FINAL 2023 0328 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 28, 2023
Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam or remote access*
Study Session
6 p.m. – Homestead Issue and HopeSource Updates
Regular Meeting Agenda
Call to Order – 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of the Agenda
Citizen’s Communications**
Summary Reports:
Mayor’s Report
- Community Coalition Event March 29
- Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Board Appointments
Additional Business
City Manager’s Report
-Grant County Sheriff Recognition of City Officers Mengist and Buescher
-Comprehensive Plan Deadline Extension - pg 4 Motion
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.
#1 pg 6
a.City Council Meeting Minutes Dated March 14, 2023
b.Claims and Payroll
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 1 of 183
Motion x2
March 28, 2023, City Council Meeting Page 2 _________________
Consent Agenda Cont’d
c.Good Faith 4 All Road Improvement Covenant
d.Gray & Osborne Well 34 Pumphouse Pilot Test Consultant
Old Business
#2
Motion
#3
Motion
pg 47
DOH Associates Police Station Owner’s Rep Contract
Presented by Allison Williams, City Manager
Summary: Council to review and consider approval
pg 78
Sleep Center Location Negotiation
Presented by Kirsten Sackett, Community Development Director
Summary: Council to review and consider approval
New Business
#4
Motion
pg 175
2023 Budget Amendment Ordinance 3021
Presented by Madeline Prentice, Finance Director
Summary: Council to review and consider adoption
Administrative Reports
-Police Annual Report
- WSDOT SR17 Project Delay to Summer 2024
-Director Recruitments
- Association of Grant County Cities and Towns Meeting March 30
Council Committee Reports
Executive Session
- Real Estate Sale or Lease pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 (1)(c)
Adjournment
Next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 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/83652426280
Or iPhone one-tap: US: +12532158782,,83652426280# or +13462487799,,83652426280# 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: 83652426280. International numbers available: https://cityofml.zoom.us/u/aelROcwuzZ Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 2 of 183
** 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 3-28-23, Page 3 of 183
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
Allison Williams, City Manager 10198
Kirsten Sackett, Director Community Development
3/28/2023 City Manager's Report
Extension of deadline for Comprehensive Plan docketing requests
City Manager Finance Fire
City Attorney Community Development Police
Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services
0.00$0.00$0.00$
Authorize extension of the deadline for submitting annual Comprehensive Plan amendments from March 31,
2023 until Friday, April 28, 2023.
The Growth Management Act and the Moses Lake Municipal Code (MLMC) both allow for the City to make
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan one time per year. MLMC 19.55.060 states that "the annual deadlines
for submitting suggested plan amendments... shall be March 31st, unless otherwise stated by the City Council."
Typically, the Community Development Department will advertise this deadline in the local newspaper and on
the City website at least a month in advance of the deadline. This year, due to staffing shortages the
announcement was not advertised in a timely manner. The City has already received several Comprehensive
Plan docketing requests, but staff would like to ensure that the public receives proper notification of this process,
as required by MLMC 19.55.070 which states:
"The public shall be made aware of the opportunity to suggest amendments and to comment on suggested
amendments through methods including but not limited to direct mailings, newsletter and newspaper articles,
legal advertisements, and notices posted in public places".
As such, City staff is requesting approval from City Council to extend the 2023 deadline from March 31 to Friday,
April 28, 2023.
Not applicable.
Options and Results
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 4 of 183
Approve, Authorize, or Adopt:
Provide Amended Direction:
No Action Taken:
Approval of the extension will allow appropriate notification to the public regarding the opportunity to submit
annual Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considering during the annual docket process.
Staff will bring back options for recommended changes.
Members of the public will not have received proper notification regarding the annual Comprehensive Plan
docketing cycle.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 5 of 183
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL March 14, 2023
EXECUTIVE SESSION 1 of 2
Mayor Myers called an Executive Session at 6 p.m. for 30 minutes to discuss Real Estate Acquisition pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1) subsections (b).
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 6:32 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
Scorpion Cheer Team Member Karissa led the Flag Salute.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Action taken: Council Member Eck moved to postpone Old Business item (3) Municipal Airport Lease Rate for 60 days to allow the Airport Commission time to review provided data, second by
Council Member Skaug. The motion failed 3 – 4.
Action taken: Council Member Swartz moved to approve the Agenda as presented, second by Deputy Mayor Martinez. The motion carried without contest.
PRESENTATION
Municipal Airport Commission Quarterly Report
Municipal Airport Commission Chair Rod Richeson stated that they are working on a turf runway, perimeter fencing, decorative fencing, fuel station installation, and painting runway and taxiway projects. He said that they have been unable to move forward due to communication with staff on challenges with regulated processes associated with government spending, as well
as lack of funding. SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORT
Moses Lake Special Olympics Cheer Team Recognition
The Scorpion Cheer Team placed first at the state competition held in Wenatchee earlier this month. The KHQ news video was viewed, the team was recognized, and received a t-shirt with City of Moses Lake logo.
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Board Member Recognition
Board Member Greg Navarez (not in attendance) recently resigned and was recognized for
his service from June 2018 through February 2023. Applications are being accepted and will be under review for recommended appointments at the next meeting. Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 6 of 183
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – March 14, 2023
pg. 2
CITIZEN’S COMMUNICATION
Larson Recreation Center Kitchen Sarah Farve, Moses Lake, expressed concern that the completed kitchen is lacking a food prep
sink and only permitted to serve prepackaged food. Staff advised that it was designed for a
concession stand and will bring back costs for Council to review on improved use of space for a food prep area or a commercial kitchen. Variety of Topics
Elisia Dalluge, Moses Lake Name, Moses Lake, commended the Council for their work on city business, approving Fire Department grant, upcoming changes from EPA, wished Council safe travels to Olympia, and shared part of personal matter that she has reported to Police. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
US EPA Superfund Site Staff Introduction
Management Division Piper Peterson and her team were present to review work they are doing in Moses Lake at the contamination site located at the former Larson Airforce Base.
Samaritan Hospital District Ballot Measure Resolution 3934 The proposed Grant County Public Hospital District No. 1 “Proposition No.1 – Bonds for
Public Hospital” will authorize the District to issue general obligation bonds on property
taxes for $130,000,000 to cover constructing a new public hospital and related health care facilities. Mayor Myers offered public comment and there was none. Samaritan leadership provided a presentation on needs for a new facility. Council asked several questions related to the current services and options to remodel existing facility.
Action taken: Council Member Swartz moved to adopt Resolution 3934 as presented, second by
Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0. 2022 Year-End Finance Report Finance Director Madeline Prentice presented a summary of citywide revenues exceeded
projections by 9.3% and were under on expenses by nearly 10%. 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.
CONSENT AGENDA
#1 a. City Council meeting minutes dated February 28, 2023
b. Electronic Transfer: N/A Checks: 159795 - 159988 - $544,888.04 Payroll Checks: #64998-65011 - $7,658.47 Electronic Payments: Direct Deposit - $558,658.77
c. Keller Associates Wastewater Pump Design Amendment 3
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Martinez moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, second by Council Member Fancher. The motion carried 7 – 0.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 7 of 183
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – March 14, 2023
pg. 3
OLD BUSINESS
#2 DOH Associates Police Station Owner’s Representative Staff recommends oversight of the project from design through warranty of the new
Police Station. DOH representatives were present to explain their role as an Owner’s Rep
for this project. Council requested staff bring back costs to fill a staff position for the oversight, as well as costs if the services were a provision in the architectural/engineering contract.
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Martinez moved to approve DOH contract as presented, second by
Mayor Myers. The motion failed 5 – 2. Action taken: Deputy Mayor Martinez moved to approve DOH contract for the construction phase of the Police Station project, second by Mayor Myers. The motion was withdrawn.
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Martinez moved to postpone the vote to March 28, second by
Council Member Swartz. The motion carried 7 – 0. Mayor Myers called a 5-minute recess at 9:05 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 2 of 2
Mayor Myers called an Executive Session at 9:10 p.m. for 15 minutes to discuss Potential Litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1) subsections (i). The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. #3 Municipal Airport Lease Rates
Staff researched comparable rates per Council direction. Comparable facilities were reviewed with the Airport Commission and two were removed. Staff recommended a market rate of $0.21 to be effective January 1, 2024, and to increase annually by the September to September West Coast-B/C All Urban Consumer Price Index. Several options for establishing the market rate and for calculating a lease rate were discussed, as
well as an incremental increase. State law for Cities operating airports was referenced.
Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to continue discussion on April 11, second by Deputy Mayor Martinez. The motion carried 7 – 0. Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to extend the meeting at 10 p.m. for 15 minutes,
second by Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0. #4 Sleep Center Location Negotiation
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Martinez moved to move the subject to March 28, second by
Council Member Swartz. The motion carried 7 – 0.
NEW BUSINESS
#5 Fehr and Peers Contract for Travel Demand Model Development Staff solicited requests for qualifications for development of a Travel Demand Model for
the City and surrounding area. This model will allow staff and Council to see impacts of
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 8 of 183
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – March 14, 2023
pg. 4
proposed growth and development in order to better identify needed improvements to the roadway network to mitigate growth.
Action taken: Council Member Eck moved to approve the traffic modeling contract as presented,
second by Deputy Mayor Martinez. The motion carried 7 – 0. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Police Citizen Academy Moses Lake PD and other area agencies will be hosting the annual Citizens' Academy
beginning April 4. This is an opportunity for residents of Grant County to learn about law enforcement duties and activities. Police Chief Kevin Fuhr distributed a flyer to Council and asked them to share with residents in effort to fill the 30 available seats. Council Facility Tours
City Manager Allison Williams has rescheduled tours at public works and wastewater division facilities to be next Wednesday and Friday. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Council Member Eck shared that the Port of Moses Lake will be storing the 737 airplanes for
three to four more years, Minot B-52 has an exercise planned there in April, and they are hosting a military exercise in August. Deputy Mayor Martinez announced that the next Watershed Council meeting will be held at Vanguard Academy to visit the school projects focused on water conservation. The Finance
Committee has been reviewing several proposed budget amendments that will be presented to full Council at the next meeting, such as the summer concert events. Mayor Myers advised that the April 16 meeting for Grant Transit Authority is their annual retreat to be held at the Larson Recreation Center beginning at 10 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
______________________________________ Don Myers, Mayor
ATTEST____________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 9 of 183
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 10197
Madeline Prentice, Director Finance
3/28/2023 Consent Agenda
Disbursement report since March 14, 2023
City Manager Finance Fire
City Attorney Community Development Police
Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services
2,184,199.92$2,184,199.92$0.00$
Approve payment of claims as presented.
The following amounts were budgeted, and sufficient funds were available to cover these payments:
Electronic Transfer: #217 - $2,252.73
Checks: 159989 - 160197 - $1,577,608.35
Payroll Checks: #65012-65024 - $7,706.91
Electronic Payments: Direct Deposit - $596,631.93
Vouchers - 03.28.2023.pdf 125.62KB
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 10 of 183
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 3-28-23, Page 11 of 183
TOTALS BY FUND:
FUND NO FUND NAME AMOUNT
001 GENERAL FUND 361,259.25
102 TOURISM 3,987.62
103 GRANTS AND DONATIONS 3,120.88
110 HOMELESS SERVICES 821.43
114 PATHS/TRAILS ‐
116 STREET 81,247.94
119 STREET REPR/RECON 100.00
286 REFUNDING GO BONDS 2015 ‐
314 PARK & RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS 2,721.88
315 PARK MITIGATION CAPITAL PROJECTS ‐
410 WATER/SEWER 107,020.48
450 2011 BOND FUND ‐
452 2004 BOND FUND ‐
471 WATER RIGHTS 27,745.50
477 WATER SEWER CONSTRUCTION 353,177.68
487 2015 GO BONDS REDEMPTION ‐
490 SANITATION 390,113.46
493 STORM WATER 7,339.81
495 AIRPORT 289.10
498 AMBULANCE 22,684.15
501 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION INSURANCE ‐
503 SELF‐INSURANCE 28,276.50
517 CENTRAL SERVICES 19,081.44
519 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 150,669.55
528 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 20,040.91
611 FIRE PENSION ‐
623 DEPOSIT 163.50
631 STATE ‐
TOTAL 1,579,861.08$
City of Moses Lake
Tabulation of Claims Paid‐Summary by Fund
Council Meeting Date‐ 03/28/2023
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 12 of 183
Check Name Check Amount Check Date Invoice Description
217 Dept Of Retirement Systems 2,252.73 03/20/2023 Feb 23 NLEC
159989 Edmund Guerrero 172.50 03/09/2023 TRT Training March 2023
159990 Washington Asso of Building Officials 625.00 03/09/2023 WABO ANNUAL EDUCATION ‐ ROB
159991 Washington Asso of Building Officials 500.00 03/09/2023 WABO Annual Education Jovita
159992 Brian Jones 187.15 03/10/2023 Supplies Purchased‐ Reimbursement
159993 Dean Gaddis 41.17 03/10/2023 Seizure Supplies Purchased
159994 Kyle Mccain 94.48 03/10/2023 Meal Purchased.
159995 Michelene Torrey 43.29 03/10/2023 Fuel Purchased for City Vehicle
159996 Nathan Pate 575.00 03/10/2023 APA Membership
159997 Olivia Martinez 9.11 03/10/2023 Postage Reimbursement
159998 Washington State Treasurer 30.22 03/10/2023 State Remittance JIS/PSAE
159999 Robert Doobovsky 132.00 03/10/2023 2023 Building Code Training
160000 Brett Bastian 352.00 03/13/2023 Trip‐ Pick Up New Medic Unit
160001 Pete Kunjara 352.00 03/13/2023 Trip‐ Pick Up New Medic Unit
160002 Jason Koziol 158.00 03/13/2023 STICO Training Per Diem
160003 Erika Ribble 218.50 03/13/2023 Child Passenger Safety‐ Per Diem
160004 Cristina Valdez 133.50 03/13/2023 Wellness Conference 2023
160005 Lucky Atkins 218.50 03/13/2023 Child Passenger Safety 2023
160006 Steven Mugnos 149.00 03/13/2023 2023 Building Code Training
160007 William R. Trumbull 267.00 03/13/2023 WABO Conference 2023
160008 Yonatan Mengist 258.00 03/13/2023 Firearm Recertification 2023
160009 A & H Printers Inc 118.86 03/14/2023 Business Cards ‐ D. Coutts
160010 A M Hardware Company Inc 395.63 03/14/2023 Keys
160011 Abc Hydraulics 436.58 03/14/2023 Grease Whip/Lock‐On Grease Coupler
160012 Active Network LLC 4,800.00 03/14/2023 2022 Service Charges
160013 Adobe Inc.77.18 03/14/2023 L. Ramsey License
160014 Ag Supply Ace Hardware 30.53 03/14/2023 Hinge Shutters
160015 Agri‐Fix, LLC 1,224.07 03/14/2023 Evidence Impound
160016 Agri‐Service LLC 14.02 03/14/2023 Paint
160017 Alpha Media, LLC 1,040.00 03/14/2023 LRC Advertising
160018 Amazon Capital Services, Inc.2,303.47 03/14/2023 February Amazon
160019 Aspect Consulting 27,745.50 03/14/2023 Water Rights Work
160020 Axon Enterprise Inc 61,137.60 03/14/2023 In‐Car Video Sys w. contract
160021 Azteca Systems Holdings LLC 564.58 03/14/2023 Sandbox Test Environment
160022 Bound Tree Medical LLC 454.56 03/14/2023 Medical Supplies
160023 Bsn Sports 2,013.53 03/14/2023 Youth Sports Equipment
160024 Bud Clary Chrysler Dodge Jeep 104.81 03/14/2023 Bulb Module Eq#002 W/O 58608
160025 Bud Clary Ford LLC 1,577.22 03/14/2023 Step Asy. Eq#120
160026 Central Machinery Sales Inc 130.81 03/14/2023 Misc Supplies
160027 Centurylink 55.41 03/14/2023 206‐T03‐6229 331B 2.23.2023
160028 CHS Inc 25,306.71 03/14/2023 Fuel For Vehicles
160029 Cobies Fine Dry Cleaning 162.58 03/14/2023 February Dry Cleaning
160030 Columbia Basin Herald 356.79 03/14/2023 Parks Board Ad
160031 Columbia Bearing Bdi 19.73 03/14/2023 Ball Bearings
160032 Consolidated Disposal Service 1,462.90 03/14/2023 Transfer Station Feb 2023
160033 Copiers Northwest Inc 4,434.63 03/14/2023 Equipment Contract Fees
160034 Correct Equipment 21,299.14 03/14/2023 Lids
160035 Crane Consultants, Inc.2,000.00 03/14/2023 2023 Mobile Crane Inspections
160036 CSWW, Inc 36.29 03/14/2023 SNS ‐ Engine Oil
160037 D & D Electric Motor Srvc Inc 5,384.75 03/14/2023 Blower Repair Eq#339 W/O 58464
160038 Databar Inc 1,914.39 03/14/2023 Mail Utility Bills
City of Moses Lake
Checks Issued with Summary Description
For March 28, 2023 Council Meeting
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 13 of 183
160039 Department Of Health 11,961.30 03/14/2023 2023 Operating Permit Fees
160040 Derick Terry 216.80 03/14/2023 Ice Rink Supplies
160041 Dobbs Peterbilt‐ Moses Lake 70.57 03/14/2023 Cable Eq#339 W/O 58464
160042 DP Trading 205.00 03/14/2023 City Logo Pens
160043 Faber Industrial Supply 117.35 03/14/2023 Cutting Wheel
160045 Fastenal Company 4,631.43 03/14/2023 Misc Supplies
160046 Ferrellgas 185.47 03/14/2023 Propane Eq#595
160047 Galls LLC 224.49 03/14/2023 Uniform Alterations
160048 Gee Automotive Liberty Lake, LLC 40,147.36 03/14/2023 2022 Mercedes Metris Cargo Van
160049 General Fire Apparatus Inc 384.03 03/14/2023 TIC Repair
160050 Grainger Parts Operations 756.71 03/14/2023 Class T Fuses
160051 Grant Co Solid Waste 109,893.47 03/14/2023 Landfill Dumping Fees
160052 Grimco, Inc.113.83 03/14/2023 Blade Holder
160053 Heartland Agriculture, LLC 59.75 03/14/2023 Misc Supplies
160054 Helena Agri‐Enterprises LLC 6,197.23 03/14/2023 Chemicals ‐ Spraying
160055 Home Depot Credit Services 1,141.28 03/14/2023 February Statement 2023
160056 Home Depot Pro (Supplyworks)1,480.66 03/14/2023 Janitorial Supplies
160057 IAFF Local 1258 5,160.00 03/14/2023 Fire Union Dues
160058 Ibs Inc 44.67 03/14/2023 In‐Line Fuse Holders
160059 Itron Inc 1,101.82 03/14/2023 Meter Reading Services
160060 Jerrys Auto Supply 1,858.30 03/14/2023 Control Arms & Balls Eq#142
160061 Jims Lock Service LLC 10.54 03/14/2023 Key Blanks/Stamped
160062 Kaman Fluid Power LLC 63.26 03/14/2023 Maintenance Supplies
160063 Kelley Connect 151.44 03/14/2023 Equipment Contract Fees
160064 Kent D. Bruce Co LLC 707.04 03/14/2023 Seat Covers Eq#117
160065 Kottkamp & Yedinak, P.L.L.C.1,557.50 03/14/2023 Seizure Hearing
160066 Lake Auto Parts 27.33 03/14/2023 Hose **$.56 Discount Taken**
160067 Lakeside Disposal, Inc 264,374.55 03/14/2023 Recycling @ Fire
160068 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP 4,716.25 03/14/2023 Financial Support Feb 2023
160069 Lowes 1,149.49 03/14/2023 Feb 2023 Statement
160070 Moon Security Services Inc 531.23 03/14/2023 Museum Security
160071 Moses Lake Booster Club 2,203.73 03/14/2023 Little Hoopsters Program
160072 Moses Lake Police Guild 2,730.00 03/14/2023 Police Dues
160073 Moses Lake Steel Supply 793.34 03/14/2023 Bar Angle
160074 Moses Lake Youth Hockey Assn 735.00 03/14/2023 Session 3 Beginning Hockey
160075 Northland Cable Television, Inc 104.75 03/14/2023 Internet Backup
160076 Oasis Auto Spa 897.60 03/14/2023 Feb Car Washes
160077 Oreilly Auto Parts 104.40 03/14/2023 Mini Bulb
160078 Oxarc Inc 223.35 03/14/2023 Argon/Stargon
160079 Pasco Tire Factory, INC 973.91 03/14/2023 Tires Disposal
160080 Pitney Bowes Inc 1,342.73 03/14/2023 Postage Machine Lease Q1
160081 Pud Of Grant County 83,091.18 03/14/2023 Building Elec. Services Jan 23
160082 Redflex Traffic Systems Inc 47,701.93 03/14/2023 March Redflex
160083 Rells Fire Equipment Inc 230.89 03/14/2023 Fire Alarm System Monitoring
160084 Rexel USA 115.07 03/14/2023 SNS Maintenance Supplies
160085 Salt Distributors, INC 37,387.26 03/14/2023 2022 Salt
160086 SCJ Alliance 16,397.60 03/14/2023 SMP Pro Services
160087 Sherwin‐Williams 515.93 03/14/2023 Paint
160088 Signs Now, LLC 2,048.76 03/14/2023 Ice Rink Supplies
160089 Skaug Brothers Glass 355.64 03/14/2023 Seizure Vehicle Window Replacement
160090 Smarsh Inc 84.58 03/14/2023 Professional Archive
160091 SoftResources, LLC 12,800.00 03/14/2023 Phase 2 RFP & Vendor Evaluation
160092 Staples Credit Plan 365.23 03/14/2023 Statement Dated 2.15.23
160093 Stoneway Electric Supply 164.25 03/14/2023 Timer
160094 Target Solutions Learning 366.67 03/14/2023 Crew Scheduling Software
160095 Town Square Publications LLC 1,436.00 03/14/2023 SNS Advertisement
160096 Transunion Risk & Alternative 165.21 03/14/2023 February Transunion
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 14 of 183
160097 Turf Star Western 432.09 03/14/2023 Fuel Filter
160098 Uniforms 2 Gear 280.96 03/14/2023 Uniform
160099 Ups Freight 81.02 03/14/2023 Weekly Service Fees
160100 Usa Blue Book 2,445.64 03/14/2023 Misc Supplies
160101 Util Undrgrnd Location Center 117.39 03/14/2023 Locates Feb. 2023
160102 VendNovation, LLC 1,300.80 03/14/2023 Software for Inventory Control
160103 Verizon Wireless 13,866.34 03/14/2023 Cell Phone Service Feb 2023
160104 Wash Wildlife & Rec Coalition 275.00 03/14/2023 2023 Membership
160105 Waste Mgt Recycle America Inc 9,842.60 03/14/2023 Comingle Loads Jan 2023
160106 Weinstein Beverage Company 105.60 03/14/2023 Parks Admin Office Water
160107 Wenatchee Valley Hospital 273.00 03/14/2023 Employee Immunizations
160108 Western Integrated Technologies, Inc 3,809.25 03/14/2023 Misc Supplies
160109 WSCCCE, AFSCME, AFL‐CIO 1,858.09 03/14/2023 AFSCME Union Dues
160110 Jovita Cantu 296.50 03/15/2023 WABO 2023 Per Diem
160111 United States Bureau of Reclamation 100.00 03/15/2023 Use Application Fee
160112 United States Bureau of Reclamation 100.00 03/15/2023 Use Authorization Application
160113 Washington Asso of Building Officials 160.00 03/15/2023 Doobovsky Fall Registration 2022
160114 The Links At Moses Pointe 7,682.20 03/17/2023 2023 Employee Golf Program
160115 Grant County Auditor 206.50 03/17/2023 Abandonment Easements
160116 Ednetics, Inc.163.50 03/20/2023 Q4 Utility Tax Overpaid.
160117 Kyle Mccain 1,500.00 03/20/2023 Replenish Controlled Buy Money
160118 Dorothy & Juventino Alvarado 133.14 03/20/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment
160119 HUGO PASTOR ZUNIGA 73.94 03/20/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment
160120 JOAN FRANK 158.57 03/20/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment
160121 Kati & Jareth Leach 135.56 03/20/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment
160122 Yoshives Belizaire 265.35 03/20/2023 Refund Utility Overpayment
160123 Shanda Creiglow 320.79 03/20/2023 Travel Mileage Reimbursement
160124 Taylor Thomas 1,837.92 03/20/2023 Hotel Charges on Personal Card
160125 Abc Hydraulics 22.70 03/21/2023 Liquid Gauge/Pipe Cap Eq.#331
160126 Amazon Capital Services, Inc.158.47 03/21/2023 Operating Supplies
160127 American Radiator Inc 489.59 03/21/2023 Radiator Repair
160128 Ana Li Design 157.50 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160129 APWA Membership 140.00 03/21/2023 APWA Membership New Members
160130 Basin Propane LLC 41.15 03/21/2023 Propane for Sleep Center
160131 Betty Johansen 28.00 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160132 Bud Clary Ford LLC 57.43 03/21/2023 Mounting Plate Eq#315 W/O 58594
160133 Busby International 780.48 03/21/2023 Cut Hole In Water Meter Insulation
160134 Cascade Natural Gas Corp 818.06 03/21/2023 SNS Utilities
160135 Central Machinery Sales Inc 1,166.34 03/21/2023 Turbo Charger Eq#572 W/O 58675
160136 Centurylink 135.47 03/21/2023 509‐765‐3027 864B 3.13.2023
160137 Coin Crafters & Engravers, INC 3,987.62 03/21/2023 LTAC Expense
160138 Copiers Northwest Inc 149.06 03/21/2023 Equipment Contract Fees
160139 Crown Paper & Janitorial 178.21 03/21/2023 Janitorial Supplies
160140 Databar Inc 3,381.50 03/21/2023 Mail Utility Bills
160141 Deborah Goodrich Chittenden 30.10 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160142 Dennis Duke 177.65 03/21/2023 LEOFF Retiree Dental Claim
160143 Elizabeth Grimsrud 61.60 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160144 EMS Technology Solutions, LLC 17,990.06 03/21/2023 Inventory Tracking
160145 Fair Play Corporation 830.50 03/21/2023 Ice Rink Maintenance Parts
160146 Fastenal Company 584.80 03/21/2023 Nitrile Gloves
160147 Ferrellgas 97.85 03/21/2023 Propane Eq#595
160148 Frontier Title & Escrow Co 975.60 03/21/2023 Title Search‐ Sleep Center
160149 Grainger Parts Operations 1,620.29 03/21/2023 Key Cabinet
160150 Home Depot Pro (Supplyworks)2,036.26 03/21/2023 Janitorial Supplies
160151 Ibs Inc 800.99 03/21/2023 Misc Supplies
160152 Inland Body & Paint 4,900.98 03/21/2023 Body Repairs Eq#150 W/O 58677
160153 Jerrys Auto Supply 18.56 03/21/2023 Custom Wrap Black
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 15 of 183
160154 Jims Lock Service LLC 42.15 03/21/2023 Keys
160155 Joan Eva Eckman 168.00 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160156 K C D A 100,751.92 03/21/2023 Playground equipment for Cascade
160157 Kassandra Wiggum 35.00 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160158 Katherine Kenison, PS 16,506.00 03/21/2023 City Atty Services Feb 2023
160159 Keller Associates 27,909.00 03/21/2023 Pro Services‐Wastewater Plan
160160 Kelley Connect 10,942.67 03/21/2023 Office Furniture‐Engineering
160161 Kottkamp & Yedinak, P.L.L.C.1,452.50 03/21/2023 Professional Services
160162 Lake Auto Parts 19.48 03/21/2023 V‐Belt Eq#513 W/O 58682
160163 Land Surveyors Assoc Of Wash 230.00 03/21/2023 LSAW Membership Dues
160164 Lee Ann St Clair 106.40 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160165 Maria Morales 52.50 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160166 Marsha Baerlocher 42.00 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160167 Martin Law LLP 28,276.50 03/21/2023 Wellfield Superfund
160168 Martin Schempp 60.20 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160169 Michael Reed 25.20 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160170 Miette Nichole Dahlgren 28.00 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160171 Moses Lake Steel Supply 66.54 03/21/2023 Maintenance Supplies
160172 NB Engineering, LLC 6,866.25 03/21/2023 Stormwater Comp Plan & Rate Study
160173 Northstar Chemical Inc 2,887.50 03/21/2023 Sodium Hypochlorite Well #8
160174 NYS Child Support Prosessing Center 369.22 03/21/2023 2305 Child Support Gilmartin
160175 Oreilly Auto Parts 16.25 03/21/2023 Spray Paint Eq#572 W/O 58675
160176 Perteet, Inc.67,189.17 03/21/2023 Professional Services
160177 Pow Contracting 320,911.58 03/21/2023 Pay Estimate 3 Northshore Lift Station
160178 Pro Touch Car Wash & Auto Detail LLC 2.17 03/21/2023 Self‐Serve Car Washes Feb 2023
160179 Pud Of Grant County 18,164.25 03/21/2023 Well Elec. Services Feb 2023
160180 Quill Corporation 190.26 03/21/2023 Coffee/Kleenex
160181 RH2 Engineering Inc.3,606.70 03/21/2023 Engineering Services
160182 Safety Kleen Corp 133.73 03/21/2023 Oil Filter Waste P/U & Oil Filter Drum
160183 SHI International, Inc 5,066.72 03/21/2023 Email Archiver
160184 Sirennet.Com 1,462.81 03/21/2023 Emergency Lights
160185 State Auditors Office 2,097.10 03/21/2023 Finance Pro Services
160186 Sunrise Environ Scientific 739.60 03/21/2023 General Maintenance Supplies
160187 Systems Design West, LLC 6,161.44 03/21/2023 EMS Billing‐ Feb 2023
160188 Tami Grant 168.00 03/21/2023 Museum Consignment Sales
160189 The DOH Associates 2,793.76 03/21/2023 New PD Station Services
160190 Thomas R Craghead 1,750.20 03/21/2023 LEOFF Retiree Dental Claim
160191 Ups Freight 33.54 03/21/2023 Weekly Service Fees
160192 Wash Recreation & Park Assoc 360.00 03/21/2023 WRPA Conference Registration
160193 Washington Finance Officers Asso 100.00 03/21/2023 Federal Award Registration
160194 Washington State Dept of Ecology 12,564.72 03/21/2023 Wastewater Permit‐Sand Dunes
160195 Waste Mgt Recycle America Inc 3,799.05 03/21/2023 Commingle Loads
160196 Weinstein Beverage Company 22.65 03/21/2023 Museum Water
160197 Ziggys 105.20 03/21/2023 Fencing
1,579,861.08
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 16 of 183
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
Allison Williams, City Manager 10200
Richard Law Municipal Services
3/28/2023 Consent Agenda
Good Faith 4 All Road Improvement Covenant
City Manager Finance Fire
City Attorney Community Development Police
Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services
0.00$0.00$0.00$
Authorize the City Manager to execute a Covenant and Agreement for Deferral of Improvements with L.I.D.
Waiver with Good Faith 4 All LLC for the Good Faith 4 All Short Plat or Binding Site Plan.
2023 Covenant GF4A.pdf 3.6MB
The City has reviewed the required improvements for the Good Faith 4 All Short Plat and has agreed with
the owner that they are remote from any existing city stormwater and sidewalk. It would not be in the best
interest of the City for these improvements to be constructed at this time. As this is in a commercial zone
and with the agreement of the ownership group, staff requests Council to authorize the City Manager to
execute an Covenant and Agreement to run with the land that will require the owner to pay for the
required improvements to the street at such time the City deems it necessary.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
None
Options and Results
Approve, Authorize, or Adopt:
City Manager will execute the Covenant and it will be filed with Grant County.
Provide Amended Direction:
Staff will bring back options for recommended changes.
No Action Taken:
The Covenant will not be filed and the Developer would be required to install required improvements as
part of the plat requirements today
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 17 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 18 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 19 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 20 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 21 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 22 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 23 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 24 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 25 of 183
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 26 of 183
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 10162
Richard Law, PE Municipal Services
3/28/2023 Consent Agenda
Well 34 Pumphouse Pilot Test Consultant Agreement (GC2022-085A)
City Manager Finance Fire
City Attorney Community Development Police
Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services
123,150.00$123,150.00$0.00$
Staff recommends that City Council should motion to execute the Well 34 pumphouse pilot test consultant
agreement between the City and Gray and Osborne Inc. (GC2022-085A).
GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.pdf 248.29KB
2570 Exhibit A.pdf 150.19KB
2570 Exhibit B.pdf 277.96KB
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 27 of 183
Overview
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Approve, Authorize, or Adopt:
Provide Amended Direction:
No Action Taken:
In November of 2022, the Municipal Services Department Engineering Division advertised a request for
qualifications for pilot testing and preliminary design work for the treatment of water at Well 34 located on
Montana Street. These are the next steps needed to have the source added to the City's water supply
portfolio.
Five engineering consultant firms formally responded to the request. Each consultant summarized their past
experience relevant to the project. State law requires that the selection of engineering consultants must be
conducted by qualifications first, independent of fee negotiations which happen after selection.
A committee of four city staff members studied the qualifications of each applicant and independently scored
them using a common scoring system. The weighted average numerical scores were based on each applicant's
relevant experience, proposed project approach, project team, references, and proposed schedule.
The committee then met to compile the scores for each applicant and discuss the results. The applicant with
the highest score was Gray and Osborne Inc. The City and Gray and Osborne Inc. moved into the post
selection phase and proceeded to negotiate the detailed scope of work and fee schedule. The final negotiated
scope of work and fee schedule are attached to this staff report as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
The Municipal Services Department Engineering Division is in favor of moving forward with this engineering
consultant agreement for the pilot testing and preliminary design work for the Well 34 pumphouse and water
treatment. It will also include a feasibility study for pilot testing Moses Lake surface water. This will give the
consultant the information they need to design a pilot test for Moses Lake surface water if that is deemed to be a
beneficial use of City resources.
The consultant agreement would require planned and budgeted funds to be spent.
Options and Results
City staff will execute the consultant agreement with the selected consultant firm, Gray and Osborne Inc.
Staff will develop options for the recommended changes.
City staff will await further instructions.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 28 of 183
1
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
GC2022-085A
THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into at Moses Lake, Washington
this 29th day of March 2023, by and between the CITY OF MOSES LAKE, State of
Washington, hereinafter called the "City" and GRAY AND OSBORNE INC., a firm 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 Gray and
Osborne 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 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 services to be performed by the Consultant under this agreement are as follows:
The consultant will provide pilot testing, a feasibility study and other engineering services
for the Well 34 Pumphouse Project. The scope of work is detailed in Exhibit A.
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 29 of 183
2
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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
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 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 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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 30 of 183
3
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Consultant shall retain a right to reuse the work products on Consultant’s future projects.
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.
7. Sample Disposal
Soil and rock samples or other specimens will be disposed of 60 days after submission of
test results by the laboratory. Upon written request, the Consultant will store samples for
longer periods of time or transmit the samples to the City for a mutually acceptable charge.
8. Disposal of Hazardous Samples/Materials and Contaminated Equipment
All samples and materials containing or potentially containing hazardous constituents are
the property and responsibility of the City. It is understood and agreed that the Consultant
is not, and has no responsibility as a handler, generator, operator, treater, storer,
transporter, or disposer of hazardous or toxic substances or waste materials found or
identified at any site.
9. 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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 31 of 183
4
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
10. 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.
11. 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
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 32 of 183
5
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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. 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
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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 33 of 183
6
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 34 of 183
7
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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
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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 35 of 183
8
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 36 of 183
9
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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 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:
The City of Moses Lake
PO Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Gray and Osborne Inc.
1130 Rainier Ave. South, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98144
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.
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 37 of 183
10
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
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 provide the services described in Exhibit A.
II. 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 B and are limited to those charges unless written advance
authorization is provided by the City.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 38 of 183
11
1/21/2019 10:01 AM \\ENG-SERVER\engineers\Mark B\2023\GC2022-085 Well 34 Pumphouse\GC2022-085A Well 34 Pumphouse Consultant Agreement.docx
CITY OF MOSES LAKE CONSULTANT
_____________________________ _______________________________
Richard Law, P.E. Russell Porter, P.E.
City Engineer Principal Engineer
Date: _________________________ Date:___________________________
_____________________________
Allison Williams
City Manager
Date: ________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Katherine L. Kenison
City Attorney
Date: ____________________________
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 39 of 183
G&O #PR225.70 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
WELL 34 MANGANESE TREATMENT PILOT STUDY AND PROJECT
REPORT
BACKGROUND
The City of Moses Lake drilled a new well, Well 34, in 2016 in the western portion of the
City. The well was drilled to 67 feet. In 2022, the well was fitted with a new screen
assembly and a filter pack to alleviate a sanding problem. The well was tested at
1,600 gpm for 24 hours with only 2.28 feet of drawdown. The hydrogeological report
indicates that the City has a target production capacity of 1,200 gpm for this well.
Laboratory analysis of water samples indicated that the well contained water quality
constituents within regulatory limits with exception of manganese, which was present at
1.63 mg/L. The regulatory maximum contaminant level for manganese is 0.05 mg/L.
Manganese is currently considered a secondary contaminant since it is an aesthetic
concern rather than a health concern. At high levels, however, it can be problematic and
cause deposits on fixtures and stain laundry. The well also contained 0.05 mg/L iron, a
contaminant often present with manganese. The secondary MCL for iron is 0.3 mg/L so
iron in Well 34 is present in concentrations below the MCL.
The Well 34 site is on the same City parcel as Well 31. Well 31 is a deeper well tapping
a different aquifer with different water quality. It is anticipated that any equipment for
Well 34 would need to be contained within the boundaries of the existing City parcel
with Well 31. According to the 2015 Comprehensive Water System Plan, Well 31, along
with Wells 4, 7, 10, and 13, provides water to the Central Zone. It is assumed that
Well 34 would also provide water to the Central Zone. The Central Zone is served by
two reservoirs with overflow elevations of 1,220 feet.
Manganese in drinking water is usually removed using an oxidation/filtration process
with a catalytic media. Most often oxidation is by adding potassium permanganate,
ozone, or chlorine. In most applications, chlorine, usually in the form of sodium
hypochlorite, is the simplest and least expensive option. After oxidant addition, the water
is passed through a filter with catalytic media. Manganese oxidizes slowly under normal
drinking water conditions even in the presence of chlorine. The oxidation reaction can be
catalyzed by manganese dioxide. Consequently, the filter media will typically have a
manganese dioxide surface. Some filter media, like greensand, have the manganese
dioxide surface installed in situ by soaking the media with permanganate. Other media,
like Greensand Plus® and MTM®, have a manganese dioxide surface added to filter
sands in a factory process. Some media, like pyrolusite, are naturally occurring minerals
composed mainly of manganese dioxide. Once oxidized the manganese in the well water
becomes a manganese dioxide solid that is easily removed by the filter media.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 40 of 183
G&O #PR225.70 Page 2 of 6
As the manganese and other solids accumulate on the filter media occupying a finite
amount of available media surface. At some point, either the pressure across the filter
becomes high or the media capacity to filter is used up and contaminants are no longer
filtered. When this occurs, the filters must be backwashed to remove the accumulated
material. For most iron and manganese systems, the backwash volume is approximately
five to ten percent of the total water that is produced.
The disposal of backwash water is a significant issue with multiple options. The easiest
option for backwash disposal is to direct the backwash to the sewer system. This can be
problematic at the wastewater plant since the backwash is a surge of high flow that is low
in organic loading. The solids in the backwash readily settle in the sludge at the
treatment plant.
Another option for backwash disposal is infiltration. Under Washington law, iron and
manganese treatment backwash can be disposed of by infiltration without an NPDES
permit if the backwash does not flow into state surface water. If feasible, an infiltration
pond can be sized for multiple backwashes to ensure it does not overflow. Periodically,
the accumulated solids would need to be removed from the pond’s bottom.
Backwash water can also be directed to a storage tank and allowed to settle with the
decanted water pumped back to the front of the plant to be treated with the well water.
This recycling of backwash adds a layer of operational complication but eliminates the
wasted water associated with backwash. This is an excellent option for systems with
limited water rights or limited water resources. The solids that accumulate in the bottom
of the storage tank are periodically pumped out and can be landfilled or directed to a
wastewater plant.
The following scope of work is intended to develop a project report suitable for submittal
to the Washington Department of Health (DOH) per WAC 246-290-110. The purpose of
the report is to do the predesign work involved with selecting the preferred media through
a pilot study, reviewing design alternatives for chlorination and backwash disposal, and
providing recommendations. In addition, all of the other design parameters for the
facility including well pump sizing, building size and type, site piping, electrical
requirements, and controls will be documented in the report. The report will also contain
preliminary site and building plans as well as a predesign level cost estimate.
In addition to the pilot study and project report preparation for Well 34, the City is also
interested in exploring the possibility of incorporating surface water into their source
water portfolio. Consequently, a preliminary review of water quality is included in this
scope of work. The preliminary review will include historical work performed by the
Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District (MLIRD), which focuses on nitrogen,
phosphorus, and algae. In addition to a review of the historical data, Gray & Osborne
will take water quality samples in the lake for standard water quality parameters noted in
WAC 246-290 including inorganic chemicals (IOC), volatile organic chemicals (VOC),
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 41 of 183
G&O #PR225.70 Page 3 of 6
and synthetic organic chemical (SOC). The intent of this work will be to do a cursory
review of treatability to identify possible treatment options and recommend further
actions to identify the best treatment option.
ASSUMPTIONS
This scope of work is based on the following assumptions.
• This project includes work through the project report. Preparation of
design documents for construction and construction assistance would be
performed under a separate scope of work.
• Survey is not included in this scope of work.
• Geotechnical investigation is not included in this scope of work.
• The City will provide any well information and record drawings for the
existing Well 31 and the Well 34 site.
• 110 VAC power is available on site for the pilot study.
• Gray & Osborne will have access to the site for the pilot study.
• Gray & Osborne will take water quality samples near Blue Heron Park in
Moses Lake, three different times from May to October. The samples will
be taken at depths and distances from shore where a potential plant intake
could be sited. A City of Moses Lake Parks Department boat and boat
operator will be available for sampling. Gray & Osborne will coordinate
with the Parks Department for sampling times.
SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant will perform the following tasks.
Task 1 – Project Management
Objective: Provide overall project management and oversight of the project work by
the Project Manager and senior staff members.
A. Provide overall project management and oversight services, to include:
1. Procure sufficient staff resources to dedicate to the project.
2. Manage and control project budget and schedule.
3. Manage and provide monthly invoices.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 42 of 183
G&O #PR225.70 Page 4 of 6
Deliverables
• Monthly invoices.
Task 2 – Review Background Information and Evaluate Alternatives
Objective: Identify water quality issues in Well 34 and recommend a treatment
technology for a pilot study.
A. Obtain well water quality data from City staff and review.
B. Identify water quality issues.
C. Prepare a technical memorandum identifying and analyzing treatment
technique alternatives suitable for the Well 34 installation. Recommend a
treatment technique(s), including oxidation method and media, for a pilot
study.
Deliverables
• Draft Alternatives Analysis for City Review.
• Final Alternatives Analysis.
Task 3 – Perform Pilot Study
Objective: Verify the efficacy of the recommended treatment technique(s) and
establish treatment design parameters through a pilot study.
A. Prepare a Pilot Study Protocol identifying the pilot study goals,
equipment, and water quality monitoring schedule.
B. Arrange to have a temporary pump installed in the well.
C. Perform the pilot study. The Consultant is expected to provide all pilot
study equipment, water quality monitoring equipment, and personnel.
D. Document the pilot study results and the resultant design parameters in a
report.
Deliverables
• Draft pilot study protocol for City review.
• Final pilot study protocol.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 43 of 183
G&O #PR225.70 Page 5 of 6
• Pilot Study results report.
Task 4 – Project Report
Objective: Prepare an engineering project report suitable for DOH review and
approval per WAC 246-290-110 documenting the design parameters for
equipping Well 34 and any treatment for the well. The following items
will be included, at minimum, although any other relevant design
parameters or information may also be included.
A. Brief description of the City’s water system including how Well 34 would
be included in system operation.
B. Discussion of well construction.
C. Hydraulic analysis including a well system curve.
D. Pump analysis and selection.
E. Preliminary site and building plans.
F. Summary of pilot study results and treatment system design parameters.
G. Chemical feed system sizing and equipment selection.
H. Design of backwash disposal.
I. Project electrical requirements.
J. Instrumentation inventory and control description including I/O lists for
integrating into the City’s SCADA system.
K. Identify permit and regulatory requirements.
L. Predesign level project cost estimate.
Deliverables
• Draft Project Report for City review.
• Revised Project Report for DOH review.
• Final Project Report.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 44 of 183
G&O #PR225.70 Page 6 of 6
Task 5 – Water Quality Sampling and Preliminary Treatability Study
Objective: Prepare a preliminary treatability study of Moses Lake water to ascertain
potential treatment technology options based upon water quality
information.
A. Obtain and summarize historical water quality data from MLIRD
regarding algae, phosphorus, and nitrate levels in Moses Lake.
B. Sample one site over 3 periods for standard IOC, VOC, and SOC analysis.
C. Provide a water quality summary report to the City of Moses Lake for
review.
D. Prepare a preliminary treatability study based upon water quality data.
E. Identify suitable treatment technologies.
F. Note particular water quality issues that may affect performance and water
quality.
G. Provide preliminary cost information on alternatives.
H. Recommend additional tests, including pilot testing, for the recommended
alternative(s).
I. Document findings in a technical memorandum.
Task 6 – Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Conduct Quality Assurance/Quality Control reviews of pilot study protocol and Project
Report.
SCHEDULE
The schedule presented below shows the anticipated completion of each task unless a
contract extension is agreed upon.
Task 2 – 2 months after notice to proceed.
Task 3 – 4 months after notice to proceed.
Task 4 – 7 months after notice to proceed.
Task 5 – 10 months after notice to proceed.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 45 of 183
Principal
Hours
Project Manager
Hours
Project
Engineer
Hours
Civil Eng.
Hours
Structural
Eng.
Hours
Electrical Eng.
Hours
Environmental
Tech./
Specialist
Hours
Engineer-In-
Training Hours
AutoCAD/
GIS Tech./
Eng. Intern
Hours
1 Provide Project Management 8
2 Review Background Information and
Evaluate Alernatives 8 16 40 16 16
3 Perform Pilot Study 6 6 32 24
4 Project Report 24 24 80 4 8 8 24 40
5 Water Quality Sampling and Preliminary
Treatability Study 2 32 40 80 40 12
6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 6 6 6 6 2 2 6
8 84 92 238 6 10 8 110 68
Fully Burdened Billing Rate Range:*$150 to $235 $140 to $235 $125 to $175 $115 to $155 $115 to $210 $120 to $215 $93 to $165 $100 to $170 $60 to $165
$220 $215 $165 $150 $195 $195 $140 $145 $120
$1,760 $18,060 $15,180 $35,700 $1,170 $1,950 $1,120 $15,950 $8,160
Total Fully Burdened Labor Cost:99,050$
Direct Non-Salary Cost:
Mileage & Expenses (Mileage @ current IRS rate)2,000$
Laboratory fees 3,600$
Printing -$
Subconsultant:
Well driller 7,500$
ATEC Inc.10,000$
Subconsultant Overhead (10%)1,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST:123,150$
*
Actual labor cost will be based on each employee's actual rate. Estimated rates are for determining total estimated cost only. Fully burdened billing rates include direct salary cost, overhead, and profit.
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SCOPE AND ESTIMATED COST
City of Moses Lake - Well 34 Pilot Study and Project Report
Fully Burdened Labor Cost:
Tasks
Hour Estimate:
Estimated Fully Burdened Billing Rate:*
G #PR225.70 Page 1 of 1
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 46 of 183
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:
Mayor and City Council 10210
Allison Williams, City
Manager Administration
3/28/2023 Old Business
Contract for Services with the DOH Associates
City Manager Finance Fire
City Attorney Community Development Police
Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services
150,000.00$389,614.00$389,614.00$
City Council authorization for the City Manager to enter into the contract with the DOH Associates.
March 28 - Staff report.doc 287.5KB
Moses of Lake Police.SOW-Rolluda.pdf 163.59KB
2230 Moses Lake Police Station-DOH responsibilities 221213.pdf 356.42KB
aeguidelines 2017.pdf 246.8KB
WAC 392-343-102.pdf 220.7KB
City of Moses Lake Comparative Salary Analysis.docx 40.63KB
See attached staff report
See attached staff report
Options and Results
The city moves forward with the contract with the DOH Associates.
Staff will act on recommended changes and bring back if necessary.
The city will move forward with the architect only contract.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 47 of 183
Page 1 of 5
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor Don Myers, Council Members
From: Allison Williams, City Manager; Richard Law, City Engineer;
Kirsten Sackett, Community Development Director; Madeline
Prentice, Finance Director; Shannon Springer, HR Director and
Kevin Fuhr, Police Chief
Date: March 22, 2023
Proceeding Type: Old Business
Subject: The DOH Associates, Contract for Owner’s Representation
OVERVIEW:
At the regular meeting on February 14th, City Council reviewed the contract for services with the
DOH Associates to provide services as the Owner’s Representative for the Police Station build. At
that meeting, City Council requested additional information about the role of the owner’s rep. At
the regular meeting of March 14, 2023, staff provided an overview and DOH Associates
representatives Larry Gangle and Paul Coppock were on hand to provide feedback and respond
to questions. At the conclusion of the meeting City Council asked for additional information in
regard to the contracted duties of the architect of record, Rolluda Architects, and the DOH
Associates. As we head into another discussion on this topic, the following Reminders:
• Project is being funded with Washington State LOCAL program bond proceeds which
requires a consistent and documentable level of oversight and creation of the project
record, including maintenance of file of insurance certificates and performance and
payment bonds from the low bidder.
• The project is expected to be three years in duration (design through construction to
close out).
• The DOH contract amount was estimated for the duration of the project and the first
year was split out as an estimate for this year (2023). The estimate was higher in the first
year because of International Building Code special inspection testing contracts that
would also be completed under the owner’s rep contract.
Attached for your reference are:
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 48 of 183
Page 2 of 5
1. Rolluda Architects Scope of Work (SOW)
2. The DOH Associates SOW
3. Architect and Engineering Guidelines for determining A/E fees for a public project and
associated duties
4. WAC 392-343-102. This is the reference utilized by staff for establishing owners rep
compensation
5. City of Moses Lake comparable position analysis
The following is an overview of the responsibilities from both Rolluda and DOH Associates
(utilizing excerpts from each separate Scope of Work):
Design/Construction Documents
1. Rolluda to provide architectural and engineering (A/E) design services for the Moses
Lake Police to be located on parcel number 102113000 in the City of Moses Lake
2. City / Owner’s Representative (OR) to provide Design Team Division 0 and 1
specification sections (contractual sections).
3. City/OR to manage separate contracts (geotechnical engineering, surveying).
4. City/OR to review and provide value engineering recommendations on the design
and materials selection.
Bidding
1. RAI/City/OR pre-bid meeting to review specifications, estimate and optimal bidding
conditions.
2. City to manage Bid process (Builder’s Exchange of Washington, or similar) posting
documents and addenda with assistance from the Owner’s Rep.
3. Rolluda Architects Inc (RAI) to respond to bidder questions, substitution requests,
issue addenda, attend pre-bid meeting (if one is required).
Construction Administration
1. RAI to attend the preconstruction meeting to present general project overview from
design team’s perspective (technical specifications, drawings).
2. City (Owner’s Representative) to present the administrative processes (General
Conditions and portions of Division 1 specifications), which would include things
such as contractual issues, payment process, contract change process, other project
requirements such as prevailing wage reporting, etc.
3. RAI to review submittals for compliance with specification design intent including
shop drawings, product data, samples, qualification/warranty data, etc.
4. RAI to respond to RFIs (contractor Requests For Information).
5. RAI to issue architectural supplemental sketches, field directives, etc, as needed.
6. RAI to review pay request prior to City approval with OR review.
7. RAI to evaluate/review Change Orders prior to City approval with OR review.
8. RAI to attend/conduct weekly construction progress meetings and provide meeting
minutes.
9. RAI to attend up to 10 site visits to monitor construction progress (12 – 16 month
timeline).
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 49 of 183
Page 3 of 5
10. City/OR to make daily or weekly site visits to monitor construction progress and
submit weekly progress reports.
11. City to approve Payment Requests with OR assistance.
12. City to approve Change Orders with OR review.
13. City/OR to hire/manage testing and inspection agency.
14. City/OR review special inspection and testing results and identify any non-complying
tests and assist with determining a remedy / advise Architect of items of apparent,
or possible, non-compliance and maintain a file of all test results and confirm
distributions are made to the building department, the Contractor and the Architect
Project Closeout
1. Conduct punchlist walkthrough and back-check (2 visits). City/OR representative to
attend both.
2. City/OR collect from Architect and forward all guarantees, warranties, record
documents, operation and maintenance manuals, keying schedules, and certificates
of compliance.
3. Receive and review contractor marked-up field records (as-builts).
4. Review Operations and Maintenance manual.
ANALYSIS
Cost Consideration:
The DOH Associates average hourly rate (plus travel/expenses): $112
Contract amount: $389,614
Special inspections cost included in above DOH contract amount: $60,000
City Staff:
During the previous City Council meeting, discussion was also held regarding the work conducted
by the Building Inspectors already on staff within the Building Division of the Community
Development Department. The idea was also floated to potentially hire a new staff member to
carry out the responsibilities that would be assigned to the Owner’s Rep.
Before discussing the hiring process and potential cost of doing so, Staff would like to provide a
description of the work that is currently performed by the City’s existing building inspectors:
The state adopted codes prescribe what inspections are required. These inspections are
provided by the building inspectors in the building division and include the following:
1. Building setbacks
2. Footings and foundation walls
3. Slab and under slab (Utilities)
4. Framing
5. Shear wall and roof diaphragm (if required)
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 50 of 183
Page 4 of 5
6. Rough plumbing
7. Rough Mechanical
8. Drywall/fire wall
9. Suspended ceiling (if provided)
10. Insulation
11. Energy Code
12. Compliance with state accessibility requirements (ADA)
13. Final
Currently, the city is staff up with Building Inspectors in the Building Division who are certified to
perform all of the above referenced inspections. The only required inspection not provided by
city staff is the electrical inspections, as that is the sole responsibility of the State Department of
Labor and Industries.
The International Building Code in Chapter 17 lists additional inspections that require third party
inspectors (not City staff), who are independent from the contractor, and retained by the owner
(the City). The required special inspections are not intended to replace the inspections performed
by the city. These inspections include, but are not limited to:
1. Soils (compaction)
2. Concrete testing
3. Placement of concrete
4. Reinforcement
5. Masonry construction
6. Structural steel bolting and welding
7. Fireproofing
8. Installation of fire rated assemblies
Not every inspection listed above requires a special inspection unless specifically required by a
design professional or the Building Official.
The one aspect of inspections that are not regulated by the adopted codes are those that involve
the requirements found in the specifications developed by the architect. These items typically
include finishes, cabinetry, equipment not regulated by code, manufacturers specific items, etc.
As stated previously, the Special Inspections are required for a project of this nature, and are
included in the Scope of Work to be carried out by DOH Associates, and is separate from the
duties associated with acting as the Owner’s Rep.
If the City were to hire staff for this owner’s rep position (and carry out the duties described
previously), it would be a short-term project-related position for the three year duration. Time to
develop job description and hire – 4-6 months.
Average salary based on City of Moses Lake comparable cities: $94,000 – $120,000
Average with Cost of benefits: (average 32%): $124,691 - $158,334
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 51 of 183
Page 5 of 5
Rolluda Average Hourly Rate (plus travel and expenses): $134
Rolluda contract: $1,537,723
A key staff consideration:
Construction Field Observation –
Rolluda contract: Provide services consisting of up to 10 visits to the site to become
generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine in general if
the work is proceeding in accordance with the contract documents and preparing reports
and communication.
With a 12-16 month construction timeframe for this project, that is less than 1 visit a
month from the architect, should we increase visits, the difference in hourly rate would
greatly exceed the DOH contract and cost of staff to do the work.
The $15 million cost estimate included the expectation of costs for A & E plus owner’s
representation.
Action requested: City Council authorization for the City Manager to enter into the contract with
the DOH Associates.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 52 of 183
Moses Lake Police
The City of Moses Lake
Page 1 of 6
SCOPE OF WORK
I. GENERAL
Provide architectural and engineering (A/E) design services for the Moses Lake Police to be
located parcel number 102113000 in the City of Moses Lake. The design will be roughly based
on the Scoping Space List – Base Program revised on 01/28/2019 (approximately 28,000 square
feet, 2-story), and the general design direction will be based on the plans provided by the City
of Moses Lake. The following is our understanding of the general parameters of the scope of
work:
• The City will be using the Design/Bid/Build process for this project.
• The City may hire DOH to serve as the Owner’s Representative for the project.
• The City will not be pursuing LEED™ Certification for the project.
• The City will contract separately for Geotechnical Engineering and Surveying services, and
will provide fire protection flow testing of the water system located in Central Drive.
• The City will be providing Divisions 0 and 1 of the Specifications.
II. SCHEMATIC DESIGN
Prepare drawings and other documents illustrating the general scope, scale, and relationship of
project components for approval of The City of Moses Lake Police Stakeholder Committee.
Design will be conceptual in character, based on the requirements developed as part of
conceptual design task that was used to seek funding for the project.
A. Project Administration
Services consisting of schematic design administrative functions including, bi-weekly
Stakeholder meetings, coordination with Owner’s Representative (DOH),
correspondence, project schedule updates, and progress review meetings.
B. Document Checking
Review and coordination of project documents.
C. Discipline Coordination
Coordination between the architectural work and engineering work and other involved
consultants for the project.
D. Permitting Assistance
Assist The City of Moses Lake with coordination with permitting agencies. Assist with
research of applicable critical applicable regulations, preparation of written and
graphic explanatory materials. The services apply to applicable laws, statutes,
regulations and codes.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 53 of 183
Moses Lake Police
The City of Moses Lake
Page 2 of 6
E. Architectural Design
Services responding to scope of work requirements and consisting of preparation of
conceptual site and building plans, schematic sections and elevations, preliminary
selection of building systems and materials, development of approximate dimensions,
areas, and volumes.
F. Structural Design
Services consisting of recommendations regarding basic structural material and systems,
analysis, and development of conceptual design solutions.
G. Mechanical Design
Services consisting of consideration of alternate materials, systems and equipment, and
development of conceptual design solutions for energy sources/conservation, heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing, fire protection, and general space
requirements.
H. Electrical Design
Services consisting of consideration of alternate systems, recommendations regarding
basic electrical materials, systems and equipment, analysis, and development of
conceptual design solutions for power service and distribution, lighting, communication
raceways, fire detection and alarms, and general space requirements.
I. Civil Design
Services consisting of site planning including layout of site features, building position,
preliminary grading, location of paving for walkways, driveways and parking, and fencing
locations. Also included are the normal connections required to service the building
such as water, drainage, sanitary systems, and evaluation of site for Low Impact Design
options such as rain gardens, pervious pavements, green roofs, dispersal, etc. as
required by the Department of Ecology.
J. Landscape Design
Services consisting of development of landscape plan options, preparation of illustrative
preferred plan and 2 sections, and preparation of narrative.
K. Cost Estimating Review
Services consisting of developing a probable construction cost. For this phase of the
project, costs will be based on historical square foot cost data as opposed to quantity
take-offs. Assist user agency with analyzing scope, schedule, and budget options to
stay within the MACC.
III. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Provide services necessary to prepare from the approved Schematic Design Documents, the
Design Development Documents consisting of drawings and other documents to fix and describe
the size and character of the project for approval by The City of Moses Lake.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 54 of 183
Moses Lake Police
The City of Moses Lake
Page 3 of 6
A. Project Administration
Services consisting of design development administrative functions including
consultation, bi-weekly Stakeholder meetings, correspondence, schedule updates, and
progress design review conferences with Stakeholders.
B. Documents Checking
Review and coordination of documents prepared for the project.
C. Permitting Assistance
Research applicable regulations, preparation of written and graphic support material.
Assist in obtaining approval from Authority Having Jurisdiction.
D. Review of Owner-Provided Data
Review and coordination of data furnished for the project by the Owner.
E. Architectural Design
Services consist of continued development and expansion of the approved architectural
Schematic Design Documents to establish the final scope, relationships, forms, size, and
appearance of the project through plans, sections and elevations, typical construction
details, 3-dimensional sketches, materials selections, and equipment layouts.
F. Structural Design
Services consist of continued development of the specific structural systems and
Schematic Design Documents in sufficient detail to establish basic structural system and
dimensions, structural design criteria, foundation design criteria, preliminary sizing of
major structural components, critical coordination clearances, and outline specifications
or materials lists.
G. Mechanical Design
Services consist of continued development and expansion of mechanical Schematic
Design Documents and development of outline specifications or materials list to
establish approximate equipment sizes and capacities, preliminary equipment layouts,
required space for equipment, chases and clearances, acoustical and vibration control,
visual impacts, and energy conservation measures.
H. Electrical Design
Services consist of continued development and expansion of electrical Schematic Design
Documents and development of outline specifications or materials list to establish
criteria for lighting, electrical and communication raceways, approximate sizes and
capacities of major components, preliminary equipment layouts, required space for
equipment, emergency generator and ATS, chases, and clearances. Other electrical
services include data/telecommunications system design and security system design
(develop performance criteria for bidder-design system).
I. Civil Design
Services consist of continued development and expansion of civil Schematic Design
Documents and development of outline specifications required for the project. This will
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 55 of 183
Moses Lake Police
The City of Moses Lake
Page 4 of 6
include temporary erosion control plan and detail, site demolitions for paving utilities
and other improvements, site grading plans and details, stormwater drainage system
plan and details, water service plan and details, sanitary sewer service plan and details,
natural gas service schematic routing and meter location plan, site pavement plan and
details, earthwork volume calculations.
J. Landscape Design
Services consist of continued development and expansion of landscape Schematic
Design Documents and development of outline specifications required for the project.
This will include planting plan, irrigation bubble diagram, and plant and materials list
with image board.
K. Cost Estimating Review
Services consisting of development of a probable construction cost. Assist user agency
with analyzing scope, schedule, and budget options to stay within the MACC.
L. Specifications
Services consisting of development of the architectural outline specifications and
coordination of the outline specifications of other disciplines.
IV. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Provide services necessary to prepare for approval by The City of Moses Lake, from the
approved Design Development Documents, Construction Documents consisting of drawings,
specifications, and other documents setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of
the project and bidding and contracting for the construction of the project.
A. Project Administration
Services consisting of design development administrative functions including
consultation, bi-weekly Stakeholder meetings, correspondence, schedule updates, and
progress design review conferences with Stakeholders.
B. Discipline Coordination
Coordination of the architectural work with the work of engineering, and with other
involved consultants on the project.
C. Documents Checking
Review and coordination of the documents prepared for the project.
D. Permitting Assistance
Research applicable regulations, preparation of written and graphic support material.
Assist in obtaining approval from Authority Having Jurisdiction.
E. Architectural Design
Services consisting of preparation of drawings based on approved Design Development
Documents setting forth in detail the architectural construction requirements for the
project.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 56 of 183
Moses Lake Police
The City of Moses Lake
Page 5 of 6
F. Structural Design
Services consisting of preparation of final structural engineering calculations, drawings
and specifications based on approved Design Development Documents, setting forth in
detail the structural construction requirements for the project.
G. Mechanical Design
Services consisting preparation of final mechanical engineering calculation, drawings
and specifications based on approved Design Development Documents, setting forth in
detail the mechanical construction requirements for the project. Fire Protection/Fire
Alarm services will be Design/Build with performance specifications provided by the A/E
team; fire sprinkler heads and fire alarm appliance layout will be reviewed, and work
performance specified as required. Design shall be by contractor; A/E team will review
the design for conformance to project requirements and specifications.
H. Electrical Design
Services consisting preparation of final electrical engineering calculation, drawings and
specifications based on approved Design Development Documents, setting forth in
detail the electrical construction requirements for the project. Information,
Communications, Technology system design will include layout of outlets on plans,
horizontal cabling design of building distribution cabling and connection hardware,
pathways, including raceway system/conduit. Security system will include access
control system performance specifications incorporating the City’s preferred system.
I. Civil Design
Services include advancement of the approved Design Development Documents
including preparation of erosion control plans and details, site demolitions plans and
notes, site grading plan and sections, storm drainage plan and details, stormwater flow
control and water quality design, sanitary sewer and water service design, site
pavement plan and details, geometric site plan, and technical specifications.
J. Landscape Design
Services include advancement of the approved Design Development Documents
including preparation of clearing and tree protection plan, layout plan, planting plan,
irrigation plan, plant list, standard planting and irrigation details, custom planting and
hardscape details, and technical specifications.
K. Cost Estimating Review
Services consisting of refinement of the probable construction cost developed for
Design Development. Assist user agency with analyzing scope, schedule, and budget
options to stay within the MACC.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 57 of 183
Moses Lake Police
The City of Moses Lake
Page 6 of 6
L. Specifications
Services consisting of activities of development and preparation of bidding documents,
Conditions of the Contract, architectural specifications, coordination of specifications
prepared by other disciplines, and compilation of project manual.
V. BIDDING
Provide the following services necessary to assist the City with obtaining bids for the project.
A. Pre-Bid Walk-Through
Attend a pre-bid walk-through, provide assistance with describing the scope of project to
bidders. Answers to questions during the walk-through will not be official.
B. Respond to Bidder Questions, Review Substitution Requests
Review and prepare responses to bidder questions, evaluate substitution requests for
City’s consideration.
C. Prepare Addenda
Prepare addenda as necessary to provide clarification to the bid documents and
incorporate responses to bidder questions and substitution requests
VI. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
Provide the following services to assist with the administration of the construction contract as set
forth in the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.
A. Pre-Construction Meeting
Attend a preconstruction meeting with the City and the selected General Contractor. It is
assumed to be onsite and will serve as an opportunity to set expectations, review
processes and protocols, review preliminary schedule of values, and review preliminary
schedule and submittal logs.
B. Construction Administration
Provide services consisting of processing of submittals, including receipt, review of and
appropriate action on shop drawings, product data, samples, and other submittals
required by the contract documents. Distribution of submittals to City, contractor and
field representative as required.
C. Construction Field Observation
Provide services consisting of up to 10 visits to the site to become generally familiar with
the progress and quality of the work and to determine in general if the work is
proceeding in accordance with the contract documents and preparing reports and
communication.
D. Clarification Documents
Provide services consisting of preparation and distribution of clarification documents and
interpretations in response to request for clarification by contractor or the City.
Preparation and distribution of drawings and specifications to describe work to be added,
deleted, or modified, review of proposals, review and recommend changes in time for
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 58 of 183
Moses Lake Police
The City of Moses Lake
Page 7 of 6
substantial completion, assisting in the preparation of modifications of the contracts and
coordination of communication, approvals, notifications relative to changes in the work.
Additional fees for changes to the work will be negotiated.
VII. PROJECT CLOSEOUT
Provide services initiated upon notice from the contractor that the work is sufficiently complete,
in accordance with the contract documents, to permit occupancy or utilization for the use for
which it is intended, and consisting of an inspection for conformity of the work to the contract
documents, issuance of a list of remaining work required, and final inspections.
A. Record Documents
Receive and review the contractor marked up field records.
B. Operations and Maintenance Manuals
Provide services consisting of processing, reviewing, commenting on, taking appropriate
action, and transmitting Operations and Maintenance Manuals provided by the
contractor to the City.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 59 of 183
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant will perform Owner’s Representative services for the Project. These services may include
the following:
∙ Attend meetings as needed during the design phase.
∙ Review and provide value engineering recommendations during Schematic Design and Design
Development phases.
∙ Support the City of Moses Lake in contracting for Geotechnical and Surveying Services.
∙ Support the City of Moses Lake in the gathering information for the fire flow testing of the water
system located in Central Drive.
∙ Support the City of Moses Lake in providing Specification Divisions 0 and 1 to the Architect
(Rolluda Architects).
∙ Review and gain familiarly with the final bid Contract documents.
∙ Attend pre-bid meeting.
∙ Review bid amount with Owner’s budget.
∙ Maintain file of insurance certificates and performance and payment bonds from the low bidder.
∙ Review and make recommendations to Owner of the construction Contract prepared by Architect.
∙ Attend pre-construction meeting.
∙ Review drawings and witness progress of the Work for Contract compliance.
∙ Submit inspection record/progress reports to the Owner and Architect.
∙ Maintain log and final copies of Contractor’s shop drawings and product submittals.
∙ Advise Architect of items of apparent, or possible, non-compliance.
∙ Provide any required on-site measuring and condition verification to Architect, when requested.
∙ Receive Contractor’s on-site questions and submit to Architect.
∙ Verify on-site material storage quantities, transmit information to Architect.
∙ Receive monthly pay applications from Architect (from Contractor) and distribute to Owner for
payment.
∙ Spot check and record product labels, grade marks, truck tickets, truck tickets, etc. for
conformation with the Contract requirements when on site.
∙ Employ a consultant to perform special inspections and testing.
∙ Maintain a file of all test results and confirm distributions are made to the building department,
the Contractor and the Architect.
∙ Review special inspection and testing results and identify any non-complying tests and assist with
determining a remedy.
∙ Consult with Architect and Contractor as required to assist in resolution of various problems that
may arise.
∙ Review plans, specifications, and construction schedule to ensure understanding of upcoming
work and desired methods of expected results.
∙ Assist in coordination between the Owner’s required activities and scheduled construction
activities.
∙ Assist in scheduling training sessions for Owner’s employees.
∙ Collect from Architect and forward all guarantees, warranties, record documents, operation and
maintenance manuals, keying schedules, and certificates of compliance.
∙ Receive from Architect (from Contractor) notification of Substantial Completion and Certificate of
Substantial Completion to the Owner for signature.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 60 of 183
∙ Prior to release of retainage, confirm submittal of all affidavits of wages paid, consent of surety
to release of retainage, and Affidavit of Payment of Debts and Claims.
∙ Prepare Owner’s application to Department of Revenue, L&I and Department of Employment
Security.
∙ Recommend Final Payment and Release of Retainage.
∙ Provide 1 year warranty walkthrough.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 61 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineer Fees for Public Works
Building Projects (effective July 1, 2015)
When budgeting for state capital projects, the estimated value of the Architectural/Engineering (A/E) Basic Services fee (Exhibit A) can be determined by using these fee guidelines. The guidelines are
divided into three levels determined by the type and complexity of the building. They are used in the preparation of capital budget requests for Washington State public works building projects under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Enterprise Services, universities, natural resource agencies, and the Department of Transportation. A/E Basic Services are defined in this document.
The payment of A/E fees represents some of the most important dollars spent on a project. These
funds are an investment affecting both the quality and successful completion of a project. Recognizing this, calculation of a fee structure to obtain quality design at a reasonable cost presents a challenge.
There are pros and cons associated with any system used to set fees, and there is great variation in the types and complexity of state construction projects.
These fee guidelines originally were the outcome of a study coordinated by the Office of Financial
Management (OFM) to review other fee guidelines and identify approaches used by other states. The study included state agencies, the Washington Council of the American Institute of Architects,
American Council of Engineering Companies of Washington, and state universities. State agencies documented examples within state government where the existing fee system posed problems, and they
proposed changes that would improve the state system. Higher education agencies provided evaluations of the scope, magnitude, and methods used to establish fees for design services at peer institutions.
Updates to the fee guidelines also have considered issues raised by the design community.
Use of the Guidelines
These fee guidelines should be used in preparing capital budget requests to determine the maximum
amount that may be payable for A/E basic service fees in fixed price agreements and percent of
construction cost agreements. The guidelines define the standard basic services (based on the definition
of basic services) that should be included in each design phase of state public works projects for the
typical design/bid/build process. They also provide further definition of what are considered
reimbursable expenses, extra and other services.
Agencies may choose to pay design consultant fees or allow extra and other charges in a manner other
than described in these guidelines, and any additional cost (above the level provided by the guidelines)
may be paid from other agency resources.
Percent Fee Compensation
The standard fee schedule has been prepared to establish a basis for determining the scope and cost of
design services and to focus the attention of agencies on the quality, capability, and prior performance
of the firms being selected for public works projects.
The fee schedule is used to prepare capital budget requests. The actual contracts for basic services
payable to the A/E shall be a negotiated fixed amount or percentage of the maximum allowable
construction cost of the project not including fees; licenses; permits; sales taxes; contingencies; and
change orders caused by A/E errors or omissions, or change orders which do not require design
consultant services. Based on the specific circumstances of each project, the final negotiated fee may
be above or below the guidelines shown on the schedule. In addition to the basic services fee,
allowances will be negotiated for services not covered in the basic services contract.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 62 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 2 March 2015
Maximum Allowable Construction Cost
The Maximum Allowable Construction Cost (MACC) is defined as the total sum available to the general
contractor for construction purposes, including all alternates. The MACC excludes Washington state
sales tax, professional fees, project contingency funds, or other charges that may not be under the scope
of the general contractor. The budget for A/E basic services is based on the MACC plus construction
contingency as reflected in the Capital Budgeting System (CBS) and the updated cost estimating form
(C-100). The negotiated fee for A/E basic services should be based on the MACC only as shown in
Exhibit A – A/E Fee Schedule.
Remodel Design
A/E costs and effort may vary greatly between individual remodeling projects of the same dollar
amount. Consequently, each project will be analyzed on an individual basis. As a general rule, the fee
will be based upon the building type classification. When program changes are significant or if
warranted by other conditions, fees noted under those schedules may be increased by up to three percent
for basic services. Factors to be considered include:
• Age and character of the building
• Availability and accuracy of existing plans and specifications
• Extent and type of program revisions
• Requirement to maintain the building's existing character
• Extent of mechanical and electrical involvement
Phased construction in occupied buildings may substantially affect the construction schedule. More
field observation and coordination may require consideration of additional fees beyond the basic
services contract amount.
Fee Modifications
It is recognized that there may be considerable variance between projects of a similar size and type that may necessitate modification of the A/E fee schedule. Examples of special circumstances that may
necessitate such modifications include:
• Unusual site conditions
• Unique problems requiring specialized or extensive consulting services
• Renovations required by additions to an existing structure
• Unusually slow or fast development schedule (fast track, design build, GC/CM)
• Contractor design (fire protection systems)
• Large portions of work outside the control of the prime architect (wetlands mitigation)
Other circumstances where a fee modification may be appropriate include the following:
Repetitive Design
Where all or part of a project is a site adaptation of a previous design, the basic services fee shall be
negotiated, recognizing the reduced level of services. This usually reduces the program analysis,
design, and bidding document preparation costs to an amount necessary to update the documents
for site work, code revisions, etc. Reductions must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 63 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 3 March 2015
Equipment and Substantially Reduced Work Requirements
Where a project involves a substantial amount of expensive equipment that may be relatively easy to accommodate, fees should be reduced accordingly. Likewise, any contract or modification to a
contract where work requirements are substantially less than indicated by the application of a percentage fee need to be addressed separately. Projects with disproportionate elements of high
cost, such as earth moving, may be relatively easy to design and fees should be reduced accordingly.
Prototype Design
The initial design of a prototype facility, such as a housing unit at an institution, may warrant a full
design fee based on the previous development of the prototype. However, the fee for A/E basic
services for all additional replications of the prototype constructed at the same time or at other
locations in the future shall be calculated at 40 percent of full fees.
Policy Regarding Geographic Location of Consultant
It is the state’s policy to obtain the highest quality design services for a fair and equitable payment to the design firm. The state recognizes that the investment for quality design services is directly related to
a well-organized construction process and maximum functionality of the completed project. With this in mind, proposals for design services will be accepted from all firms wishing to work for the state, and
evaluated based on the firm's capability, competency, and experience in successfully completing similar projects.
The fee structure should be appropriate for each project, regardless of the location of the consultant.
The basic services fee includes all travel costs associated with the performance of basic services within
a 50-mile radius of the project. General expenses for the cost of travel and per diem between 50 and
350 miles shall be based on state rates and may be reimbursable to the extent they are reasonable and
negotiated within the A/E agreement. Travel expenses beyond 350 miles for both the agency and
consultants must be justified in writing when submitting a budget request to OFM.
Basic Services Fee Breakdown
The following is a guide for splitting the A/E fee into approximate percentages for each phase of work. Although it is not intended to be absolute, significant deviations should be closely reviewed. The intent
of the guidelines is to ensure that design requirements progress in an orderly manner and that essential planning and system development occur when most beneficial to the project. Essential elements of the
work should be completed and approved prior to initiating succeeding design phases. For a more detailed explanation of activities normally included in each phase, see the A/E Basic Services section.
The basic fee categories are described below:
Percent of Basic Services Fee
Schematic Design 18
Design Development 20
Construction Document 31
Bidding 2
Construction 27
Project 2
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 64 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 4 March 2015
A/E Basic Services
A/E Basic Design Services consist of the services described in the following pages and are included on the Capital Project Cost Estimate within CBS. These design services include normal architectural,
structural, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering services.
Schematic Design Services (18 Percent)
In the Schematic Design phase, the A/E provides those services necessary to prepare Schematic
design documents consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating the general scope, scale, and relationship of project components for approval by the agency. Design should be conceptual in
character, based on the requirements developed during the predesign phase, approved by the agency, or program requirements provided by the agency and reviewed and agreed upon by the A/E.
Schematic design includes the following:
Project Administration Services related to schematic design administrative functions including consultation, meetings and correspondence, and progress design review
conferences.
Disciplines Coordination Coordination between the architectural work and engineering work and other involved consultants for the project. When specialty consultants are used, additional coordination beyond basic services may be required and
negotiated for appropriate phases of the work.
Document Checking Review and coordination of project documents.
Consulting
Permitting Authority Consultations, research of critical applicable regulations, preparation of written and graphic explanatory materials. The services apply to
applicable laws, statutes, regulations, and codes.
Data Coordination User Agency
Review and coordination of data furnished for the project by the
agency.
Architectural Design Services responding to scope of work (program/predesign) requirements and
consisting of preparation of conceptual site and building plans, schematic
sections and elevations, preliminary selection of building systems and
materials, development of approximate dimensions, areas and volumes.
Structural Design Services consisting of recommendations regarding basic structural material and systems, analysis, and development of conceptual design
solutions.
Mechanical Design Services consisting of consideration of alternate materials, systems and
equipment, and development of conceptual design solutions for energy sources/conservation, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing, fire protection, and general space requirements.
Electrical Design Services consisting of consideration of alternate systems,
recommendations regarding basic electrical materials, systems and
equipment, analysis, and development of conceptual design solutions for power service and distribution, lighting, communication raceways, fire
detection and alarms, and general space requirements.
Civil/Site Design Services consisting of site planning including layout of site features,
building position, preliminary grading, location of paving for walkways, driveways and parking, and fencing locations. Also included are the
normal connections required to service the building such as water, drainage, and sanitary systems, if applicable.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 65 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 5 March 2015
Specifications Services consisting of preparation for agency's approval of proposed
development of architectural outline specifications, and coordination of outline specifications of other disciplines.
Materials Research Services consisting of identification of potential of architectural
materials, systems, and equipment.
Scheduling Services consisting of reviewing and updating previously established
project schedules or initial development of schedules for decision- making, design, and documentation.
Cost Estimating Services consisting of development of a probable construction cost from
quantity surveys and unit costs of building elements for the project.
Parametric costs shall reflect the level of design elements presented in the schematic design documents, plus appropriate design contingencies to
encompass unidentified scope ultimately included in the program.
Assist user agency with analyzing scope, schedule, and budget options to stay within the MACC.
Presentations Services consisting of appropriate presentation(s) of schematic design
documents by the A/E to agency representatives.
Design Development Services (20 Percent)
In the Design Development Phase, the A/E shall provide those services necessary to prepare from
the approved schematic design documents, the design development documents consisting of drawings
and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the entire project for approval by the
agency. Consideration shall be given to availability of materials, equipment and labor, construction
sequencing and scheduling, economic analysis of construction and operations, user safety and
maintenance requirements, and energy conservation.
Design development includes the following:
Project Administration Services consisting of design development administrative functions
including consultation, meetings and correspondence, and progress
design review conferences with user agency.
Disciplines Coordination Coordination of the architectural work and the work of engineering
with other involved consultants for the project.
Document Checking Review and coordination of documents prepared for the project.
Permitting Authority Consulting Consultations, research of critical applicable regulations, preparation of written and graphic explanatory materials. The services apply to applicable laws, statutes, regulations, and codes. Assist in obtaining
approval from approving agencies as required.
User Agency Data Coordination Review and coordination of data furnished for the project by the agency.
Architectural Design Services consisting of continued development and expansion of architectural schematic design documents to establish the final scope,
relationships, forms, size, and appearance of the project through plans, sections and elevations, typical construction details, three-dimensional sketches, materials selections, and equipment layouts.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 66 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 6 March 2015
Structural Design Services consisting of continued development of the specific structural
system(s) and schematic design documents in sufficient detail to establish basic structural system and dimensions, structural design criteria, foundation
design criteria, preliminary sizing of major structural components, critical
coordination clearances, and outline specifications or materials lists.
Mechanical Design Services consisting of continued development and expansion of
mechanical schematic design documents and development of outline specifications or materials lists to establish approximate equipment sizes and capacities, preliminary equipment layouts, required space for
equipment, chases and clearances, acoustical and vibration control, visual impacts, and energy conservation measures.
Electrical Design Services consisting of continued development and expansion of electrical schematic design documents and development of outline specifications or
materials lists to establish criteria for lighting, electrical and
communication raceways, approximate sizes and capacities of major components, preliminary equipment layouts, required space for
equipment, chases, and clearances.
Civil/Site Design Services consisting of continued development of civil/site schematic design documents and development of outline specifications required for
the project that are normally prepared by the architect. See the Extra Services section for detailed civil design services beyond basic services.
Specifications Services consisting of preparation for the agency's approval of proposed General and Supplementary Conditions of the Contract for construction,
development of architectural outline specifications, coordination of outline
specifications of other disciplines, and production of design manual including design criteria, and outline specifications of materials lists.
Scheduling Services consisting of reviewing and updating previously established
schedules for the project.
Cost Estimating Services consisting of development of a probable construction cost from quantity surveys and unit costs of building elements for the project.
Parametric costs reflect the level of design elements presented in the design development documents, plus appropriate design contingencies to encompass
unidentified scope ultimately included in the program. Assist user agency
with analyzing scope, schedule and budget options to stay within the MACC.
Presentations Services consisting of appropriate presentation(s) of design development
documents by the A/E to agency representatives.
Construction Document Services (31 Percent)
In the construction documents phase, the A/E shall provide the services necessary to prepare for
approval by the agency – from the approved design development documents; construction documents consisting of drawings, specifications, and other documents describing the requirements for
construction of the project; and bidding and contracting for the construction of the project.
Project Administration Services consisting of construction documents, administrative functions (including consultation, meetings and correspondence), and progress
design review conferences.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 67 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 7 March 2015
Disciplines Coordination Coordination of the architectural work, with the work of engineering, and with other involved consultants for the project.
Document Checking Review and coordination of documents prepared for the project.
Permitting Authority Consulting Consultations, research of critical applicable regulations, preparation of
written and graphic explanatory materials. The services apply to applicable
laws, statutes, regulations, and codes. Assist in obtaining approval from
approving agencies as required.
User Agency Data Coordination
Review and coordination of data furnished for the project by the agency.
Architectural Design Services consisting of preparation of drawings based on approved design
development documents setting forth in detail the architectural
construction requirements for the project.
Structural Design Services consisting of preparation of final structural engineering calculations, drawings, and specifications based on approved design
development documentation, which details structural construction
requirements for project.
Mechanical Design Services consisting of preparation of final mechanical engineering
calculation, drawings and specifications based on approved design development documentation, setting forth in detail the mechanical
construction requirements for the project.
Electrical Design Services consisting of preparation of final electrical engineering
calculation, drawing and specifications based on approved design development documentation, setting forth in detail the electrical construction requirements for the project.
Civil/Site Design Services consisting of preparation of final civil/site design drawings and
specifications based on approved design development documentation
required for the project, which are normally prepared by the architect. See the Extra Services section for detailed civil design services beyond basic
services.
Specifications Services consisting of activities of development and preparation of bidding documents, Conditions of the Contract, architectural specifications,
coordination of specifications prepared by other disciplines, and compilation of the project manual.
Cost Estimating Services consisting of development of a probable construction cost from quantity surveys and unit costs of building elements for the project.
Parametric costs shall reflect the level of design elements presented in the
Construction documents plus appropriate design contingencies to encompass unidentified scope ultimately included in the program. Assist
user agency with analyzing scope, schedule, and budget options to stay
within the MACC.
Scheduling Services consisting of reviewing and updating previously established
schedules for the project.
User Agency Assistance Provide necessary information to user agency for the preparation of OFM requirements for release of allotments including preparation of cost statistics.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 68 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 8 March 2015
Bidding Phase (2 Percent)
In the Bidding Phase, the A/E, following the agency's approval of the Construction Documents and
the most recent statement of probable construction cost, shall provide those services necessary for the A/E to assist the agency in obtaining bids and in awarding and preparing contracts for construction. In
the case of phased construction, the agency may authorize bidding of portions of the work.
Project Administration Services consisting of bidding administrative functions.
Disciplines Coordination Coordination between the architectural work and the work of engineering and
other involved consultants for the project.
Bidding Materials Services consisting of organizing, coordinating, and handling Bidding documents for reproduction, distribution and retrieval, receipt, and return
of document deposits.
Addenda Services consisting of preparation and distribution of Addenda as may be
required during bidding and including supplementary drawings, specifications, instructions, and notice(s) of changes in the bidding schedule and procedure.
Bidding Services consisting of participation in pre-bid conferences, responses to
questions from bidders, and clarification or interpretations of the bidding
documents, attendance at bid opening, and documentation and distribution of bidding results.
Analysis of Substitutions Services consisting of consideration, analysis, comparisons, and recommendations relative to substitutions proposed by bidders prior to
receipt of bids.
Bid Evaluation Services consisting of validation of bids, participation in review of bids
and alternates, evaluation of bids, and recommendation on award of contract.
Contract Agreements Assist using agency in notification of contract award, assistance in
preparation of construction contract agreements when required, preparation and distribution of sets of contract documents for execution of the contract, receipt, distribution and processing, for agency approval, of required
certificates of insurance, bonds and similar documents, and preparation and distribution to contractor(s) on behalf of the agency, of notice(s) to proceed with the work.
Construction Contract Administration Phase (27 Percent)
In the Construction Contract Administration phase, the A/E shall provide services necessary for the
administration of the construction contract as set forth in the General Conditions of the Contract for
Construction.
Project Administration Services consisting of construction contract administrative functions including consultation, conferences, communications, and progress reports.
Disciplines Coordination
Document Checking
Coordination between the architectural work and the work of engineering
and other involved consultants for the project. Reviewing and checking of documents (required submittals) prepared for the project.
Permitting Authority Consulting
Services relating to applicable laws, statutes, regulations and codes of
regulating entities relating to the agency's interests during construction of
the project.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 69 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 9 March 2015
Construction Administration
Services consisting of processing of submittals, including receipt, review of and appropriate action on shop drawings, product data, samples, and other
submittals required by the contract documents. Distribution of submittals to agency, contractor, and field representatives as required. Maintenance of master file of submittals and related communications.
Construction Field Observation
Services consisting of visits to the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction or as otherwise agreed to become generally familiar with
the progress and quality of the work and to determine in general if the work is proceeding in accordance with the contract documents, and preparing related reports and communications. A/E to chair project meetings.
Project Representation Services consisting of assisting the agency in selection of full- or part-time project representative(s).
Documents Services consisting of preparation, reproduction, and distribution of
clarification documents and interpretations in response to requests for clarification by contractors or the user agency. Maintenance of records and coordination of communications relative to requests for clarification or
information (RFI). Preparation, reproduction and distribution of drawings and specifications to describe work to be added, deleted or modified,
review of proposals, review and recommend changes in time for substantial
completion, assisting in the preparation of modifications of the contracts and coordination of communications, approvals, notifications, and record-
keeping relative to changes in the work. Additional fees for changes to the
scope of a project shall be negotiated.
Scheduling Services consisting of monitoring the progress of the contractors relative to
established schedules and making status reports to the user agency.
Cost Accounting Services consisting of maintenance of records of payments on account of
the contract and all changes thereto, evaluation of applications for payment and certification thereof, and review and evaluation of cost data submitted
by the contractors for work performed.
Project Closeout (2 Percent)
Project Closeout Services initiated upon notice from the contractor that the work is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the contract documents, to permit occupancy or
utilization for the use for which it is intended, and consisting of a detailed
inspection for conformity of the work to the contract documents, issuance of certificate of substantial completion, issuance of a list of remaining work
required (punch list), final inspections, receipt and transmittal of warranties,
affidavits, receipts, releases and waivers of lien or bonds, permits, and issuance of final certificate for payment.
Record Documents (As-
Builts)
Receive and review the contractors marked up field records. Supply the
record documents to user agency. (Transferring the contractor’s record of field changes to the original record drawings may be authorized by the owner
as an additional service.)
Operations and Maintenance Manuals
Services consisting of processing, reviewing, commenting on, taking
appropriate action, and transmitting Operations and Maintenance Manuals provided by the contractor to user agency.
Warranty Period Continued assistance to investigate contract problems that arise during the warranty period.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 70 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 10 March 2015
A/E Extra Services/Reimbursables and Other Services
The majority of projects should be completed within the structure of the basic fee schedule.
However, some projects will be more complex and require a range of Extra Services/Reimbursables and Other Services, which will be negotiated for specific tasks. These services typically require
specialist expertise and may not neatly fall within one phase of service or another. As projects become more complex, they demand a variety of special studies and services. Extra Services/Reimbursables
are services generally provided by the same A/E providing the basic services, and Other Services are those services generally provided by additional specialty consultants, either as subs to the prime A/E
or as independent consultants directly contracted with the agency.
Extra services are not intended as an adjustment to basic services and should reflect actual anticipated
cost. The following provides a guideline for evaluating the pricing of Extra and Other services, and
establishing the eligibility of reimbursable expenses.
A. Pricing Consultants and Subconsultant Personnel
Multiplier Negotiated rate within a range of 2 to 3.2 times employee direct base salary
(not including fringe benefits, taxes, retirement contributions, or profit
sharing).
Employees of Firm Negotiated rate not to exceed a maximum of $150 per hour.
Principal of Firm A Principal is defined as a partner of a partnership, a stockholder of a
corporation, or a duly authorized officer. The negotiated rate is not to exceed $200 per hour.
Special Consulting
Services
When special consulting services not normally associated with traditional
project design are necessary, the fee may be outside of the above guidelines (such as expert witness or special investigations).
Service Charge on Sub- Consultant Ten percent service charge may be added to work incorporated by addenda to the original agreement.
B. A/E Extra Services/Reimbursable Expenses
When drafting the A/E agreement, the Project Manager should review the following list in determining
eligible reimbursable items. It is not all inclusive or exclusive and should only be used as a guide.
Alternative Cost Studies Additional costing beyond the parametric estimates required in basic services as requested by the agency.
Energy Life Cycle Cost
Analysis (ELCCA)
All projects over 25,000 square feet are required by Chapter 39.35 RCW to
be analyzed for the cost of energy consumption and operation during its entire economic life.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
All projects valued over $5,000,000 or projects constructing new building
space over 5,000 square feet are required to perform a life cycle cost
analysis to evaluate the total cost of ownership for the building or building system. Agencies will utilize the Life Cycle Cost Tool (LCCT) which
standardizes rates and methodology to perform the analysis.
Commissioning and Training
Cost to the A/E of assembly, tabulation, and indexing of all shop drawings and submittals on all equipment, controls, systems, and participating in an
independent commissioning of the project and providing initial operator
training on the maintenance of systems.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 71 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 11 March 2015
Enhanced Commissioning A longer post occupancy phase, commonly referred to as enhanced commissioning, may be necessary to achieve the long-term desired
performance of a new building or system. This work generally includes monitoring energy performance after construction, additional training to facility staff, and system adjustments to ensure the building continues to
operate as originally designed.
On-Site Representative On-site observation beyond the periodic site visits required under basic
services for construction field observation.
Thermal Scans Cost of an examination of a structure for thermal loss on existing facilities
to be remodeled.
Value Engineering
Participation and Implementation
Cost to the A/E for participation in the value engineering study and
implementation of the accepted ideas that generate during the study.
Travel and Per Diem Customary and approved costs to A/E during the course of basic and
additional services (based on state rates and limited to between 50 and 350
miles).
Renderings, Presentations, and Models
Cost for special presentations, renderings, and models required for the
project.
Document Reproduction Additional cost of printing and mailing bidding and construction
documents.
Advertising Cost of required advertisements and placing bidding documents in plan centers announcing the bidding of the project.
Constructability Review Participation and
Implementation
Cost to the A/E for participation in the constructability review and
implementation of the accepted changes.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Cost of providing services for negotiation, documentation, and associated services required for sustainable design project certificates with the U.S.
Green Building Council.
Separate Bid Packages Cost to the A/E for preparation of separate bid packages typically used in
GC/CM type projects.
Professional Liability Insurance
Where coverage is required in excess of $1 million, reimbursement of excess premium costs will be considered as a reimbursable cost.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 72 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 12 March 2015
C. A/E Other Services
Consultant Selection Cost Additional costs for private sector members of a selection committee if
required (Chapter 39.80 RCW).
Specialty Consultants Cost of only those additional consultant services beyond A/E services
provided under basic services. Specialty consultants include, but are not
limited to:
• Acoustical Consultant
• Civil Engineering additional services may include:
♦ Studies, reports, and calculations required to determine adequacy
of existing systems or those required for permit review such as drainage, fire protection, or sewer
♦ Storm drainage design and connections
♦ Design or study of issues for "sensitive areas" such as wetlands,
steep slopes, or flood plains
♦ Water supply connections to wells, treatment systems, storage,
and off-site main extensions
♦ Sanitary sewer design and infrastructure
♦ Road and pavement improvements
♦ Storm water quality and quantity computations, reports, design
and details
♦ Temporary erosion and sediment control reports and drawings
♦ Special studies and reports for other agencies
• Communications Consultant
• Cost Estimating Consultant
• Electronic/Audio Visual Consultant
• Elevator Consultant
• Hazardous Material Consultant
• Hospital/Laboratory Consultant Interior
• Design Consultant Indoor Air Quality
• Consultant Kitchen Consultant
• Landscape Consultant
• Quality Control Consultant Security Consultant
Geotechnical Investigation Cost of subsurface testing and evaluation.
Commissioning Cost of an independent commissioning of the project.
HVAC Balancing Cost to balance systems.
Site Survey Cost of conducting a survey independent from design A/E.
Testing Cost of a technician's services in acquiring and testing samples of materials
used in the project as required in the state building code.
Energy LCCA Review Fee to be paid for review of the energy life cycle cost analysis.
Value Engineering Cost for performing the required value engineering study on a project by an
independent multi-disciplined team.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 73 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 13 March 2015
Constructability Review/Plan Check
Cost for an independent consultant or contractor to review bid documents and determine if a project can be built as designed.
Graphics Cost of special graphic and signage design.
Design/Code Plan Check Cost of an independent plan check if not available within the local
jurisdiction.
Other Costs for requested documents, fax expenses, and special mail service when
requested by owner.
D. Non-Eligible Expenses
• Consultants hired at A/E's option to perform basic services required by contract.
• Postage and handling of submittals, bid documents, correspondence, etc.
• Telephone expenses (local calls and line service).
• Copies of documents used by the A/E to perform normal services and not provided to owner.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 74 of 183
Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineering Fees for Public Works Building Projects
Office of Financial Management 14 March 2015
A/E Fee Schedule - Building Types
Schedule A
Facilities with more than average design difficulty:
Art galleries
Auditoriums (with stage)
Communications buildings
Courthouses
Detention/correctional facilities, maximum
Exposition buildings
Extended care facilities
Fish hatcheries
Heating and power plants
Hospitals
Laboratories (research)
Medical office facilities and clinics
Mental institutions
Museums
Observatories
Research facilities
Sewer treatment plants
Special schools
Theaters and similar facilities
Veterinary hospitals
Water treatment plants
Schedule B
Facilities with average difficulty:
Apartment buildings
Archive building
Armories
Auditoriums (without stage)
College classroom facilities
Computer rooms
Convention facilities
Day care families
Detention/correctional facilities,
minimum and medium
Dining halls/institutes
Dormitories
Fire and police stations
Gymnasiums
Laundry and cleaning facilities
Libraries
Neighborhood centers and similar
recreation facilities
Nursing homes
Office buildings
Recreational building
Residences
Schools (primary and secondary)
Science labs (teaching)
Stadiums, multi-purpose
Storage facilities, cold
Transportation terminals
Vocational schools
Schedule C
Projects with less than average design difficulty:
Civil and utility projects
Emergency generator facilities
Farm structures
Greenhouses
Guard towers
Industrial buildings without
special facilities
Parking structures and garages
Printing plants
Prototype facilities (for any replication of previously
designed facility)
Service garages
Shop and maintenance facilities
Simple loft-type structures (without special equipment)
Stadiums, grandstand type
Warehouses
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 75 of 183
:$& &RQVWUXFWLRQ PDQDJHPHQW 3ULRU WR FRPPHQFLQJ
ZLWKSURMHFWGHVLJQWKHGLVWULFWVKDOOHPSOR\RUFRQWUDFWSHUVRQQHOWR
SHUIRUPSURIHVVLRQDOFRQVWUXFWLRQPDQDJHPHQW&RQVWUXFWLRQPDQDJHPHQW
VKDOOEHUHTXLUHGIRUDOOSURMHFWVJUHDWHUWKDQILIW\WKRXVDQGVTXDUH
IHHWDQGLVRSWLRQDOIRUSURMHFWVILIW\WKRXVDQGVTXDUHIHHWRUOHVV
)RUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKLVVHFWLRQFRQVWUXFWLRQPDQDJHPHQWLVGHILQHGDV
WKHSURFHVVRISURIHVVLRQDOPDQDJHPHQWDSSOLHGWRDFRQVWUXFWLRQSUR
JUDPIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIFRQWUROOLQJWLPHFRVWDQGTXDOLW\
7KHFRQVWUXFWLRQPDQDJHUVKDOOKDYHDSSURSULDWHDQGGHPRQVWUDEOH
H[SHULHQFHLQWKHPDQDJHPHQWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWVLQFOXGLQJSUR
FXUHPHQWFRQWUDFWDGPLQLVWUDWLRQVFKHGXOLQJEXGJHWVTXDOLW\DVVXU
DQFHLQIRUPDWLRQPDQDJHPHQWDQGKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\
7KHDPRXQWRIVWDWHIXQGLQJDVVLVWDQFHIRUZKLFKDGLVWULFWVKDOO
EHHOLJLEOHIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQPDQDJHPHQWVKDOOEHWKHVWDWHIXQGLQJDV
VLVWDQFHSHUFHQWDJHPXOWLSOLHGE\WZRDQGRQHKDOISHUFHQWRIWKHFRQ
VWUXFWLRQFRVWDOORFDWLRQPXOWLSOLHGE\WKHVTXDUHIRRWDUHDIRUWKH
ILVFDO\HDUIXQGHG
>6WDWXWRU\ $XWKRULW\ 5&: $ :65
ILOHG HIIHFWLYH :65 UHFRGLILHG DV
ILOHG HIIHFWLYH 6WDWXWRU\ $XWKRULW\
5&: $ DQG $ :65 ILOHG
HIIHFWLYH6WDWXWRU\$XWKRULW\ 5&:$:65
ILOHG HIIHFWLYH :65
ILOHG HIIHFWLYH@
&HUWLILHGRQ:$& 3DJHMoses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 76 of 183
City of Moses Lake Compara�ve Salary Analysis:
Capital Projects Manager:
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 77 of 183
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
Allison Williams, City Manager 10206
Kirsten Sackett, Director Community Development
3/28/2023 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
1,438,000.00$1,438,000.00$1,438,000.00$
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.
2023-03-10-FINAL Shelter Feasibility Report.pdf 2.3MB
This agenda item was originally scheduled for the March 14, 2023, City Council meeting but was
rescheduled for the March 28, 2023 Council meeting due to the length of the meeting.
In August 2020, the City of Moses Lake entered into a partnership with HopeSource, a non-profit service
provider operating in the region, to open and operate the Open Doors Sleep Center. The shelter has been
operating since that time to provide first 35, and now 38, shelter units, for individuals over 18 who are
experiencing homelessness. The location selected at the time, 1045 Broadway, was considered temporary
and the original lease was for a two-year period ending in September 2022. However, the property owner
later agreed to extend the lease for an additional year, giving the City until September of this year to find a
permanent location. In anticipation of this need, the City contracted with ECONorthwest in May of 2022 to
help identify a location for a permanent Sleep Center and to evaluate the financial feasibility of long-term
operating costs.
The purpose of today’s discussion is specifically for City Council to determine which site on which to locate
the permanent shelter, and give authorization to the City Manager to enter negotiations for acquisition of
the preferred site. As a reminder, the City Council already made the determination to operate such the
Sleep Center facility in light of the 9 US Circuit Court of Appeals 2018 Boise ruling. Under this ruling, cities
can no longer prohibit people experiencing homelessness from camping in public unless they were
provided with adequate shelter. If the Sleep Center were to cease operations in Moses Lake, the City
anticipates that the public parks would again be filled with campers in the same manner, or worse, than
they were prior to operation of the Sleep Center.
ANALYSIS
ECONorthwest originally analyzed a list of 14 potential sites and worked with City Staff to develop criteria
th
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 78 of 183
ECONorthwest originally analyzed a list of 14 potential sites, and worked with City Staff to develop criteria
regarding site selection suitability. The most important criteria including the following:
· C2 zoning
· A size of one (1) acre or greater
· City-owned, OR
· For Sale
Those above criteria were utilized to help eliminate certain sizes, and then additional parameters,
preferences and considerations were factored in, including:
· Location – accessibility to services, and ideally not near a school or park
· Utilities – Access to water and sewer
· Existing Structure – On site structures that could potentially be repurposed for office, bathroom facility,
etc.
· Level of development – Does not require substantial site preparation
Eleven (11) of the original sites were analyzed against all of the factors, and a color-coded scoring
summary was developed which led to the narrowing down to three (3) sites. Many of the sites were
eliminated from consideration due to their proximity to residential uses, schools and parks. This final site
selection was made by the Ad Hoc City Council committee in consultation with ECONorthwest and City
staff.
A more detailed description of work conducted by ECONorthwest is outlined in the attached Moses Lake
Sleep Center Feasibility Study dated March 10, 2023.
The three sites that warranted additional study included the following:
1) City-owned property on Central Drive (Parcel ID No. 10211300)
· See page 9 of the report for additional information on this property, and page 10 for a previous concept
drawing of the future police station, along with an aerial photo of the site.
2) Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District (MLIRD) property on Wheeler Ave. (Parcel ID No.
91356226)
· See Page 11 for additional information about this site, and page 12 for aerial and street view photos.
3) Former Kyoji’s site located near the intersection of Broadway and the I-90 interchange (Parcel ID No.
311282000).
· See Page 13 of the Study for additional information on this site and page 14 for aerial and street view
photos.
After further consideration the Kyoji’s site was removed from the list of potential sites as it was deemed too
small to accommodate the number of shelter units on the existing site, and it was also found that there was
a large access easement on the property that would limit its development potential. In addition to those
factors, the structural integrity of the existing building on site was unknown.
Even though this site was eventually removed from formal consideration, the report and the accompanying
graphs still include the Kyoji's site in the list of potential four (4) sites.
The fourth site under consideration is the current location of the existing Sleep Center, after the property
owner approached the City in December 2022 stating that he would like to have his site considered for the
permanent location.
In addition to conducting a thorough analysis of each of the sites ECONorthwest also provided cost
considerations for various operating models. However, the purpose of this meeting is to simply focus on
the selection of a permanent site. Factors important to this decision include:
1) Moving costs – including acquisition of property, actual costs of moving and temporary sleeping
arrangements
2) Site upgrades – including site preparation, office trailer, bathroom trailer, additional shelters, storage
check-in areas, AC and heat upgrades Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 79 of 183
The exact cost of acquisition is unknown as only the MLIRD site had a known listing price. As it is
potentially detrimental to assume a market rate sales price for the other sites, Exhibit 16 on page 23 of the
study instead assumed a range in which a sales price might fall, using the MLIRD site as a proxy.
Exhibit 17 on page 24 provides high level moving costs and site upgrades assumed to occur in the future.
These costs are depicted in yellow, alongside the land prices assumed in the previous Exhibit 16. The
Central Drive site would require the most investment as the property is undeveloped and would require site
leveling, paving and utilities.
Three of the scenarios studied assumed that a new building would be built on the vacant sites, and that
upgrades would need to be made to the MLIRD site and building. Exhibit 18 on page 25 of the study
shows the new facility costs across all the sites, with an assumption of $1.23 million to construct a 4,000
square foot building on each of the sites. $400,000 was projected for upgrades to the existing building on
the MLIRD site, including facilities such as a laundry room, kitchen and new bathrooms.
The capital costs for each of the sites, including all of the factors just outlined, are summarized in Exhibit 15
on page 22 of the study. This graph shows the assumed costs for each of these sites. The blue portion of
each bar depicts the construction costs, the orange above depicts the site upgrade costs, and the dark and
light blue colors indicate the assumed price range for land acquisition costs.
Considerations and Recommendations are found beginning on page 26 and concluding on page 29 of the
study. The final recommendation from ECONorthwest is copied below:
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 much 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 location[1].
§ 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 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 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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 80 of 183
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Approve, Authorize, or Adopt:
Provide Amended Direction:
No Action Taken:
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.
The Council Ad Hoc Homelessness Committee met on Friday, March 10, 2023, and at the conclusion of the
meeting, they made a decision to forward a recommendation to pursue the MLIRD site for the location of the
permanent Sleep Center facility.
[1] Temporary shelter costs would only occur if the City selected Central Drive.
During the budgetary process, City Council earmarked ARPA funds for the development of the permanent
Sleep Center facility, with $1,438,000 currently assigned to this use.
Options and Results
The City Manager will enter into negotiations for the acquisition of property intended for the development of a
permanent Sleep Center location.
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 not longer have the ability to prohibit
camping in public.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 81 of 183
Moses Lake Sleep Center
Feasibility Study
March 10, 2023
Prepared for: City of Moses Lake
FINAL Report
Park Place
1200 Sixth Avenue
Suite 615
Seattle, WA 98101
206-823-3060
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 82 of 183
This page intentionally blank
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 83 of 183
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
▪ Don Meyers, Mayor
▪ David Eck, 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 3-28-23, Page 84 of 183
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. SITE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
3. CONCEPTUAL OPERATING MODELS .................................................................................................................. 17
4. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 20
5. CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 26
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 30
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................... 61
APPENDIX C: FEASIBILITY STUDY GUEST OUTREACH ............................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX D: CITY STAFF SITE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX E: FEASIBILITY CHARTS ............................................................................................................................. 82
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 85 of 183
This page intentionally blank
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 86 of 183
ECONorthwest 1
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 3-28-23, Page 87 of 183
ECONorthwest 2
the Sleep Center’s permanent location, and also to 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 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. 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 ($55,000) and
below.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 88 of 183
ECONorthwest 3
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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 89 of 183
ECONorthwest 4
addition, some clients have expressed a desire for more community gathering spaces
and opportunities at the Sleep Center.
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 (see Exhibit 1 below), with an understanding between the City
and the property owner that it would be temporary . The original lease was signed for a two
year period, and was later extended for one additional year.
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 90 of 183
ECONorthwest 5
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 Exhibit 2 table below shows the
sites that city staff provided to ECONorthwest for further analysis.
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.
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.
Site Name Parcel Number Size (acres)
Longview Tracts 110475185 5.6 acres
Central Drive 102113000 5.1 acres
Site Adjacent to Sleep
Center 110819011 29 acres
Samaritan Hospital 110382000 10 acres
Former Kyoji's lot 311282000 1 acre
Site Behind
Shari's/KWIQ 190534000 3.9 acres
Blue Heron property 90629350 76 acres
Site Next to Home Depot 102100001 3.7 acres
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 91 of 183
ECONorthwest 6
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.
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 Exhibit 3 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 Exhibit 4 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
Site Name Parcel Number Size (acres)
Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District 91356226 1.4 acres
Pioneer Way (undeveloped)110868007 0.48 acres
Pioneer Way (developed)110868009 0.55 acres
Lowe's Pad 91356285 0.54 acres
Category Parameters, Preferences, or Considerations
Location Accessible to services, ideally not near a school or park
Size Relative to current location (~1 acre or larger)
Zoning C2 Commercial Zone
Utilities Access to water and sewer
Site Acquisition City-owned or for sale
Existing Structures On-site structures that can be repurposed for shelter uses
Level of Development Does not require substantial site preparation
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 92 of 183
ECONorthwest 7
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.
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 the C-2 zoning district. 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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 93 of 183
ECONorthwest 8
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.
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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 94 of 183
ECONorthwest 9
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.
Central Drive
The Central Drive site is located between Central Drive and SR 17, near Home Depot. The City
currently owns 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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 95 of 183
ECONorthwest 10
Exhibit 6: Moses Lake PD Master Plan 2-Story Option, Central Drive
Source: Moses Lake Police Department
Exhibit 7: Aerial View of Central Drive Site
Source: Grant County GIS
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 96 of 183
ECONorthwest 11
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 is an aerial photo depicting location
of the MLIRD site. Exhibit 9 is a street view photo depicting the existing building on site.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 97 of 183
ECONorthwest 12
Exhibit 8: MLIRD Site
Source: Grant County GIS
Exhibit 9: MLIRD Site
Source: Google Maps
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 98 of 183
ECONorthwest 13
Kyoji’s
The former Kyoji’s restaurant site is located near Melva Lane and West Broadway Avenue, just
off Interstate 90, as depicted in Exhibit 10 below. 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 (Exhibit 11) 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 3-28-23, Page 99 of 183
ECONorthwest 14
Exhibit 10: Kyoji's Site
Source: Grant County GIS
Exhibit 11: Kyoji's Site, Existing Structure
Source: Google Maps
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 100 of 183
ECONorthwest 15
Existing Sleep Center Site
In mid-December the property owner of the Sleep Center’s existing site (Exhibit 12 below)
approached the City, requesting 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. See
Exhibit 13 depicting the existing set up of the Sleep Center site.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 101 of 183
ECONorthwest 16
Exhibit 12: Existing Sleep Center Site
Source: Grant County GIS
Exhibit 13: Moses Lake Sleep Center Shelters
Source: ECONorthwest
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 102 of 183
ECONorthwest 17
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 (refer to Exhibit 14) 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.
Exhibit 14: Sleep Center Conceptual Operating Models
Source: ECONorthwest
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 103 of 183
ECONorthwest 18
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 the 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
▪ 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:
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 104 of 183
ECONorthwest 19
▪ 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.
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 105 of 183
ECONorthwest 20
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:
▪ 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 central
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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 106 of 183
ECONorthwest 21
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.
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 in 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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 107 of 183
ECONorthwest 22
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. See Exhibit 16.
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
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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 108 of 183
ECONorthwest 23
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 3-28-23, Page 109 of 183
ECONorthwest 24
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 3-28-23, Page 110 of 183
ECONorthwest 25
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 3-28-23, Page 111 of 183
ECONorthwest 26
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 3-28-23, Page 112 of 183
ECONorthwest 27
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, though those sites are not currently paved.
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 3-28-23, Page 113 of 183
ECONorthwest 28
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 much 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 3-28-23, Page 114 of 183
ECONorthwest 29
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 3-28-23, Page 115 of 183
ECONorthwest 30
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 3-28-23, Page 116 of 183
ECONorthwest 31
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 3-28-23, Page 117 of 183
ECONorthwest 32
(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 3-28-23, Page 118 of 183
ECONorthwest 33
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 3-28-23, Page 119 of 183
ECONorthwest 34
▪ 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%
2000 2010 2020 2022 Difference Percent Change AAGR
Moses Lake 14,953 20,366 25,146 26,040 11,087 74%2.6%
Grant County 74,698 89,120 99,123 101,800 27,102 36%1.4%
Washington 5,894,143 6,724,540 7,706,310 7,864,400 1,970,257 33%1.3%
Geography Population Count Change, 2000 to 2022
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 120 of 183
ECONorthwest 35
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.
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.
32%
22%
24%
8%
15%
32%
23%
22%
10%
13%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Under 20
20 to 34 years
35 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 and Older
Percent Share of Total Population
Moses Lake, 2006-10 Moses Lake, 2016-20
24%
22%
26%
13%
15%
32%
20%
23%
11%
14%
32%
22%
24%
8%
15%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Under 20
20 to 34 years
35 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 and Older
Percent Share of Total Population
Moses Lake Grant County Washington
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 121 of 183
ECONorthwest 36
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).
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.
41%40%37%35% 35%37%
59%60%63%65% 65%63%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2006-10 2016-20 2006-10 2016-20 2006-10 2016-20
Moses Lake Grant County WashingtonPercent Share of Occupied HouseholdsRenter Owner
-11.9
-7.1
1.7
3.8
7.0
6.4
-16.5
1.3
5.6
5.1
1.6
3.0
-6.2
-3.3
0.8
5.0
1.5
2.2
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0
< $25K
$25K to $49.9K
$50.0K to $74.9K
$75K to $99.9K
$100.0K to $149.9K
Over $150.0K
Percentage Point Change in Household Income, by Income Category
Moses Lake Grant County Washington
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 122 of 183
ECONorthwest 37
Household characteristics
Moses Lake has many more single-person rental households than the County and the state.
▪ 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.
32%
46%
22% 22%
28%
19%27%
37%
21%
26%
23%
29%31%20%37%
35%
29%
39%
16%
13%
18%16%19%
14%
15%14%
16%
26%18%
31%31%32%30%23%19%24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All HHs Renter HHs Owner HHs All HHs Renter HHs Owner HHs All HHs Renter HHs Owner HHs
Moses Lake Grant County WashingtonPercent Share of Occupied Households1-person hh 2-person hh 3-person hh 4+ person hh
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 123 of 183
ECONorthwest 38
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.
$38,039
$40,774
$52,022
$38,453
$33,020
$41,698
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000
Moses Lake
Grant County
Washington
Median Household Income of Renters (2020 Constant Dollars)
2006-10 2016-20
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 124 of 183
ECONorthwest 39
Employment
The cyclical nature of Grant County’s unemployment could be a result of seasonal work,
such as farming.
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
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%2012-Q12012-Q32013-Q12013-Q32014-Q12014-Q32015-Q12015-Q32016-Q12016-Q32017-Q12017-Q32018-Q12018-Q32019-Q12019-Q32020-Q12020-Q32021-Q12021-Q32022-Q1Unemployment RateGrant County Washington
COVID-19 Pandemic
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 125 of 183
ECONorthwest 40
represents the publicly available information on the population in Grant County experiencing
homelessness.
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
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 3-28-23, Page 126 of 183
ECONorthwest 41
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
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 49 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
11 Commerce used two state databases to estimate the data in Exhibit 29 and Exhibit 31. 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 3-28-23, Page 127 of 183
ECONorthwest 42
Minor Household (<18), No Children (<12) 0 <11 0 <11 N/A
Youth (age 18-24) 235 187 168 156 -34%
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 3-28-23, Page 128 of 183
ECONorthwest 43
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 3-28-23, Page 129 of 183
ECONorthwest 44
▪ 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 3-28-23, Page 130 of 183
ECONorthwest 45
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 3-28-23, Page 131 of 183
ECONorthwest 46
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.
53
82
107 115
58
0
14 18
9 01
57
159
123
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Permits with Finalized DateSingle Family Townhome Duplex/Multifamily
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
Feb-12Sep-12Apr-13Nov-13Jun-14Jan-15Aug-15Mar-16Oct-16May-17Dec-17Jul-18Feb-19Sep-19Apr-20Nov-20Jun-21Jan-22Median Sales Price of Single Family HomesCOVID-19 Pandemic Moses Lake Grant County Washington
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 132 of 183
ECONorthwest 47
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.
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022YTD(June)Market-Rate Multifamily Asking RentMoses Lake Grant County Washington
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 133 of 183
ECONorthwest 48
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.
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
YTD(June)Market-Rate Multifamily RentsAll Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 134 of 183
ECONorthwest 49
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.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD(June)Market-Rate Multifamily Vacancy RatesAll Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 135 of 183
ECONorthwest 50
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
59%51%58%61%
51%52%
24%
23%
23%21%
25%26%
18%25%19%18%24%22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Renter, 2010 Renter, 2020 Renter, 2010 Renter, 2020 Renter, 2010 Renter, 2020
Not Cost Burdened Cost Burdened Severely Cost Burdened
Moses Lake Grant County Washington
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 136 of 183
ECONorthwest 51
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 3-28-23, Page 137 of 183
ECONorthwest 52
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.
21%
9%
16%
25%
28%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Extremely Low
Income
(<30% of MFI)
< $27k
Very Low Income
(30-50% of MFI)
$27k - $35k
Low Income
(50-80% of MFI)
$35k - $56k
Middle Income
(80-120% of MFI)
$56k - $90k
High Income
(>120% of MFI)
> $90kShare of Households1,751 HH
723 HH
1,351 HH
2,098 HH
2,360 HH
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 138 of 183
ECONorthwest 53
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.
Income13
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 3-28-23, Page 139 of 183
ECONorthwest 54
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 3-28-23, Page 140 of 183
ECONorthwest 55
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 3-28-23, Page 141 of 183
ECONorthwest 56
Appendix
Exhibit 46. Population Forecast, Grant County and Washington, 2020–2050
Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, 2017 GMA County Projections.
Note: The reported 2020 population estimates in this table differ slightly from the actual OFM/Census counts reported in
Exhibit 20 because the population projections are based on 2017 data (the latest estimates available).
Population Count (by Forecast Year) Change, 2020–2050
2020 2030 2040 2050 Difference Pct
Chg
AAGR
Grant County 97,208 104,184 109,495 114,271 17,063 18% 0.54%
Washington 7,065,384 7,551,759 7,920,676 8,252,578 1,187,194 17% 0.52%
Based on the Office of Financial Management’s latest population forecast estimates, Grant
County is forecasted to grow by about 17,060 persons over the 2020 to 2050 period, or an
average annual growth rate of 0.54 percent, as shown in Exhibit 21. Over the same period, the
state’s population is forecasted to grow by about an additional 1,187,200 persons, or 0.52
percent per year.
The median age of Moses Lake
residents is slightly younger
than Grant County residents.
▪ Over the 2010 to
2020 period, Moses
Lake’s median age
increased by 0.5
years, lower than
both Grant County
and the state.
Exhibit 47. Change in Median Age, 2010–2020
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates.
2010 2020 Difference Percent Chg
Moses Lake 31.9 32.4 0.5 1.6%
Grant County 32.2 33.2 1.0 3.1%
Washington 37.0 37.8 0.8 2.2%
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 142 of 183
ECONorthwest 57
Over the last decade, Moses
Lake’s population has
become more diverse.
The share of white alone
individuals decreased from 63
percent in 2010 to 58 percent in
2020, while the share of
Hispanic/Latino individuals
increased from 31 percent to 33
percent.
▪ Over the same period, the
share of Black or African
American alone individuals
increased by one percentage
point.
The share of multiracial individuals
increased by three percentage
points over the analysis period,
from one percent to four percent.
Exhibit 48. Moses Lake’s Change in Population Distribution by
Race/Ethnicity, 2010–2020
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-year estimates.
Exhibit 49: Population by Race/Ethnicity in Moses Lake
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05: ACS
Demographic and Housing Estimates
1%
1%
3%
33%
4%
0%
58%
1%
1%
2%
31%
1%
0%
63%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other PacificIslander alone
Black or African American alone
Hispanic
Multiracial
Some other race alone
White alone
Percent Share of Total Population
Moses Lake, 2006-10 Moses Lake, 2016-20
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 143 of 183
ECONorthwest 58
Race and Ethnicity
Moses Lake and Grant County
have a much higher percent of
Hispanics than the state overall.
According to the Moses Lake
Housing Action Plan, the City’s
population was 35% Hispanic.
Exhibit 50. Comparison of Race/Ethnicity Population
Distribution, Moses Lake, Grant County, and Washington,
2010–2020
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2020 5-year estimates.
Exhibit 51: Comparison of Population by Race/Ethnicity in Moses Lake,
Grant County, and Washington, 2016-20
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05: ACS
Demographic and Housing Estimates.
Exhibit 52. Change in Employment by Sector for Workers Who Work in Moses Lake, 2010–2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD; data retrieved via OnTheMap.
1%
9%
4%
13%
5%
0%
67%
1%
1%
1%
42%
2%
0%
53%
1%
1%
3%
33%
4%
0%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian and Native Hawaiian and OtherPacific Islander alone
Black or African American alone
Hispanic
Multiracial
Some other race alone
White alone
Percent Share of Total Population
Moses Lake Grant County Washington
1.6%
0.0%
0.2%
3.7%
13.9%
4.0%
13.3%
2.5%
0.5%
1.6%
1.0%
3.7%
0.1%
10.3%
14.1%
14.3%
1.0%
9.6%
1.6%
2.9%
3.4%
0.0%
0.3%
4.2%
8.4%
3.5%
12.9%
3.0%
1.2%
2.3%
0.6%
2.0%
0.3%
4.7%
16.1%
17.3%
1.1%
9.7%
4.1%
4.7%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (excluding Public Administration)
Public Administration
Share of Total Primary Jobs in Moses Lake
2010 Share of Total Employment 2019 Share of Total Employment
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 144 of 183
ECONorthwest 59
Exhibit 53: Home Sales from 2020-April 2022, Grant County
Source: Grant County Assessor; ECONorthwest
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 145 of 183
ECONorthwest 60
Exhibit 54: Breakdown of Home Sales by Price, Grant County, 2020-April 2022
Source: Grant County Assessor; ECONorthwest
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 146 of 183
ECONorthwest 61
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 3-28-23, Page 147 of 183
ECONorthwest 62
▪ 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 3-28-23, Page 148 of 183
ECONorthwest 63
▪ 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 3-28-23, Page 149 of 183
ECONorthwest 64
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 3-28-23, Page 150 of 183
ECONorthwest 65
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 3-28-23, Page 151 of 183
ECONorthwest 66
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 3-28-23, Page 152 of 183
ECONorthwest 67
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 Director Suzi Fode.
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 Director Lynn
Logan.
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 3-28-23, Page 153 of 183
ECONorthwest 68
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 3-28-23, Page 154 of 183
ECONorthwest 69
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 3-28-23, Page 155 of 183
ECONorthwest 70
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 3-28-23, Page 156 of 183
ECONorthwest 71
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
o
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 157 of 183
ECONorthwest 72
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 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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 158 of 183
ECONorthwest 73
• 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
• 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.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 159 of 183
ECONorthwest 74
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
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
Former Kyoji’s 311282000 440 S. Melva Ln
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 160 of 183
ECONorthwest 75
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
(All)
For Sale vs. City-owned Not listed for sale
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?
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 161 of 183
ECONorthwest 76
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
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 Parking Undeveloped
Site Parcel Address
Central Drive 102113000 Central / Evelyn Dr.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 162 of 183
ECONorthwest 77
(All) Lot Size (room to grow)
Facilities
Time Constraints
$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
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
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 163 of 183
ECONorthwest 78
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
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 Swartz Building
Site Parcel Address
MLIRD 110992000 932 E. Wheeler Rd
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 164 of 183
ECONorthwest 79
Lot Size (room to grow)
Facilities
Time Constraints
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 3-28-23, Page 165 of 183
ECONorthwest 80
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 3-28-23, Page 166 of 183
ECONorthwest 81
• 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 3-28-23, Page 167 of 183
ECONorthwest 82
Appendix E: Feasibility Charts
Capital and One Time Costs
Exhibit 55: Assessed Value and Sale Price Markup by Site
Exhibit 56: Site Upgrades, Assessed Value and Sale Price Markup by Site
$101,000
$409,000
$600,000
$111,100
$0
$449,900
$660,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
Existing Site Central Drive Kyoji's Irrigation District
Assessed Value Markup
$263,000 $437,000 $287,000 $300,000
$101,000
$409,000
$600,000
$111,100 $-
$449,900
$660,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
Existing Site Central Drive Kyoji's Irrigation District
Site Upgrades Assessed Value Markup
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 168 of 183
ECONorthwest 83
Exhibit 57: Central Building Construction Costs, Site Upgrades, Assessed Value and Sales Price
Markup by Site, High Cost Assumption
Exhibit 58: Central Building Construction Costs, Site Upgrades, Assessed Value and Sales Price
Markup by Site, Low Cost Assumption
$1,230,000 $1,230,000 $1,230,000
$400,000
$263,000 $437,000 $287,000
$300,000
$101,000
$409,000
$600,000
$111,100
$449,900
$600,000
$0
$500,000
$1,000 ,000
$1,500 ,000
$2,000 ,000
$2,500 ,000
Existing Site Central Drive Kyoji's Irrigation District
Central Building Costs Site Upgrades Assessed Value Markup
$901,662 $901,662 $901,662
$300,554
$263,000 $437,000 $287,000
$300,000
$101,000
$409,000
$600,000
$111,100
$449,900
$600,000
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Existing Site Central Drive Kyoji's Irrigation District
Central Building Costs Site Upgrades Assessed Value Markup
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 169 of 183
ECONorthwest 84
Operating Costs
Costs demonstrated in the operating scenarios below include the following expenses:
Exhibit 59: 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 3-28-23, Page 170 of 183
ECONorthwest 1
Exhibit 60: Scenario 1 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions
Exhibit 61: Scenario 1 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 391,300$ 403,000$ 415,100$ 427,600$ 440,400$ 453,600$ 467,200$ 481,200$ 495,700$ 510,500$ 4,485,600$ 448,600$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 7,600$ 7,800$ 8,000$ 8,300$ 8,500$ 8,800$ 9,000$ 9,300$ 9,600$ 9,900$ 86,600$ 8,660$
Administrative Costs 21,300$ 21,900$ 22,600$ 23,300$ 24,000$ 24,700$ 25,400$ 26,200$ 27,000$ 27,800$ 244,200$ 24,420$
Property Expenses 8,800$ 9,100$ 9,300$ 9,600$ 9,900$ 10,200$ 10,500$ 10,800$ 11,100$ 11,500$ 100,900$ 10,090$
Utilities 18,300$ 18,800$ 18,300$ 18,300$ 18,300$ 18,300$ 18,300$ 18,300$ 18,300$ 18,300$ 183,500$ 18,350$
Services
Meals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease 20,400$ 21,000$ 21,600$ 22,300$ 23,000$ 23,600$ 24,400$ 25,100$ 25,800$ 26,600$ 233,900$ 23,390$
Bathroom Trailers 10,000$ 10,300$ 10,600$ 10,900$ 11,300$ 11,600$ 11,900$ 12,300$ 12,700$ 13,000$ 114,600$ 11,460$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total operating costs:477,600$ 492,000$ 505,600$ 520,200$ 535,300$ 550,800$ 566,800$ 583,200$ 600,200$ 617,600$ 5,449,300$ 544,930$
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 423,600$ 436,300$ 449,400$ 462,900$ 476,800$ 491,100$ 505,800$ 521,000$ 536,600$ 552,700$ 4,856,100$ 485,600$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 9,000$ 9,200$ 9,500$ 9,800$ 10,100$ 10,400$ 10,700$ 11,000$ 11,300$ 11,700$ 102,600$ 10,260$
Administrative Costs 23,600$ 24,300$ 25,000$ 25,800$ 26,600$ 27,400$ 28,200$ 29,000$ 29,900$ 30,800$ 270,500$ 27,050$
Property Expenses 9,900$ 10,200$ 10,500$ 10,800$ 11,100$ 11,500$ 11,800$ 12,200$ 12,500$ 12,900$ 113,500$ 11,350$
Utilities 23,400$ 24,100$ 23,400$ 23,400$ 23,400$ 23,400$ 23,400$ 23,400$ 23,400$ 23,400$ 234,700$ 23,470$
Services
Meals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease 20,400$ 21,000$ 21,600$ 22,300$ 23,000$ 23,600$ 24,400$ 25,100$ 25,800$ 26,600$ 233,900$ 23,390$
Bathroom Trailers 11,000$ 11,300$ 11,700$ 12,000$ 12,400$ 12,800$ 13,100$ 13,500$ 13,900$ 14,400$ 126,100$ 12,610$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total operating costs:520,800$ 536,500$ 551,100$ 567,000$ 583,300$ 600,100$ 617,400$ 635,200$ 653,600$ 672,500$ 5,937,400$ 593,740$
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 171 of 183
ECONorthwest 2
Exhibit 62: Scenario 2 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions
Exhibit 63: Scenario 2 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 571,200$ 588,400$ 606,000$ 624,200$ 642,900$ 662,200$ 682,100$ 702,600$ 723,600$ 745,400$ 6,548,700$ 654,900$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 10,800$ 11,100$ 11,400$ 11,800$ 12,100$ 12,500$ 12,900$ 13,300$ 13,700$ 14,100$ 123,600$ 12,400$
Administrative Costs 24,000$ 24,700$ 25,400$ 26,200$ 27,000$ 27,800$ 28,600$ 29,500$ 30,400$ 31,300$ 274,700$ 27,500$
Property Expenses 12,600$ 12,900$ 13,300$ 13,700$ 14,100$ 14,600$ 15,000$ 15,500$ 15,900$ 16,400$ 144,100$ 14,400$
Utilities 26,100$ 26,900$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 262,200$ 26,200$
Services
Meals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Bathroom Trailers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost 2,000$ 2,100$ 2,100$ 2,200$ 2,300$ 2,300$ 2,400$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,600$ 22,900$ 2,300$
Total operating costs:646,700$ 666,100$ 684,500$ 704,300$ 724,600$ 745,600$ 767,100$ 789,400$ 812,300$ 835,800$ 7,376,300$ 737,600$
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 625,000$ 643,700$ 663,000$ 682,900$ 703,400$ 724,500$ 746,200$ 768,600$ 791,700$ 815,400$ 7,164,400$ 716,400$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 12,800$ 13,200$ 13,600$ 14,000$ 14,400$ 14,800$ 15,300$ 15,700$ 16,200$ 16,700$ 146,600$ 14,700$
Administrative Costs 26,600$ 27,300$ 28,200$ 29,000$ 29,900$ 30,800$ 31,700$ 32,700$ 33,600$ 34,600$ 304,400$ 30,400$
Property Expenses 14,100$ 14,600$ 15,000$ 15,500$ 15,900$ 16,400$ 16,900$ 17,400$ 17,900$ 18,500$ 162,100$ 16,200$
Utilities 33,400$ 34,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 335,300$ 33,500$
Services
Meals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Bathroom Trailers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost 3,000$ 3,100$ 3,200$ 3,300$ 3,400$ 3,500$ 3,600$ 3,700$ 3,800$ 3,900$ 34,400$ 3,400$
Total operating costs:714,900$ 736,300$ 756,400$ 778,100$ 800,400$ 823,400$ 847,100$ 871,500$ 896,700$ 922,500$ 8,147,200$ 814,700$
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 172 of 183
ECONorthwest 3
Exhibit 64: Scenario 3 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions
Exhibit 65: Scenario 3 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 619,200$ 637,800$ 656,900$ 676,700$ 697,000$ 717,900$ 739,400$ 761,600$ 784,400$ 808,000$ 7,098,800$ 709,900$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 10,800$ 11,100$ 11,400$ 11,800$ 12,100$ 12,500$ 12,900$ 13,300$ 13,700$ 14,100$ 123,600$ 12,400$
Administrative Costs 32,000$ 32,900$ 33,900$ 34,900$ 36,000$ 37,000$ 38,100$ 39,300$ 40,500$ 41,700$ 366,300$ 36,600$
Property Expenses 12,600$ 12,900$ 13,300$ 13,700$ 14,100$ 14,600$ 15,000$ 15,500$ 15,900$ 16,400$ 144,100$ 14,400$
Utilities 26,100$ 26,900$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 262,200$ 26,200$
Services
Meals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Bathroom Trailers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost 2,000$ 2,100$ 2,100$ 2,200$ 2,300$ 2,300$ 2,400$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,600$ 22,900$ 2,300$
Total operating costs:702,700$ 723,800$ 743,900$ 765,400$ 787,600$ 810,400$ 834,000$ 858,200$ 883,200$ 908,900$ 8,018,000$ 801,800$
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 680,800$ 701,300$ 722,300$ 744,000$ 766,300$ 789,300$ 813,000$ 837,300$ 862,500$ 888,300$ 7,805,000$ 780,500$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 12,800$ 13,200$ 13,600$ 14,000$ 14,400$ 14,800$ 15,300$ 15,700$ 16,200$ 16,700$ 146,600$ 14,700$
Administrative Costs 35,400$ 36,500$ 37,600$ 38,700$ 39,800$ 41,000$ 42,300$ 43,500$ 44,800$ 46,200$ 405,800$ 40,600$
Property Expenses 14,100$ 14,600$ 15,000$ 15,500$ 15,900$ 16,400$ 16,900$ 17,400$ 17,900$ 18,500$ 162,100$ 16,200$
Utilities 33,400$ 34,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 335,300$ 33,500$
Services
Meals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Bathroom Trailers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost 3,000$ 3,100$ 3,200$ 3,300$ 3,400$ 3,500$ 3,600$ 3,700$ 3,800$ 3,900$ 34,400$ 3,400$
Total operating costs:779,600$ 803,000$ 825,000$ 848,800$ 873,200$ 898,400$ 924,400$ 951,100$ 978,600$ 1,007,000$ 8,889,200$ 888,900$
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 173 of 183
ECONorthwest 4
Exhibit 66: Scenario 4 Operating Budget, Low Cost Assumptions
Exhibit 67: Scenario 4 Operating Budget, High Cost Assumptions
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 619,200$ 637,800$ 656,900$ 676,700$ 697,000$ 717,900$ 739,400$ 761,600$ 784,400$ 808,000$ 7,098,800$ 709,900$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 10,800$ 11,100$ 11,400$ 11,800$ 12,100$ 12,500$ 12,900$ 13,300$ 13,700$ 14,100$ 123,600$ 12,400$
Administrative Costs 32,000$ 32,900$ 33,900$ 34,900$ 36,000$ 37,000$ 38,100$ 39,300$ 40,500$ 41,700$ 366,300$ 36,600$
Property Expenses 12,600$ 12,900$ 13,300$ 13,700$ 14,100$ 14,600$ 15,000$ 15,500$ 15,900$ 16,400$ 144,100$ 14,400$
Utilities 26,100$ 26,900$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 26,100$ 262,200$ 26,200$
Services
Meals 82,100$ 84,600$ 87,100$ 89,700$ 92,400$ 95,200$ 98,100$ 101,000$ 104,000$ 107,200$ 941,500$ 94,100$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Bathroom Trailers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost 2,000$ 2,100$ 2,100$ 2,200$ 2,300$ 2,300$ 2,400$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,600$ 22,900$ 2,300$
Total operating costs:784,800$ 808,400$ 831,000$ 855,200$ 880,000$ 905,600$ 932,000$ 959,200$ 987,200$ 1,016,000$ 8,959,500$ 895,900$
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Yearly
Average
Staffing Costs
Salaries and Benefits 680,800$ 701,300$ 722,300$ 744,000$ 766,300$ 789,300$ 813,000$ 837,300$ 862,500$ 888,300$ 7,805,000$ 780,500$
Operating Expenses
Program Costs 12,800$ 13,200$ 13,600$ 14,000$ 14,400$ 14,800$ 15,300$ 15,700$ 16,200$ 16,700$ 146,600$ 14,700$
Administrative Costs 35,400$ 36,500$ 37,600$ 38,700$ 39,800$ 41,000$ 42,300$ 43,500$ 44,800$ 46,200$ 405,800$ 40,600$
Property Expenses 14,100$ 14,600$ 15,000$ 15,500$ 15,900$ 16,400$ 16,900$ 17,400$ 17,900$ 18,500$ 162,100$ 16,200$
Utilities 33,400$ 34,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 33,400$ 335,300$ 33,500$
Services
Meals 209,900$ 216,200$ 222,700$ 229,300$ 236,200$ 243,300$ 250,600$ 258,100$ 265,900$ 273,800$ 2,406,000$ 240,600$
Site-Specific Costs
Office Lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Bathroom Trailers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
AC/ Heat Additional Cost 3,000$ 3,100$ 3,200$ 3,300$ 3,400$ 3,500$ 3,600$ 3,700$ 3,800$ 3,900$ 34,400$ 3,400$
Total operating costs:989,500$ 1,019,200$ 1,047,700$ 1,078,100$ 1,109,500$ 1,141,700$ 1,175,000$ 1,209,200$ 1,244,500$ 1,280,800$ 11,295,200$ 1,129,500$
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 174 of 183
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
Allison Williams, City Manager 10203
Madeline Prentice, Director Finance
3/28/2023 New Business
2023 - 1st Quarter Budget Appropriation Ordinance
City Manager Finance Fire
City Attorney Community Development Police
Human Resources Municipal Services Parks, Rec, & Cultural Services
5,779,092.00$0.00$5,779,092.00$
Increase the appropriation authority of each of the affected funds.
2023 1st Qtr._Budget Amend Approp Ord - 03.28.2023.docx 23.35KB
2023 1st qtr - Budget Amendment Sched 1.pdf 189.53KB
The first budget amendment of the year is typically a combination of programs being carried forward from the
previous year and new grants or initiatives since the budget was set. In some cases, there is additional revenue
to support the additional expenditures. In those cases that are not supported by additional revenue, the fund
balance is adequate to absorb the increase.
RCW 35.33.091 sets forth the requirements to amend the budget absent a true “emergency”. Most fund
amendments are primarily the result of things already approved by Council but just not completely incorporated
in the current budget. A summary of the changes follows.
General Liability Insurance: Funds affected are General Fund departments, Enterprise, Internal Service and
Risk Management funds. The 2023 budget was prepared with an estimated liability insurance premium increase
of 40% as recommended by the City’s insurance carrier, WCIA. Upon receipt of the premium invoice in January,
it was noted that the premium increased by an additional $68,400 (5.4%) over the budgeted amount due to
higher than projected increases in auto and property premiums. Liability insurance expense is distributed to
departments through an allocation prepared by the Finance Department and funds transferred to the Risk
Management fund for payment of the invoice.
Staffing changes/addition: At the 2/28/2023 Council meeting, staff requested authorization to move the
development review position and associated budget ($101,212) to Community Development from Engineering.
In addition, staff recommended consolidation of two part-time positions (one in Community Development and
one in Water) into a full-time position for water conservation work. Staff also requested authorization for one
additional construction inspector in the Engineering department to help handle all construction projects that will
be handled out of one division going forward. The budget impact for the addition of a construction inspector and
consolidation of part-time positions into a full-time position is estimated to be a total of $100,000 ($83,416 inMoses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 175 of 183
Engineering for the construction inspector from date of hire through year-end and $16,584 of partial year benefits
in the Water Division for the full-time water conservation position).
2023 Budget corrections:
· The Council approved 2023 budget included $900,000 in capital projects for the Building Maintenance
department for Civic Center Xeriscaping & annex space analysis ($500,000) and installation of solar array
panels ($400,000) on the Civic Center. The cost of these capital expenditures should have been captured as a
transfer-out of Miscellaneous Services and a transfer-in to the Building Maintenance budget but was missed
during the budget preparation.
· During the 2023 budget process, the LTAC commission recommended two projects be paid for from the
City’s 2% of the lodging tax. The two projects are improvements to the City of Moses Lake Visitor Center
($19,913) and improvements to the BMX track ($41,856) requested by the BMX Association. The expenditures
for these two projects were not included in the Tourism Activities fund when the budget was prepared.
· When the 2023 budget for Central Services – IT was prepared, we initially included training/registration
budget amounts for GIS staff. It was ultimately decided that the GIS staff training costs ($7,000) should be
budgeted under the same budget as their salary costs, however, the correction for training/registration budgets
was missed. This budget amendment moves the budgeted training/registration amounts from Central Services-
IT (517-517) to Water (410-411).
· Council approved Water/Sewer Construction (Fund 477) capital projects in the amount of $5,600,000 during
the 2023 budget process. However, the total approved capital project amount was not carried over to the
departmental budget, resulting in a $1,630,000 budget shortfall in the Water/Sewer Construction fund. We are
also correcting specific line items within the budget with this amendment.
New Budget Initiatives/Grants and 2022 carryover:
· At the 2/28 council meeting, Council approved acceptance of a Department of Homeland Security SAFER
grant in the amount of $3,317,058 for the Fire Department with a performance period of 8/8/2023 – 8/7/2026.
The 2023 portion of the grant funds to be received is estimated to be $408,705 in wages and benefits. The
remaining funds to be reimbursed under the grant will be carried over and budgeted for in the appropriate
budget year during 2024 to 2026.
· In July, 2022, Council approved establishment of a Public Art Fund using 1% of the money budgeted for
City Capital projects. However, during the 2023 budget process, there were no revenues or expenditures
included in the citywide budget for this fund. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services department are
requesting to spend $29,270 of available Public Art Funds for the 2023 Summer Concert series, “Music in
McCosh”. The Finance Department is in the process of identifying the amount of funding that will be transferred
to the Public Art Fund for projects completed during 2022.
· At the end of 2022, a signal cabinet was destroyed in an accident and due to continuing supply chain
issues, it was determined that if the City had another similar incident, a replacement could take several months
to be delivered. Subsequently, the Street Department was able to locate a spare signal cabinet at a significant
cost savings that the City could purchase and have on-hand should a similar occurrence happen in the future.
The cost of the spare signal cabinet including tax is $19,512.
· The Street Department was approved to purchase a bucket truck in their 2023 budget at a cost of $135,000,
($150,000 estimate less salvage value of $15,000). The final cost of the bucket truck when it was ordered came
in over budget at a total cost of $171,580. Additionally, the Parks Department has requested to purchase the
existing bucket truck from Streets, but did not budget for this expense in their 2023 budget. The new bucket
truck is not expected to arrive until late 2023 and Streets would not surplus the existing bucket truck until early
2024, giving the Parks Department the opportunity to plan for purchasing the existing truck in their 2024 budget.
The Street Department is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $36,580 in additional funds for the
purchase of the new bucket truck.
· Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services ordered furnishings for the lobby of the new Larson Recreation
Center in 2022 that were not delivered or paid for until 2023 and was not budgeted in 2023. The invoice for the
furnishings was not received in time to allow it to be accrued in 2022. As a result, Parks is requesting a budget
amendment in the amount of $10,216 for the purchase of the furnishings. The Parks and Recreation
Improvement fund has contingency funds available in an amount sufficient to pay for this purchase.
· The Water Department, at the request of Utility Billing, is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of
$50,000 to purchase and replace several meters that are failing and in confined space vaults, requiring two staff
members to manually collect monthly meter readings resulting in inefficiencies in the Utility Billing department.
The existing meters are not compatible with the Badger Beacon endpoint and the new meters would allow
readings to be collected remotely, freeing up staff time to perform other duties.Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 176 of 183
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Approve, Authorize, or Adopt:
Provide Amended Direction:
No Action Taken:
· Water Rights consulting services carryover from 2022 for Aspect Consulting in the amount of $30,000.
· The Wastewater Division is requesting budget amendments for the following capital projects:
o Bio-solids removal ($200,000) – Removal of biosolids is essential to the treatment process.
o Dunes WWTF air diffusers rebuild ($300,000) – The recommended life span of diffusers is 10 years.
The diffusers at the Dunes WWTF have been in use for 17 years and are no longer working as they
should.
o Larson WWTF Pond Sealing/Rehabilitation ($150,000) – The concrete joints in the lined evaporation
ponds are leaking and in need of sealing.
o COF Valve replacement ($300,000) – An 18” valve at the COF Grit chamber has failed. The project
includes the replacement of a 2 18” valve at the same location. The failed valve is preventing the facility
from designed operation.
o Project design for City and outside engineering ($100,000).
o Westshore Biofilter project ($63,466.20) – the project was budgeted at $200,000 and the low bid came
in at $263,466.20.
o Well Rehabilitation project ($37,973.44) – the project was budgeted at $450,000 and the low bid came
in at $487,973.44.
· In December, 2022, Council approved a grant for the Alternative Response Program for the Ambulance
Department in the amount of $108,000. We are requesting a budget amendment for receipt of the grant funds
and the associated expenditures in the 2023 budget.
· In December, 2022, Police Department vehicle #032 was totaled in an accident. The cost to replace the
vehicle is $85,000 with an estimated insurance recovery amount of $16,000. Equipment Rental is requesting a
budget amendment for these amounts to replace the totaled vehicle.
· Building Maintenance is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $121,800 for a security guard to
patrol City facilities and parks from 4:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. The security guard would do a walkthrough of the
City’s downtown buildings at close of business to ensure there are no persons hiding in the facilities as well as
patrol through the night to help prevent vandalism.
The attached ordinance increases the 2023 budget resulting in additional citywide expenditures of $5,779,092
and adds $1,501,105 to estimated revenue for a net use of fund balance in the amount of $4,277,987 in the
funds listed on the attached schedule. The General Fund expenditures is proposed to increase by $1,415,421
with a revenue increase of $408,705 for a net use of beginning fund balance of $1,006,716.
nd
The City Council Finance Committee reviews budget amendments as a regular course of their business. All
items were reviewed by them with the exception of the increase in insurance. It is a compliance issue to have
actual results be within the authorized appropriation. If we overspend an appropriation, the State Auditor’s
Office would likely note it as an area of non-compliance with state laws.
Options and Results
Increase the appropriation authority in each of the affected funds.
Staff will bring back options for recommended changes.
Some funds may exceed the 2023 budget authority, potentially causing an audit compliance issue.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 177 of 183
ORDINANCE NO. 3021
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2023 BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF
MOSES LAKE; AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FROM
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCES WITHIN VARIOUS FUNDS
FOR EXPENDITURE DURING 2023 FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES AS
DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE
Whereas, the various funds indicated on the attached Schedule 1 contain Unappropriated Fund
Balances available for appropriation and expenditures during 2023 in various amounts and for
the purposes mentioned in the attached Schedule; and
Whereas, at the time of the adoption of the 2023 budget it could not reasonably have been
foreseen that the appropriation provided for by this ordinance would be required; and the City
Council declares that an emergency exists of the type contemplated by RCW 35.33.091 and that
it is in the best interests of the City to make the appropriation herein provided, now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE:
Section 1. Appropriations are hereby made, for expenditure during 2023, from Unappropriated
Fund Balances in the various Funds to the various accounts and in the various amounts, and for
the specific purposes, all as specified in the Schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 2. This ordinance is one making an appropriation and shall take effect immediately upon
its passage and approval as provided by law.
Section 3. The City Council declares that an emergency exists and this ordinance is deemed a
public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public
property, or public peace and shall take effect immediately as provided by law upon one reading
if a majority plus one of the whole membership of the City Council vote in favor of passage.
Section 4. Severability. If any section of this ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid
as written or as applied to any particular person or circumstances, no other section of the
ordinance shall be deemed to be invalid, but rather, should be deemed to have been enacted
independently and without regard to the section affected.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, and signed and approved this 28th day of March, 2023.
______________________________________
Don Myers, Mayor
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 178 of 183
ATTEST:
________________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
Martinez Swartz Myers Fancher Madewell Eck Skaug
Vote:
Date Published:
Date Effective:
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 179 of 183
Account #Account NameRevenueExpenseGain/(Use) of Fund BalanceDescriptionGENERAL FUNDLegislative (001-001)001-001-51160-0461Facilities - Insurance- 1,000 (1,000) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsExecutive (001-002)001-002-51310-0461Facilities - Insurance- 500 (500) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsFinance (001-003)001-003-51420-0461Facilities - Insurance- 700 (700) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsCommunity Development (001-004)001-004-55860-0461Facilities - Insurance- 700 (700) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costs001-004-55850-0111Full-Time Salaries- 70,896 (70,896) Move Development Review position from Engineering001-004-55850-0211Social Security- 5,424 (5,424) Move Development Review position from Engineering001-004-55850-0213Retirement- 7,267 (7,267) Move Development Review position from Engineering001-004-55850-0214Workman's Compensation- 1,126 (1,126) Move Development Review position from Engineering001-004-55850-0217Deferred Compensation- 1,418 (1,418) Move Development Review position from Engineering001-004-55850-0218Paid Family & Medical Leave- 114 (114) Move Development Review position from Engineering001-004-55850-0221Medical Insurance- 14,924 (14,924) Move Development Review position from Engineering001-004-55850-0223Life Insurance- 43 (43) Move Development Review position from EngineeringMiscellaneous Services (001-006)001-006-59700-0099Transfers-Out- 900,000 (900,000) 2023 Budget correction - Tsf. To Building Maintenance - Civic Center capitalEngineering001-010-53810-0111Full-Time Salaries- 51,472 (51,472) Construction Inspection position001-010-53810-0211Social Security- 3,938 (3,938) Construction Inspection position001-010-53810-0213Retirement- 5,276 (5,276) Construction Inspection position001-010-53810-0214Workman's Compensation- 200 (200) Construction Inspection position001-010-53810-0217Deferred Compensation- 1,030 (1,030) Construction Inspection position001-010-53810-0218Paid Family & Medical Leave- 83 (83) Construction Inspection position001-010-53810-0221Medical Insurance- 21,374 (21,374) Construction Inspection position001-010-53810-0223Life Insurance- 43 (43) Construction Inspection position001-010-53820-0111Full-Time Salaries- (70,896) 70,896 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53820-0211Social Security(5,424) 5,424 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53820-0213Retirement(7,267) 7,267 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53820-0214Workman's Compensation(1,126) 1,126 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53820-0217Deferred Compensation(1,418) 1,418 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53820-0218Paid Family & Medical Leave(114) 114 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53820-0221Medical Insurance(14,924) 14,924 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53820-0223Life Insurance(43) 43 Move Development Review position to Community Development001-010-53850-0461Facilities - Insurance- 1,200 (1,200) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsCity of Moses Lake2023 Appropriation ScheduleSCHEDULE 1Appropriate out of unappropriated fund balances of the various fundsand in the various amounts and for the purposes as described:1 of 4Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 180 of 183
Account #Account NameRevenueExpenseGain/(Use) of Fund BalanceDescriptionCity of Moses Lake2023 Appropriation ScheduleSCHEDULE 1Appropriate out of unappropriated fund balances of the various fundsand in the various amounts and for the purposes as described:Parks and Recreation (001-020)001-020-57680-0461 Facilities - Insurance- 15,000 (15,000) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsPolice (001-030)001-030-52150-0461 Facilities - Insurance- 2,400 (2,400) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsFire (001-040)001-040-52250-0461 Facilities - Insurance- 1,800 (1,800) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costs001-040-5xxxx-0111Yr 1 - wages- 291,930 (291,930) SAFER Grant - Wages (8/8/23 - 12/31/23)001-040-5xxxx-0211Yr 1 - benefits- 116,775 (116,775) SAFER Grant - Benefits (8/8/23 - 12/31/23)001-040-33397-1000Fed. Ind. Grant - Homeland Security408,705 - 408,705 SAFER Grant - Year 1 reimbursementTotal General Fund408,705 1,415,421 (1,006,716) Tourism Activities (102)102-102-55732-0411Professional Services- 19,913 (19,913) 2023 budget correction - City's portion of LTAC - 1st 2% - CofML Visitor Ctr102-102-55732-0411Professional Services- 41,856 (41,856) 2023 budget correction - City's portion of LTAC - 1st 2% - BMX Assn.Total Tourism Activities- 61,769 (61,769) Public Art Program (112)112-112-5xxxx-xxxx- 29,270 (29,270) 2023 Summer Concert Series "Music in McCosh".Streets (116)116-116-54330-0461Facilities - Insurance- 2,200 (2,200) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costs116-116-59441-0641Machinery & Equipment Nonlease- 18,000 (18,000) ATC Spare "P" signal cabinet with components116-116-59441-0641Machinery & Equipment Nonlease- 1,512 (1,512) ATC Spare "P" signal cabinet - sales tax not included in initial request116-116-59441-0641Operations - Mach & Equip Nonlease- 36,580 (36,580) Additional funds needed to purchase new bucket truckTotal Streets- 58,292 (58,292) Parks & Recreation Improvement (314)314-314-59476-0631Improvements other than Bldg.- 10,216 (10,216) Couch for lobby at LRC - ordered in 2022, but not delivered/paid until 2023Water/Wastewater (410)410-411-5xxxx-02xxBenefits- 16,584 (16,584) Water Conservation position benefits410-411-53450-0432Travel/Training- 5,000 (5,000) 2023 budget correction for GIS training/registrations410-411-53450-0495Registrations, Dues, & Subscriptions- 2,000 (2,000) 2023 budget correction for GIS training/registrations410-411-59434-0645Water Utilities - Water Meters- 50,000 (50,000) Replace aging meters that are no longer reading remotely.410-411-53410-0461Facilities - Insurance- 10,100 (10,100) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costs410-412-53510-0461Facilities - Insurance- 27,400 (27,400) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsTotal Water/Wastewater- 111,084 (111,084) 2 of 4Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 181 of 183
Account #Account NameRevenueExpenseGain/(Use) of Fund BalanceDescriptionCity of Moses Lake2023 Appropriation ScheduleSCHEDULE 1Appropriate out of unappropriated fund balances of the various fundsand in the various amounts and for the purposes as described:Water Rights (471)471-471-53410-0411 Water Rights Work- 30,000 (30,000) Aspect Consulting Water rights carryover from 2022.Water/Sewer Construction (477)477-477-59435-0653 CIP- Sewer Projects 63,466 (63,466) Westshore Biofilter project. Budgeted @ $200,000, low bid was $263,466.20. 477-477-59434-0653 CIP - Water Projects- 3,730,000 (3,730,000) 2023 Budget correction 477-477-59435-0654 CIP- Sewer Projects- (2,100,000) 2,100,000 2023 Budget correction477-477-59435-0653 CIP- Sewer Projects- 200,000 (200,000) Bio-solids removal 477-477-59435-0653 CIP- Sewer Projects- 300,000 (300,000) Dunes WWTF air diffusers - rebuild 477-477-59435-0653 CIP- Sewer Projects- 150,000 (150,000) Larson WWTF Pond Sealing/Rehabilitation 477-477-59435-0654 CIP- Sewer Projects- 300,000 (300,000) COF Grit chamber 18" valve replacement477-477-59435-0654 CIP- Sewer Projects- 100,000 (100,000) Project design funding for City & Outside Engineering477-477-59434-0653 CIP - Water Projects- 37,973 (37,973) Well Rehabilitation Project. Budgeted @ $450,000, low bid was $487,973.44.Total Water/Sewer Construction- 2,781,440 (2,781,440) Stormwater (493)493-493-54240-0461 Facilities - Insurance- 200 (200) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsAmbulance (498)498-498-55720-0111 Full Time Salaries- 24,218.56 (24,219) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0131 Overtime- 1,693 (1,693) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0211 Social Security- 1,925 (1,925) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0213Retirement- 2,580 (2,580) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0214Workmans Compensation- 101 (101) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0218Paid Family & Medical Leave- 38 (38) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0217ICMA Deferred Comp- 137 (137) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0221Medical Insurance- 10,200 (10,200) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0223Life Insurance- 21 (21) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0311Office Supplies- 615 (615) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0355Electronic Equipment- 2,695 (2,695) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0351Office Space Furniture- 5,973 (5,973) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0451Transportation expenses- 15,381 (15,381) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-55720-0411Professional Services- 1,846 (1,846) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-59422-0641Machinery & Equip. Nonlease- 40,578 (40,578) AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-000-33400-1019State Grants108,000 - 108,000 AWC Grant for Alternative Response Program498-498-52210-0461Facilities - Insurance- 1,200 (1,200) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsTotal Ambulance108,000 109,200 (1,200) Risk Management (503)503-503-51866-0463Insurance Premiums- 68,400 (68,400) 503-000-34891-1901 thru 1965 See Budget Amendment form68,400 - 68,400 Total Risk Management68,400 68,400 - Liability Ins. - actual costs higher than estimate - increases in auto & property premiums3 of 4Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 182 of 183
Account #Account NameRevenueExpenseGain/(Use) of Fund BalanceDescriptionCity of Moses Lake2023 Appropriation ScheduleSCHEDULE 1Appropriate out of unappropriated fund balances of the various fundsand in the various amounts and for the purposes as described:Central Services - Utility Billing (517-514)517-514-51420-0461 Facilities - Insurance - 200 (200) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsCentral Services - IT (517-517)517-517-51888-0495 Training/registrations - (7,000) 7,000 2023 budget correction for GIS training/registrations517-517-51888-0461 Facilities - Insurance - 300 (300) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsTotal Central Services - IT - (6,700) 6,700 Equipment Rental (519)519-519-54868-0461 Facilities - Insurance- 3,400 (3,400) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costs519-000-37200-1000 Insurance Recoveries 16,000 - 16,000 Insurance recovery - Unit 034 - total loss519-519-59448-0641Machinery & Equipment- 85,000 (85,000) Unit 034 - total loss - insurance reimbursement $16,000Total Equipment Rental16,000 88,400 (72,400) Building Maintenance (528)528-528-59418-0622Capital- 500,000 (500,000) 2023 Budget correction - Civic Center Xeriscaping & Annex space analysis528-528-59418-0622Capital- 400,000 (400,000) 2023 Budget correction - Install Solar Array on Civic Center528-000-34892-1906Transfer-In900,000 - 900,000 Transfer-In from General Fund528-528-51865-0481Repair & Maint - Contr.- 121,800 (121,800) Security services for City facilities528-528-51830-0461Facilities - Insurance- 100 (100) Additional 2023 Liability Insurance premium costsTotal Building Maintenance900,000 1,021,900 (121,900) Citywide Total1,501,105$ 5,779,092$ (4,277,987)$ -$ 4 of 4Moses Lake Council Packet 3-28-23, Page 183 of 183