commercial Look at plat / deed restrictions DOT might do improvements to road in the future Flag lot near by has plans for development, not much extra room Building Shelter unit/Bathroom facility / Office building requirements Unknown condition (full demo vs. renovation?) Building on-site has different rooms, commercial kitchen, and building big enough for bathroom and office Facilities Maintenance Costs / Constraints Can’t say until we have more info on the building itself. Site Development (All) Parking Lot Size (room to grow) NO Facilities Time Constraints Former restaurant building (unknown condition) Quality of building could affect whether the site would be ready by September 2023 Site Acquisition For Sale vs. City-owned Not listed for sale Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 138 of 173 (All) City Manager working on finding out if owner willing to sell and how we can inspect the building if so. Other (All) General Location Opportunities / Barriers Available services at Sleep Center Space for RVs? Community Concerns Consider perception of being near low-income neighborhood, but some feel it’s far enough away (Marina Dr) Consider nearby businesses Is it too far from services? Category Considerations Notes Engineering: Utility Infrastructure Costs / Constraints Records indicate an 8” C-900 water main is stubbed beyond the asphalt at the intersection. Records indicate an 8” PVC SS main Site Parcel Address Central Drive 102113000 Central / Evelyn Dr. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 139 of 173 stubbed out beyond the asphalt at the intersection. Water & Wastewater: Utility Maintenance Costs / Constraints Unless developed with Police Station, not feasible because full site development needed Fire Access Building requirements (spacing) Good access for Fire and new site means can set up for needs Planning Zoning / Site Plan C-2 General Commercial Vacant property nearby, allows more flexibility *Check requirements- code doesn’t currently address homeless shelters besides Ord. 2969 (all locations) Building Shelter unit/ Bathroom facility / Office building requirements Can’t say until we have more info on the building/site itself Facilities Maintenance Costs / Constraints Can’t say until we have more info on the building/site itself Site Development (All) Parking Lot Size (room to grow) Facilities Time Constraints Undeveloped $1.5 million ARPA funds are not enough to build a new building and develop a site Site Acquisition (All) For Sale vs. City-owned City-owned There’s a proposed high end apartment development on nearby parcels- they might have concerns Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 140 of 173 Other (All) General Location Opportunities / Barriers Available services at Sleep Center Space for RVs? Community Concerns On bus route Not much room to grow with Police Station on site Category Considerations Notes Engineering: Utility Infrastructure Costs / Constraints Has water, sewer, electricity already Currently occupied building so likely being kept up Water & Wastewater: Utility Maintenance Costs / Constraints Already serviced, no concerns Fire Access Building requirements (spacing) Consider access to the back when setting up units Wide entrance- good Concerns the site might be too small for 40-50 units Planning Zoning / Site Plan C-2 General Commercial Site Parcel Address MLIRD 110992000 932 E. Wheeler Rd Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 141 of 173 Vacant property nearby, allows more flexibility Building Shelter unit/ Bathroom facility / Office building requirements Building on site brick build, already in good condition Facilities Maintenance Costs / Constraints No initial maintenance concerns because building has been maintained/occupied Site Development (All) Parking Lot Size (room to grow) Facilities Time Constraints Swartz Building Room to do other things- big office space + warehouse Site Acquisition (All) For Sale vs. City-owned For sale $1.2 million Good price because difficult to build for that much Other (All) General Location Opportunities / Barriers Available services at Sleep Center Space for RVs? Community Concerns Close to services and where people already are generally Could be space w/ adjacent parcels if acquired Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 142 of 173 Category Considerations Notes RV Parks Costs / Constraints Increase need, more RVs/cars parked on street with people living inside • We should at least provide dump stations, so people don’t dump in stormwater/elsewhere • Sewer: further from plant the better so chemicals out by the time it enters our system • We might need to have an RV park where they don’t have to pay • No sites have room for this as well, but it would be good to have RV park or Safe Park program that provides bathrooms • A lot of RVs people are living in seem to be dilapidated • Need to look at code- occupancy standards for RVs? Normal C-2 standards? Shelter Units Type Spacing (fire access) Code requirements • Upgrade current units • PTAC system w/ self- contained heat (w/ timer if possible) • Should units have air con if there are houses without? • No overhead electricity • Nothing about this is within code (need to check build/fire code) • When moved, need to re-do sheeting/insulation • Likely a community member would help move units, maybe borrow hay trailer • Closer together = increase fire risk- how much is ok? Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 143 of 173 • Put units in pods of 4 closer together and each pod is 15 ft apart so if a fire starts not as much damage/spread • With pods put single sprinkler head in each unit- 13 D system with concealed head Bathroom Consider build our own version to save money? • CXT: better for maintenance, difficult to destroy • Expensive but durable Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 144 of 173 Appendix E: Feasibility Charts Capital and One Time Costs Exhibit 46: Assessed Value and Sale Price Markup by Site Exhibit 47: Site Upgrades, Assessed Value and Sale Price Markup by Site Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 145 of 173 Exhibit 48: Central Building Construction Costs, Site Upgrades, Assessed Value and Sales Price Markup by Site, High Cost Assumption Exhibit 49: Central Building Construction Costs, Site Upgrades, Assessed Value and Sales Price Markup by Site, Low Cost Assumption Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 146 of 173 Operating Costs Costs demonstrated in the operating scenarios below include the following expenses: Exhibit 50: Operating Scenarios Cost Assumptions Scenario 1 (Status Quo: Overnight Shelter Operation) Scenario 2 (24/7 Service Model) Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Staffing Costs Salaries and Benefits Existing staff costs Scenario 1 + additional staffing for 24/7 coverage Scenario 2 + additional onsite staff Scenario 3 Operating Expenses Program Costs Trainings, electronics, camp operations, office supplies, communications, staff travel Scenario 1, scaled for additional staff Scenario 2, scaled for additional staff Scenario 3 Administrative Costs Administrative staff expenses, audit fees, professional fees, office supplies, liability insurance Scenario 1, scaled for additional staff Scenario 2, scaled for additional staff Scenario 3 Property Expenses Property taxes, maintenance supplies, maintenance Scenario 1, scaled for additional clients Scenario 1, scaled for additional clients Scenario 1, scaled for additional clients Utilities Electric, water, individual unit A/C and heat, sewage, garbage, laundry Scenario 1, scaled for additional clients Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Services Meals None None None Breakfast, sack lunch and hot dinner Site Specific Costs Office Lease Onsite office trailer lease None – offices included in central building None – offices included in central building None – offices included in central building Bathroom Trailers Onsite bathroom trailer lease None – bathrooms included in central building None – bathrooms included in central building None – bathrooms included in central building AC/ Heat Costs None Heat and air conditioning costs in central building Heat and air conditioning costs in central building Heat and air conditioning costs in central building Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 147 of 173 Exhibit 51: Scenario 1 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions Exhibit 52: Scenario 1 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 148 of 173 Exhibit 53: Scenario 2 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions Exhibit 54: Scenario 2 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 149 of 173 Exhibit 55: Scenario 3 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions Exhibit 56: Scenario 3 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 150 of 173 Exhibit 57: Scenario 4 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions Exhibit 58: Scenario 4 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 151 of 173 Council Staff Report To:Agenda Item Number: From Department For Agenda of:Proceeding Type Subject Reviewed and Approved by: Expenditure Required:Amount Budgeted:Appropriation Required: Action Requested Packet Attachments (if any) Overview Fiscal and Policy Implications Approve, Authorize, or Adopt: Provide Amended Direction: Allison Williams, City Manager 10051 Richard Law Municipal Services 3/14/2023 New Business Fehr and Peers Contract for Travel Demand Model Development City Manager Finance Fire City Attorney Community Development Police Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services 133,970.00$150,000.00$133,970.00$ Authorize City Manager to sign an Engineering Services Agreement with Fehr and Peers to develop a Travel Demand Model for the City of Moses Lake. Moses_Lake_TDM_Fee.pdf 110.65KB Moses_Lake_TDM_Schedule.pdf 145.86KB Moses_Lake_TDM_SOW.pdf 545.51KB TDM Contract Fehr and Peers.docx 109.37KB Staff has gone through a request for qualifications process to select an Engineering Consultant to develop a Travel Demand Model for the City of Moses Lake and the surrounding area. This model will allow the City to see impacts of proposed growth and development and better identify needed improvements to the roadway network to mitigate growth. Fehr and Peers was selected as the most qualified applicant and a contract has been negotiated. Budgeted funds would be spent. Options and Results City Manager will sign the contract to develop the Travel Demand Model. Staff will bring back options for recommended changes. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 152 of 173 No Action Taken: Model will not be developed. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 153 of 173 Fee Proposal for Moses Lake Travel Demand Model DevelopmentFehr & PeersProject ManagerPrincipal-in-ChargeTravel Demand Modeling LeadSenior ModellerTransportation PlannerAdminLabor HoursDirect CostsLabor CostsTotal CostsTasks$200 $330 $220 $205$155 $180Task 1 - Project management and meetings1.1 Kick-Off Meeting 44 4820 $300 $4,240 $4,5401.2 Bi-Weekly Check-Ins & Invoicing 244443268 $900 $12,880 $13,780Task 2 - Data Review, Collection, & Processing 2.1 Data Collection & Review 8283250 $600 $8,640 $9,240Task 3 - Baseline Model Development & Calibration3.1 Baseline Model Development32224128172358 $4,570 $65,240 $69,810Task 4 - Future Model Development4.1 Future Model Development824443290 $1,200 $17,120 $18,320Task 5 - Council Presentation & Staff Training 5.1 Council Presentation 162826 $340 $4,880 $5,2205.2 Staff Training 420 12 36$490$7,060$7,550Total for all Tasks96 8 60 184 268 32648 $7,570 $120,060 $128,460Traffic Counts$5,000 $5,000Mileage (Assumes two trips to Moses Lake)$510 $510Optional Task - 3.2 Daily Trips Scenario4 2 28 40 74 $920 $13,180 $14,100Total (without Optional Task)96 8 60 184 268 32648 13,080 120,060 133,970Notes: This fee proposal is valid for a period of 90 days from the proposal submittal dateActual billing rate at the time of service may vary depending on the final staffing plan at the time the project starts; the overall fee will not be exceededMileage is billed at the IRS rate plus 10% handling feeAll other direct and subconsultant expenses are billed with 10% handling feeOther direct costs include computer, communications, and reproduction charges are billed as a percentage of laborRates and staff are subject to change at any time, without notice, and within the total budget shown1Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 154 of 173 Fehr PeersMoses Lake Travel Demand Model DevelopmentProject Schedule2/27/2023Week Start Date (M)3/14/20233/21/20233/28/20234/4/20234/11/20234/18/20234/25/20235/2/20235/9/20235/16/20235/23/20235/30/20236/6/20236/13/20236/20/20236/27/20237/4/20237/11/20237/18/20237/25/20238/1/20238/8/20238/15/20238/22/20238/29/20239/5/20239/12/20239/19/2023Task/Deliverable:1 Project ManagementTask 11.1 Kick Off Meeting1.2 Bi-Weekly Check-In Calls & Invoicing2 Data Review, Collection, & Processing Task 22.1 Data Review & Collection3 Baseline Model Development & Calibration Task 33.1 Baseline Model Development & Calibration 4 Future Model Development Task 44.1 Future Model Development 5 Council Presentation & Staff TrainingTask 55.1 Council Presentation 5.2 Staff TrainingPage 1 of 1Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 155 of 173 City of Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work February 27, 2023 Page | 1 Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work As a growing community, and the micropolitan of the Moses Lake area, the City of Moses Lake is developing a travel demand model that can be used to plan for growth. This effort will result in a travel demand model that is validated and calibrated to baseline conditions and a future year model that can be used to evaluate how land use growth and changes to the transportation network will shift travel patterns. Task 1 – Project Management The objective of this task is to ensure effective and efficient communication between the Consultant and the City project team to anticipate and resolve problems and ensure project deliverables meet the City’s expectations. The Consultant Project Manager will be responsible for proactively managing the tasks and providing all services and work needed to complete the project. The Consultant Project Manager will proactively communicate any potential schedule impacts due to outstanding data needs or decisions made by City Staff. 1.1 Kick Off Meeting Representatives from Fehr & Peers will attend a 1.5-hour virtual project Kick Off meeting in March 2023 to review project scope, schedule, budget, and deliverables to ensure expectations are clear. That meeting will cover project communication protocols, including whom to inform of a specific issue and whom to contact for assistance. This meeting will also include a discussion on the two software platforms (TransCAD or Vissum) that could be used to develop the travel demand model. Deliverables:  Meeting agenda  Meeting summary 1.2 Bi-Weekly Check-In Calls and Invoicing The Consultant Project Manager will schedule and attend 30-minute bi-weekly check-in calls with the City’s Project Manager. The bi-weekly check-in calls in this contract are expected to occur between April and September. Other members of the project team will attend check-in calls as needed to provide updates on technical tasks. The Consultant Project Manager will also provide monthly invoices and progress reports documenting the status of both scope progress and budget expenditure. Deliverables:  12 Bi-Weekly Check-In Calls  Monthly invoices showing the previous month’s billing by hours and tasks, and a project status report by task Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 156 of 173 City of Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work February 27, 2023 Page | 2 Task 2 – Data Review & Collection The existing data required to develop the City’s model will be collected and reviewed under this task. Anticipated data needs are documented below; however, additional needs may be identified following a discussion on desired model capabilities, which will occur kick-off meeting (included under Task 1). It is assumed that the City will provide the following information as available:  Existing traffic counts within the City  Roadway functional classification, number of lanes, and posted speed limits for roadways within the City  Any turning movement prohibitions at intersections within the City  Existing land use information and zoning for the City  Any available population estimates for the City In addition to the data provided by the City, Fehr & Peers will be responsible for providing the following information:  New traffic counts where needed (up to $5,000 in new data collection is assumed in the fee)  Traffic counts on state facilities  County assessor data for use in developing land use inputs  U.S. Census Data needed to develop population and employment estimates in conjunction with any population and land use information provided by the City  Transit routes operated by Grant Transit Authority The data collected and organized as part of this task will be used to develop the base year roadway networks, traffic analysis zone (TAZ) system, land use estimates, and travel behavior input data needed for each step of the model as part of the next task. The data will also be used to validate the model as part of the next task. Fehr & Peers will coordinate with City staff on an appropriate level of detail for each of these components before beginning development. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 157 of 173 City of Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work February 27, 2023 Page | 3 Task 3 – Baseline Model Development & Calibration The following describes the basic components of any travel demand model, which will need to be developed as part of this task. Fehr & Peers will coordinate with the City to determine the best source for necessary information within the City, while Fehr & Peers will use appropriate available data sources to gather information outside the City. Roadway Network The determination of which roadways are included in the model is based on the level of detail requested by the City, the size, location, and number of TAZs, land use development patterns, political boundaries, and geographic features. Figure 1 shows the proposed boundaries for the travel demand model in yellow. For each roadway within the model, the following attributes need to be coded.  Length  Name  Number of lanes  Functional classification  Use restrictions (HOV, transit- only, truck-restricted, etc.)  Posted speed limit  Capacity (vehicles per hour per lane)  Parking restrictions  Volume delay function variables (alpha and beta for BPR curve) Within the City, these values will be updated based on information provided by the City. Outside the City, these values will be consistent with information available from Grant County. Intersections For each intersection in the model, any vehicle turning restrictions need to be listed. These include restrictions by time-of-day and by mode. Typical locations where these need to be included are along interstates, at ramp junctions, and along divided roadways. Figure 1. Proposed Travel Demand Model Boundaries Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 158 of 173 City of Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work February 27, 2023 Page | 4 Transit Network For each transit route that is incorporated into the model, the specific links that make up the route need to be identified and the physical locations of all stops along each route need to be marked. In addition, variables at the route level need to be determined including fare, frequency, operating hours, and travel time between stops. Post-processing is required for any routes which have multiple variations that operate throughout the day as only one representative route can be coded into the model. Transit assumptions will be developed based on information gathered from Grant Transit Authority. Traffic Analysis Zones Traffic analysis zones (TAZs) provide the connection between the supply (roadway and transit networks) and demand (activity generated by land uses) in a travel demand model. The specific boundaries of the TAZs will be determined through an iterative design process with City staff that will occur concurrently with the development of the transportation networks. The TAZ boundaries will be influenced by the roadway detail, political boundaries, land use development patterns, and natural geographic features. After the TAZ boundaries are determined, the TAZs need to be connected to the model roadway network using additional roadway links that represented aggregated access points each zone. Depending on the size and shape of each TAZ, as many as 4 “connectors” may be used to connect the TAZ centroids to the roadway network. The locations of the TAZ centroids and connectors are manually determined for each zone and individually coded into the model. Land Use Data Each TAZ in the model needs an estimate of the amount of residential and non-residential land use within its boundaries. At a minimum, these would be the number of households and the number of employees or jobs in each zone. The City will be responsible for providing this information within the City for each TAZ. Typically, population and job estimates are developed for the categories listed below. If the appropriate data is not available to disaggregate population and employees as listed below, Fehr & Peers will propose the appropriate categories for population and employees.  Total households by type: o Single family o Multi-family  Total households by income: o Low income o Lower-mid income o Upper-mid income o Upper income  Total population by type: o Residential o Institutional group quarters o Non-institutional group quarters Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 159 of 173 City of Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work February 27, 2023 Page | 5  Employees by type: o Retail o Finance, insurance, real estate, and services (FIRES) o Government employees o Education employees o Wholesale, transportation, communications, and utilities (WTCU) o Manufacturing  University and college enrollment To account for land use associated with Grant County International Airport, the model will include a “special generator”, which is used to account for uses that generate trips outside of the employment types documented above. Model Scenarios Fehr & Peers will develop two scenarios for the travel demand model: an AM peak hour and PM peak hour scenario. Using the inputs above, the travel demand model will generate roadway segment volumes and turning movement volumes for the roadways and intersections included in the travel demand model. Optional Task: Development of Daily Scenario Included as Optional Task 3.2 in the fee, this task includes development of a Daily Scenario for the travel demand model. With the addition of a Daily Scenario, the travel demand model could also be used to estimate the number of daily trips occurring on the roadways included in the travel demand model. Stakeholder Coordination Under Task 3, Fehr & Peers will facilitate one stakeholder coordination meeting with key stakeholders identified by the City. Key stakeholders are expected to include the Washington Department of Transportation, Grant County, Grant County Transit Authority, and any other stakeholders identified during the kick-off meeting. This meeting will be used to provide stakeholders with an overview of the travel demand model being developed, request additional data needed, and discuss the jurisdictional boundaries for the travel demand model. This meeting is assumed to be virtual and will be hosted using Microsoft Teams or a similar teleconference platform. Base Year Scenario Calibration and Validation The base year scenario will be calibrated and validated under this task. The specific validation checks will be appropriate for the scope and scale of the City’s model and will include both static and dynamic tests. Sample static validation tests include:  Comparison of model volumes to existing counts (at individual locations and screenlines) Dynamic validation tests will ensure that the model responds appropriately to changes in land use and modifications to the roadway network. Sample dynamic validation tests include: Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 160 of 173 City of Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work February 27, 2023 Page | 6  Change the households in a single TAZ by varying amounts (1, 10, 100, or 1,000)  Change the employment in a single TAZ by varying amounts (1, 10, 100, or 1,000)  Add/remove portions of a roadway from the network  Increase/decrease capacity on congested/uncongested roadway segments Deliverables:  Base year travel demand model including AM and PM peak hour scenarios.  Model validation report summarizing static and dynamic validation tests for each step of the model. The validation requirements will be discussed, and full results provided for each analysis time period.  One stakeholder coordination meeting, including agenda and meeting summary. Task 4 – Future Model Development Task 4 includes development of a future year model, assumed to reflect growth expected to occur in the area over the next 20 years. This task also includes additional coordination with key stakeholders to identify changes to land use and the roadway network outside the City that should be included in the future year model. Future Model Development As part of this task, Fehr & Peers will develop a future year travel demand model. This task will rely on the validated and calibrated base year model developed under Task 3. Consistent with the base year model, the future year model will include an AM and PM peak hour scenario that will be used to generate estimates for the number of trips on roadways and at intersections within the travel demand model. As the future year model is intended to reflect 20 years of growth, the following updates will be made from the base year model:  Updated population and jobs inputs based on anticipated growth in the City and County  Transportation improvements assumed to be complete within the 20 year planning horizon for the future year model Stakeholder Coordination Under Task 4, Fehr & Peers will facilitate one stakeholder coordination meeting with key stakeholders included in the coordination assumed to occur under Task 3. As part of the future model development, this stakeholder coordination will include a presentation of the calibrated and validated Base Year Model and discussion on planned land use changes or roadway network changes that should be included in the future year model. This meeting is assumed to be virtual and will be hosted using Microsoft Teams or a similar teleconference platform. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 161 of 173 City of Moses Lake Travel Demand Model Development Scope of Work February 27, 2023 Page | 7 Task 5 – Council Presentation & Staff Training As the final steps in development of the travel demand model, Fehr & Peers will present to City Council and facilitate training with City staff. City Council Presentation Once the final travel demand model has been submitted to the City, Fehr & Peers will prepare materials for and present at one City Council Meeting (assumed to be in-person). In addition to an overview of the model development process, this presentation will focus on how the travel demand model can be applied in the future for other planning efforts the City will need to undertake and how it can be used to evaluate changes to the transportation system resulting from land use growth. Staff Training Under this task, Fehr & Peers will facilitate up to two (2) in-person trainings with City staff on how to apply the travel demand model. These trainings are assumed to be four (4) hours each and will focus on how to run the travel demand model, update land use inputs and the roadway network, and output results. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 162 of 173 CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITYWIDE TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL PROJECT # GC2022-087 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into at Moses Lake, Washington this day of 2023 by and between the CITY OF MOSES LAKE, State of Washington, hereinafter called the "City" and FEHR & PEERS, INC., duly authorized to perform professional services in the State of Washington, hereinafter called the "Consultant". IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS Whenever the term "City" is used herein, it is understood to mean the City of Moses Lake, of Grant County, Washington, or its authorized officers and the term "Consultant" means Fehr & Peers, Inc., or its authorized representative. ARTICLE II - OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT 1.Basic Services The basic services contemplated to be performed by the Consultant are outlinedhereinafter. The City retains the right to perform any and all specific elements of suchservices and to accordingly reduce the work by the Consultant and remuneration to theConsultant by written modification to this Agreement or any subsequent task order. The basic services to be performed by the Consultant under this agreement are asfollows: The scope of work is for Citywide Travel Demand Model services further generally described in Exhibit A. The City will provide authorization on a task order basis in a format outlined in Exhibit B. The services to be performed, the schedule for performance of the services, and the compensation due Subconsultant for performing the services shall be more particularly described in each task order. A.The City shall furnish the necessary information to direct each task order to beperformed by the Consultant, and the Consultant shall rely upon the accuracy andcompleteness of the provided information. B.The Consultant shall supply the City with reasonably sufficient data to supportthe Consultant’s designs and conclusions. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 163 of 173 C.If required by the task order, the Consultant shall, at the conclusion of the work,provide the City with a project report. The Consultant will accept theresponsibility for all work involved in the production of the report. D.The parties intend that an independent Consultant/City relationship will be created by this Agreement. The City is interested primarily in the results to be achieved;subject to paragraphs herein, the implementation of services will lie solely withthe discretion of the Consultant. No agent, employee, servant or representative ofthe Consultant shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the City for any purpose, and the employees of the Consultant are not entitled to any of the benefits the City provides for its employees. TheConsultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of itsagents, employees, servants, subcontractors, or representatives during theperformance of this Agreement. However, the results of the work contemplated herein must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City’s general rights of inspection and review to secure the satisfactory completionthereof. 2.Special Services Certain special services may be required to support the basic services to complete thetasks and assignments required by the City. The type and extent of such special servicescannot be determined at the time of execution of this agreement; provided, however, thatthe parties anticipate third-party data may be utilized or incorporated in the WorkProduct (as defined below) in order to develop the best traffic model and, in such case,the City shall contract directly with the third party and all such third party data shallbecome the property of the City. The Consultant agrees to perform such special services as may be required toaccomplish the objectives assigned by the City; providing, however, the Consultant feelscapable of performing such special services. Payment for this work shall be as agreed toin writing by both parties prior to beginning said work. Both the City and the Consultantshall mutually agree, in writing, to any special services, additional services, and/orchanges in services under this agreement. 3.Nondiscrimination A.The City is an equal opportunity employer. B.Nondiscrimination in Employment. In the performance of this Agreement, theConsultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant foremployment on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap; provided that the prohibition against discrimination in employment because of handicapshall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of theparticular worker involved. The Consultant shall ensure that applicants areemployed, and that employees are treated during employment without discrimination because of their race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. Such Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 164 of 173 action shall include, but not be limited to: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and programs for training including apprenticeships. The Consultant shall take such action with respect to this Agreement as may be required to ensure full compliance with local, state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. C.Nondiscrimination in Services. The Consultant will not discriminate against any recipient of any services or benefits provided for in this Agreement on thegrounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or thepresence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. D.If any assignment and/or subcontracting has been authorized by the City, said assignment or subcontract shall include appropriate safeguards againstdiscrimination. The Consultant shall take such action as may be required to ensurefull compliance with the provisions in the immediately preceding paragraphsherein. 4.Indemnification Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of theConsultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused bythe negligence of the City. If this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in theevent of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant’s liability,including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of theConsultant’s negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that theindemnification provided herein constitutes the Consultant’s waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shallsurvive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 5.Ownership of Instruments of Service The service provided by Consultant is intended for one time use only. The City shall own all reports, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates, plans,specifications, record drawings, and other documents prepared by the Consultant(“Work Product”). The Consultant shall provide the City with two hard copies and anelectronic copy of any final report(s) required as deliverables of an approved task order.Final payment will not be made until Consultant provides the City with all reports, drawings, documents, and services prescribed under an approved task order. Any reuseof the deliverables beyond the scope of services outlined in a governing task order isprohibited without written authorization from the Consultant. Any reuse of thedeliverables, including use by a third party, shall be without liability to the Consultant. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 165 of 173 6.Right of Entry The City will provide for the right of entry for the Consultant, its subcontractors, and all necessary equipment in order to complete the work under this agreement. Any damageto property by the Consultant due to negligence of the Consultant or its employees shallbe the responsibility of the Consultant. 7.Disposal of Hazardous Samples/Materials and Contaminated Equipment All samples and materials containing or potentially containing hazardous constituentsare the property and responsibility of the City. It is understood and agreed that theConsultant is not, and has no responsibility as a handler, generator, operator, treater,storer, transporter, or disposer of hazardous or toxic substances or waste materials foundor identified at any site. 8. Control of Work and Job-Site Safety The Consultant shall be responsible only for its activities and that of its employees, sub- consultants, and specialty contractors on any site. The Consultant will not direct,supervise or control the work of other consultants and contractors or theirsubcontractors. Insofar as job site safety is concerned, the Consultant is responsible onlyfor the health and safety of its employees, sub-consultants, and specialty contractorsemployed by the Consultant in carrying out its work. Nothing herein shall be construedto relieve the City of Moses Lake or any other consultant or contractors from theirresponsibilities for maintaining a safe job site. 9. Taxes Consultant accepts full and exclusive liability as between itself and The City for thepayment of any and all contributions or taxes which are measured by wages, salaries, or other remuneration paid to persons employed by Consultant or its subconsultants, or assignees for the work to be performed hereunder, or which arise by virtue ofConsultant’s employment, and which now or hereafter may be imposed by anygovernmental authority. Such contributions or taxes, shall include, but not be limited to,Unemployment Insurance, Worker’s Compensation, Old Age Retirement Benefits, Medicaid, Disability, Pensions or Annuities, and Income Taxes. Consultant shall comply with all laws and administrative regulations relating to such contributions ortaxes. Consultant accepts full and exclusive liability for and shall pay all sales, use, gross receipts, and any other taxes arising from the fees paid to Consultant by the City for Consultant’s performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall complete and maintain its registration with the Washington StateDepartment of Revenue and be responsible for payment of all taxes due on payments made under this Agreement. 10.Compliance with Laws and Warranty Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 166 of 173 A.The Consultant, in the performance of this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, andlicensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in thisAgreement to assure quality of services. B.The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. C.The Consultant represents that it has the skills and knowledge necessary to competently provide the services set forth in Exhibit A and agrees to provide the professional services under this Agreement in accordance with the care and skillordinarily used by members of the same profession practicing under similarconditions at the same time and in the same locality. The Consultant furtheragrees that it shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished under this Agreement. The Consultant will re-perform at the City’srequest any services not meeting this standard without additional compensation. ARTICLE Ill – OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY 1.Authorization The work required under this Agreement or any subsequent task order shall not begin,nor shall the City assume any obligation for the work involved until the Consultant isgiven authorization to proceed. Such authorization by the City Manager of Moses Lake shall not become effective prior to the date of execution of this Agreement or any taskorder specifically drafted for the work in question. 2.Information and Data In order to facilitate the work as outlined above, the City shall furnish to the Consultantall information having a bearing on the project that the City has, as requested by the Consultant. 3.Remuneration For the professional services as outlined in Exhibit A, the City shall reimburse theConsultant on a monthly basis for an invoice submitted by the Consultant as approvedby the City. The City may require the invoice to reflect the Consultant’s original taskorder fee estimate to complete the work that was accomplished during the invoiceperiod. No payment made to Consultant shall be construed as an acceptance of work orany portion thereof. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 167 of 173 ARTICLE IV – INSURANCE A.Insurance The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. No Limitation. Consultant’s maintenance of insurance as required by the Agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. B.Minimum Scope of Insurance Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1.Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired andleased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liabilitycoverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractualliability coverage. 2.Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrenceform CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations,independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. TheCity shall be named as an additional insured under the Consultant’sCommercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the workperformed for the City using an additional insured endorsement at least asbroad as ISO CG 20 26. 3.Workers’ Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurancelaws of the State of Washington. 4. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession. C.Minimum Amounts of Insurance Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1.Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limitfor bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. 2.Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits noless than $2,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 168 of 173 3.Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $2,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 policy aggregate limit. D.Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisionsfor Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: i.The Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance asrespect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance poolcoverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant’sinsurance and shall not contribute with it. Notice of Cancellation The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation within two business days of their receipt of such notice. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. Failure to Maintain Insurance Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days’ notice to the Consultant to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract. City Full Availability of Consultant Limits If the Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, the City shall be insured for the full available limits of Commercial General and Excess or Umbrella liability maintained by the Consultant, irrespective of whether such limits maintained by the Consultant are greater than those required by this contract or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the City evidences limits of liability lower than those maintained by the Consultant. ARTICLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.Termination The City may terminate the Agreement without cause at any time by giving theConsultant 30 days’ written notice of such termination. If any portion of the authorized Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 169 of 173 work covered by this Agreement and begun by the Consultant is abandoned, unreasonably delayed or indefinitely postponed by the City, the Consultant may also terminate this Agreement by giving 30 days written notice. The City may terminate the Agreement immediately at any time if the Consultant is in violation of any of the provisions of the Agreement. In the event of termination of this Agreement by either party, the Consultant shall be paid for all services rendered by the Consultant up to the date of termination, in accordance with the payment provisions of this Agreement. If the Consultant has any property in its possession belonging to the City, the Consultant will account for the same, and dispose of it in the manner directed by the City. 2.Personal Liability of Public Officials Neither the City employees nor any elected official of the City shall be personallyresponsible for any liability arising under or growing out of this Agreement. 3.Time Limitations and Jurisdiction For the convenience of the parties to the Agreement it is mutually agreed by the partiesthat any claims for non-payment for its services under this Agreement which theConsultant has against the City arising from the Agreement shall be brought within 180calendar days from the date of the end of the Agreement. The parties understand andagree that the Consultant’s failure to bring suit within the time provided, shall be acomplete bar to any such claims. Any claims or causes of action shall be brought only inthe Superior Court of Grant County. It is further mutually agreed by the parties that whenany claims or causes of action which the Consultant or a third party asserts against theCity arising from the Agreement are filed, the Consultant shall permit the City to havetimely access to any records reasonably deemed necessary by the City to assist inevaluating the claims or action. 4.Assignment and Subcontracting A.The Consultant shall not assign its performance under this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement without the written consent of the City, and it is further agreed that said consent must be sought in writing by the Consultant not less thanthirty (30) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. The City reservesthe right to reject without cause any such assignment. B.Any work or services assigned hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement and proper bidding procedures where applicable as set forth in local,state and/or federal statutes, ordinances and guidelines. C.Any technical/professional service subcontract not listed in this Agreement, must have express advance approval by the City. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 170 of 173 D.The Consultant shall be responsible and liable for the performance of its consultants, subcontractors or assignees who perform any portion of the work orservices and shall provide in written agreements with them the same duties andobligations required of the Consultant under this Agreement. The City shall incurno additional costs as a result of any such subcontract or assignment and no liability to any subcontractor or assignee. 5. Changes Either party may request changes to the scope of services and performance to be provided hereunder, however, no change or addition to this Agreement shall be valid or bindingupon either party unless such change or addition be in writing and signed by both parties.Such amendments shall be attached to and made part of this Agreement. A change inscope of services shall be approved by the City and executed in writing by the City Manager before any changes in the scope of services are authorized. All terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be applicable to any change in the scope ofservices. 6.Notice Any notice that any party hereto desires or is required to give the other party shall be made in writing and sent by or certified mail, return receipt requested. Any such noticeshall be deemed delivered upon deposit thereof in the United States mail with postageprepaid, addressed as follows: City of Moses Lake Consultant Notice may be sent by electronic mail (email). Email notice is accomplished if sent to the following email addresses of the parties. Email notice must be sent simultaneously to all representatives listed below at the listed email address: To City: [insert names and email addresses] To Consultant: [insert names and email addresses] Notice sent by email will not be deemed received upon transmission if sent outside of the City’s customary office hours; such notices will be deemed received on the City’s next business day. Emails returned as “undeliverable” shall not constitute an effective email notice. Any party may change the address hereinabove specified by giving written notice thereof to the persons identified in this Section. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 171 of 173 7.Severability A.If, for any reason, any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by a courtof the United States to be illegal, void or unenforceable, the validity of theremaining provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of theparties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. B.If it should appear that any provision hereof is in conflict with any statutoryprovision of the State of Washington, said provision which may conflict therewithshall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith, and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provisions. 8.Entire Agreement The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Further,any modification of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. Failureto comply with any of the provisions stated herein shall constitute material breach ofcontract and cause for termination. Both parties recognize time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement. It is also agreed by the parties that the forgiveness of the nonperformance of any provision of this Agreement does not constitutea waiver of the provisions of this Agreement. 9.Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when combined, shallconstitute one single binding agreement. 10.No Presumption Against Drafter This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for all parties and nopresumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against the party drafting thedocument shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 11. Litigation Assistance If required, the Consultant agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the City in itspreparation for arbitration, adjudication, or administrative proceedings and to testify andotherwise to provide evidence related to Consultant’s services under this Agreement, provided, however, the Consultant is not a party to such arbitration, adjudication, or proceedings. Compensation for said services shall be based upon a time and materialbasis to be negotiated and agreed upon by the parties. 12. Waiver Waiver by either party of any default or breach by the other party of any provisions of Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 172 of 173 this Agreement shall have no force or effect unless in writing, nor shall any waiver by either party of any default or breach of the other party be construed as a waiver of any other future default or breach of the same provision or any other provision of the Agreement. ARTICLE VI - SERVICES I.Consultant’s Payment Payment to the Consultant will be made after the billings have been approved by the City Council. The City Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. Billings received prior to the Tuesday preceding the Council meeting will be processed for the upcoming meeting. Consultant shall submit documentation, signed by the Consultant’s principal, listing personnel and their dates and hours worked. Fees shall be as listed in Exhibit C and applicable task orders and are limited to those charges unless written advance authorization is provided by the City. This agreement expires December 31, 2023, unless an extension is mutually agreed to in writing by principals of both parties. CONSULTANT By: _______________________________ Name/Title Date: _____________________________ CITY OF MOSES LAKE By: _____________________________ Allison Williams, City Manager Date: ____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Date: _____________________________Katherine L. Kenison City Attorney Moses Lake Council Packet 3-14-23, Page 173 of 173