FINAL 2022 0308 Council Agenda PacketMoses Lake City Council
Dean Hankins, Mayor | Don Myers, Deputy Mayor | Deanna Martinez, Council Member | Dustin Swartz, Council Member
Mark Fancher, Council Member | David Eck, Council Member| Judy Madewell, Council Member
p REMOTE ACCESS OPTION and IN PERSON UPDATE
Citizens can join this meeting remotely by calling the numbers listed at the bottom of the agenda or via internet
at https://cityofml.zoom.us/j/81573286494. Persons requesting to address the Council from the remote option
will need to complete the online speaker request form before 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Masks will be
required for all in person attendees.
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam or remote access
Study Session
5:45 p.m. – Parks Master Plan
Presented by: GreenPlay Project Consultant Jeff Milkes
Regular Meeting Agenda
Call to Order – 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of the Agenda
Citizen’s Communications
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, please use the link above to complete a remote speaker request form or provide
written comments to cityclerk@cityofml.com no later than 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
Summary Reports:
Mayor’s Report
Additional Business
City Manager’s Report
-Employee New Hire and Promotions for Police and Public Works
pg 4 - City Vision, Mission and Values Motion
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 1 of 111
March 8, 2022, City Council Meeting Page 2 _________________
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.
#2 pg 8
a.City Council Meeting Minutes Dated February 22 and February 26, 2022
b.Claims and Payroll
c.Code Clean Up Ordinance 3001
d.Authorized Check Signers Resolution 3885
e.Odessa Memorial Purchasing Co-Op ILA
f.Redflex Contract Amendment #6
g.Hayden Homes Sagecrest Project Resolution 3886
Old Business
#2
Motion
#3
#4
#5
pg 37
MLIRD Joint Water Planning ILA
Presented by Dave Bren, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Council to review and consider approval
pg 47
Municipal Airport PDA Feasibility Report
Presented by Dave Bren, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Council to review and discuss
pg 81
Annexation Status Information
Presented by Allison Williams, City Manager
Summary: Council to review and discuss
pg 82
Extra Territorial Agreement Policy Discussion
Presented by Dave Bren, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Council to review and discuss
New Business
#6
Motion
pg 105
Assistant Municipal Services Director Funding Request
Presented by Dave Bren, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Council to review and consider approval
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 2 of 111
March 8, 2022, City Council Meeting Page 3 _________________
Administrative Reports
pg 108 - Permit Center Remodel Update
pg 109 - Community Development Project List
Council Communications and Reports
Adjournment
Next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for March 22, 2022
Zoom Meeting – Audio Only Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://cityofml.zoom.us/j/81573286494
Or iPhone one-tap: US: +12532158782,,81573286494# or +13462487799,,81573286494# 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: 815 7328 6494. International numbers available: https://cityofml.zoom.us/u/aelROcwuzZ
NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,
hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 764-3703 as soon as possible so that
arrangements may be made prior to the meeting time.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 3 of 111
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Council
From: Allison Williams, City Manager
Date: March 2, 2022
Proceeding Type: City Manager’s Report
Subject: City Vision, Mission and Values
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
•First Presentation: March 8, 2022 Budgeted Amount: N/A
•Second Presentation: Unbudgeted Amount:
•Action: Motion Total Cost:
Overview
On the workplan of the City has been the update of the City’s Vision, Mission and Priorities. With
the Council Retreat on 2/26, the Council identified priorities. Staff created the document that
follows that updates the Vision from the adopted Comprehensive Plan, adds the Mission and the
2022 Council priorities. Following this document are the Governance policies that were adopted
in the Comprehensive Plan, which show the consistency in this work.
Staff will utilize the 2022 Policies for setting priorities for the 2023 budgeting process. In addition,
if Council accepts the Vision/Mission and Priorities, then staff would begin working through a
process with employees and Council to update Values. Values are critical statements that provide
a short, memorable means of communicating the City’s priorities and work culture.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Setting policy in regard to City Priorities
Council Packet Attachment
Vision, Mission and Priorities document
Action Requested
Motion to adopt City of Moses Lake Vision, Mission and Priorities for 2022
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 4 of 111
Vision
Moses Lake is a diverse, connected and supportive community of innovation and
opportunity that values its namesake lake, small town vibe, growing arts and
cultural scene, (aerospace and manufacturing heritage, and an) abundance of
sunshine and outdoor activities
Mission
Provide a service-oriented government that works with all interests in the community
to implement our Vision
2022 Retreat Priorities:
•Manage and encourage the growth of the City
o Streamline city permitting processes
o Identify housing needs and ability to increase supply (marketing
opportunities)
o Benefit from manufacturing identity
o Add and revitalize infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation)
o Beautify corridors, add amenities (shopping, retail, activities)
•Crime reduction
o Emphasis on programs that can steer youth positively (STEM/STEAM
programs)
o Collaborate on gang/drug initiatives
o Augment graffiti abatement efforts
•Collaboration
o Align interests with County, Port, EDC, BBCC, Watershed Council, etc.
and receive regular reports
o Be responsive to the public, customers, agencies
▪Hire with customer service in mind, augment bilingual staff
•Lake Health
o Shoreline master program update underway
o Augment City infrastructure that can influence lake health (sewer
infrastructure, stormwater diversion)
o Participate in Watershed Council
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 5 of 111
General Government Policy Language from the adopted Comprehensive Plan
Policy 1.1.1 Ensure frequent and open communication as an operating principle in all affairs of
the City.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES:
▪Early public notification of land use applications.
▪ Provide opportunities for all community members to be informed of local government
issues, activities, and events.
▪Clear, well-documented administrative processes.
Policy 1.1.2 Encourage community organizations (PTA, service clubs, community clubs, youth
sport clubs, etc.) that highlight service and respond to issues and needs.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
▪ Allow city hall to be clearing house for the dissemination of information on local and
regional programs.
Policy 1.1.3 Ensure that land use, urban design, transportation and circulation policies, plans
and projects in Moses Lake benefit existing and future populations in an equitable manner.
Efforts should be made to promote health, safety, and the quality of life through responsive
and responsible investment of public funds toward social and human services.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
▪ Seek strategies and incentive plans for public/private partnerships that will promote
the development of day care and similar services, social services and offices, public recreational
uses, and community facilities.
Policy 1.1.4 Foster an environment of safety and security for those who live in, work in, and
visit Moses Lake, through long-term partnerships between residents, businesses, schools,
Moses Lake Police Department, and other City staff, in crime intervention and safety
enhancement programs. I
MPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
▪Design guidelines that implement defensible space principles for crime prevention.
▪Community-oriented policing plan, (e.g., block watch program)
▪Police satellite centers
▪Education programs, such as D.A.R.E. and personal safety
▪Strict enforcement of health and safety codes.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 6 of 111
Policy 1.1.5 Participate in the maintenance and updates of the county-wide Emergency
Services Plan.
Policy 1.1.6 The City will design processes and programs that are user friendly for the public.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
▪Clear, well-documented administrative processes
▪Clear, well-documented permitting processes
▪Periodic and comprehensive review of the Moses Lake Municipal Code to eliminate
contradictions
▪Regulations and programs that are easy to understand for all citizens.
▪Re-examine and improve processes so that City staff may provide recommendations
and findings at quasi-judicial procedures.
Policy 1.1.7 Recognize the diverse population within the community and use a variety of
participation techniques to reach all segments of the population, where appropriate, at a
suitable level of involvement and effort for the issue at hand.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
▪Support programs that improve access to educational resources and economic
opportunities for minorities, women and economically disadvantaged individuals.
▪Develop additional citizen participation strategies which provide alternatives to
conventional notification procedures when appropriate.
Policy 1.1.8 Encourage the participation of dedicated, community-oriented volunteers on City
Boards and Commissions; aiming for a balance of representatives that reflect the diverse nature
and interests of the community
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 7 of 111
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL February 22, 2022
STUDY SESSION
Food Truck Plaza Design Presentation Levi Bisnett, Engineering Project Surveyor and Carrie Hoiness, Recreation Superintendent provided PowerPoint slides to illustrate the proposed Food Truck Plaza design. The anticipated
opening for the Food Truck Plaza is the weekend of July 4 and plans to run in concurrent months of the Farmer’s Market, preliminarily on Tuesday and Thursday each week.
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Hankins with audio remote access. Special notice for attendance and citizen comment were
posted on the meeting agenda.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Hankins; Deputy Mayor Myers; Council Members Fancher, Eck, Martinez,
Swartz, and Madewell.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Police Chief Fuhr led the Flag Salute.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to approve the Agenda as presented, second by
Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0.
CITIZEN’S COMMUNICATION
Homeless Issues (testimony received prior to Consent Agenda)
Ron Strnad, 1701 E Burr Ave #15, Moses Lake, discussed his concerns with the homeless issues,
suggested moving the current location, and necessity for the homeless to follow rules.
SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORT
Confirm Appointment to the Planning Commission Mayor Hankins requested confirmation with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of Susan Tao to be appointed to the Planning Commission.
Action taken: Council Member Eck moved to confirm the appointment as presented, second by Council Member Swartz. The motion carried 7 – 0.
Park’s Youth Day Event on April 16
Deputy Mayor Myers has volunteered to MC the Youth Day Events and Council Member
Eck volunteered to be a parade judge.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 8 of 111
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – February 22, 2022
pg. 2
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Wastewater Treatment Plant Awards from DOE Lynn Doremus with the Department of Ecology presented staff with awards for the 2017
and 2020 Dunes Wastewater Facility, 2020 Larson Wastewater Facility, and a 2008-2017
ten-year award for perfect performance at the Larson Wastewater Treatment Facility.
ARPA Spending Plan Update The funding distribution approved during the 2022 budget process has been updated to
include carryover of unspent ARPA funds as well as input received from the citizen
survey. The 2023 updates will be presented again during the 2023 budget process.
Action taken: Council Member Eck moved to approve updated spending plan as presented, second by Council Member Martinez. The motion carried 7 – 0.
Police Station Options
Staff requested consideration to build a new police station rather than remodel the current facility due to costs of construction comparable to useful life of each project and ease of moving one time to a new facility.
Action taken: Council Member Swartz moved to authorize evaluation of a new building at a new
location, second by Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0.
Legislative Update City Manager Allison Williams provided information on proposed legislation that could
affect local government. Police Chief Kevin Fuhr provided updates specific to law
enforcement bills.
CONSENT AGENDA
#1 a. City Council meeting minutes dated February 8, 2022
b.Claim ACH 122-129 in the amount of $472,819.49; Checks 155134-155315 in
the amount of $904,783.84, no payroll to reportc.Grant County Road Maintenance ILAd. Accept Skate Park Bowl and Lighting Projecte.Extend Suspension of Water Shutoff Resolution 3883
Council pulled item (e) to request information related to a software implementation issue. Staff advised that this is a topic for Executive Session at the end of tonight’s meeting.
Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented,
second by Council Member Swartz. The motion carried 7 – 0.
NEW BUSINESS
#2 MLIRD Joint Water ILA Draft
Finding an irrigation water alternative is important to the future domestic drinking water
capacity. The agreement outlines the mutual support of each entity to study the statutory responsibilities and maximizing infrastructure. The timing of the study with the update of
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 9 of 111
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – February 22, 2022
pg. 3
the City’s development regulations will help expedite future implementation planning.
#3 Commerce Consolidated Homeless Grant ILA This will amend the prior Grant County Sub Recipient Agreement for the period of
January 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. The City will continue to subcontract with
HopeSource to provide services and assistance to eligible homeless persons. The emergency services grant funding is due to end September 2022.
Action taken: Council Member Martinez moved to authorize the Commerce Consolidated Homeless Grant ILA as presented, second by Deputy Mayor Myers. The motion carried 7 – 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Municipal Court Services Status City staff have been working with the District Court staff for the better part of February to initiate the law library data for the Administrative Office of the Courts, as well as
general processes in order to implement the new Interlocal Agreement for Municipal
Court. Processing the back log of contested hearing requests should resume in March.
Shoreline Master Program Open House Staff and consultants have been working with the Planning Commission to update the
Shoreline Master Plan. One update will include improved options for shoreline
stabilization. Department of Ecology will be present to answer questions during the Planning Commission’s Open House this Thursday at 6 p.m.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Council Member Martinez gave accolades to citizens involved with the Moses Lake Watershed
Council to keep the lake healthy for tourism. She requested a letter be sent to the Grant County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) to request the City remain as a position on the Grant County Board of Health due to potential changes from 2021 HB 1152. She also requested to have an earlier start time for all regular meetings of the Council.
Action taken: Council Member Swartz moved to have staff draft a letter to BOCC, second by Deputy Mayor Myers. The motion carried 7 – 0.
Action taken: Council Member Martinez moved to change the start time for regular meetings to
6:30 p.m., second by Mayor Hankins. The motion carried 7 – 0.
EXECUTIVE AND CLOSED SESSIONS
Mayor Hankins called an Executive Session at 8:10 p.m. pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for
Potential Litigation and Closed Session pursuant to RCW 42.30.140 (4)(c) for Labor Negotiations for 30 minutes and there will be no further business to follow.
ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 10 of 111
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – February 22, 2022
pg. 4
______________________________________
Dean Hankins, Mayor
ATTEST_____________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 11 of 111
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Saturday, February 26, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by Mayor Hankins. Notice for remote attendance was posted on the meeting agenda.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Hankins; Deputy Mayor Myers; Council Members Fancher, Eck, Martinez, Swartz, and Madewell.
COUNCIL RETREAT
Council introduced themselves and shared about their backgrounds and reasons they ran for
Council.
Mayor Hankins reviewed the form of government for the City is Council-Manager and identified that it is okay for Council to reach out to Directors for technical information, however the City Manager is tasked with administration (directing staff), Council role is policy. He also identified
that when in public or at other meetings Council members should be clear when sharing
‘personal opinions’ vs. a ‘Council position’ with the public on a City stance.
The Department Directors and several lead staff shared information about themselves and their leadership at the City. City Manager Allison Williams is implementing the new employee policies approved by Council as well as adding tools for strong leadership and management skills
for staff, through HR. Several departments are also working on succession planning due to
known retirements.
Council members were asked to prioritize issues. There was significant discussion around housing and the City’s ability to influence. Key priorities where Council members aligned were:
•Manage and encourage the growth of the City
o Streamline city permitting processes
o Identify housing needs and ability to increase supply (marketing opportunities)o Benefit from manufacturing identityoAdd and revitalize infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation)o Beautify corridors, add amenities (shopping, retail, activities)
•Crime reduction
o Emphasis on programs that can steer youth positively (STEM/STEAM programs)o Collaborate on gang/drug initiativesoAugment graffiti abatement efforts
•Collaboration
o Align interests with County, Port, EDC, BBCC, Watershed Council and receiveregular reportsoBe responsive to the public, customers, agencies
Hire with customer service in mind, augment bilingual staff
•Lake Health
o Shoreline master program update underwayoAugment City infrastructure that can influence lake health (sewer infrastructure,stormwater diversion)
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 12 of 111
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – February 26, 2022
pg. 2
o Participate in Watershed Council
The 2022 Legislature will have short session with just two weeks remaining. COVID has presented challenges for Council to network in person with other city and state elected officials,
but AWC is planning to have the June Conference this year in person. Council Member
Martinez noted that there is an online update on status of legislation every Friday at Noon from AWC lobbyists.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Hankins called a break at 10:20 a.m. to be followed by an Executive Session to discuss
Potential Litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for 90 minutes and there will be no action
to follow.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at Noon.
______________________________________ Dean Hankins, Mayor
ATTEST____________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 13 of 111
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Madeline Prentice, Finance Director
Council Meeting Date: March 8, 2022
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Disbursement Report since February 22, 2022, Council Meeting
The following amounts were budgeted and sufficient funds were available to cover these payments:
Electronic Transfers 130 – 135 $ 655,379.83 Checks 155316 – 155390 $ 186,539.71 Payroll Checks 064210-064217 $ 2,581.68 Electronic Payments Payroll ACH $ 460,951.81 Summary
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 has 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 its processes to ensure appropriate internal controls are in place.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 14 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 15 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 16 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 17 of 111
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Debbie Burke, Administrative Services Manager / City Clerk
Date: March 8, 2022
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Code Clean Up Ordinance xxxx
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: March 8, 2022 Budgeted Amount: N/A
• Second Presentation: Unbudgeted Amount:
• Action: Motion Total Cost:
Overview
Council have requested a few changes to the codified rules of governance since our last Code Clean
Up in November 2021. The proposed ordinance will correct language to be concise and consistent
with present practices.
Fiscal and Policy Implications N - A
Council Packet Attachment – Draft Ordinance
Finance Committee Review N-A
Legal Review
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed
Ordinance Code Clean Up February 25, 2022
Options
Option Results
• Adopt Ordinance as presented Changes will be made to the Code
• Provide staff with changes Staff will make changes and bring back to a
future meeting for adoption
• Take no action The Code will be inconsistent to current practices
and state law.
Action Requested
Staff requests Council adopt the ordinance as presented.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 18 of 111
ORDINANCE 3001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THREE SECTIONS IN MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08 Whereas, MLMC 2.08.030, .050, and .140 are amended to ratify Council changes in the rules of governance; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection 2.08.030(A) titled ‘Meeting Dates and Times’ is amended as follows: Regular City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month in the City Council Chambers on the first floor of the Civic Center at 401 S. Balsam Street, Moses Lake, Washington. Regular meetings start at 7:00 6:30 p.m. Meetings will be held in person unless otherwise noticed on the agenda. Section 2. Section 2.08.050 titled ‘Meeting Agenda’ is amended as follows:
An item may be placed on a Council meeting agenda, in advance of posting an agenda, by any of the following methods: majority vote of the Council; Council consensus; any three (3) Council members; the City Manager; a Council Committee; or the Mayor. The business of all regular meetings of the Council shall be transacted as follows; provided, however, that the Mayor/Deputy Mayor may, during a Council meeting, rearrange items on the agenda to conduct the business before the Council more expeditiously:
A. Call to order by the Mayor. B. Roll call. C. Pledge of allegiance. D. Approve the agenda. E. Presentation. F. Citizen comment. G.F. Summary reports: Mayor, Council, and City Manager. G. Citizen comment. H. Public hearing. I. Consent agenda. J. Old business. K. New business. L. Administrative reports. M. Council communications. N. Executive session. O. Adjournment. P. Next scheduled meeting day, date, and time.
Formatted: Top: 0.44", Bottom: 0.81", Headerdistance from edge: 0.56"
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 19 of 111
Section 3. Section 2.08.140 titled ‘Council Seating’ is amended as follows: The Mayor will be seated in the middle of the dais facing the public and, the Deputy Mayor to the right, and the City Clerk to the left. The remaining Council members will be seated by Council position number from right to left in the order as determined by the current Mayor. Special setup may occur for special meetings that will be determined by the City Manager. 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. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of its summary as provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, WA and signed by its Mayor on March 8, 2022. _____________________________________ Dean Hankins, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney Martinez Swartz Myers Fancher Madewell Eck Hankins
Vote:
Date Published: March 14, 2022 Date Effective: March 19, 2022
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 20 of 111
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Madeline Prentice, Finance Director
Date: February 25, 2022
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Resolution Authorizing Employees to Sign Checks
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: March 8, 2022 Budgeted Amount: N/A
• Second Presentation: Unbudgeted Amount:
• Action: Motion Total Cost:
Overview
With the turnover in staff positions in City staff, it is necessary for the City Council to update the
list of employees who are authorized to sign checks on behalf of the City. The authorized signers
are the City Manager, the Finance Director, the Accounting Manager, and the Utility Services
Supervisor.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Appropriate employees will be authorized to conduct banking business for the City.
Council Packet Attachment
A. Resolution 3885
Finance Committee Review
March 8, 2022
Legal Review N/A
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 21 of 111
Page 2 of 2
Options
Option Results
• Adopt Resolution as presented Action would allow for appropriate employees to
be authorized to conduct banking business for
the City.
• Provide staff with changes Action could require staff to bring a new
resolution to council for consideration.
• Take no action Former employees would still have access to City
bank accounts, and the appropriate new staff
would not be allowed to conduct City banking
business.
Action Requested
Motion to approve the list of employees authorized to sign checks on behalf of the City of Moses
Lake, and adopt the resolution as presented.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 22 of 111
RESOLUTION 3885
A RESOLUTION NAMING THOSE EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE WASHINGTON
Recitals: 1. For the continued efficient administration of the finances of the City of Moses Lake, it is necessary to designate individuals who are authorized to sign checks on behalf of the City of Moses Lake.
Resolved: 1. Funds on deposit with the Moses Lake Branch of Umpqua Bank may be withdrawn on checks given or signed on behalf of the City of Moses Lake by any one of the following
four individuals:
Allison Williams, City Manager Madeline Prentice, Finance Director Wendy Parks, Accounting Manager
Jessica Cole, Utility Services Supervisor
2. Said authority shall continue in force until notice in writing of its revocation shall have been given to and received by said bank.
ADOPTED by the City Council on March 8, 2022.
________________________________________
Dean Hankins, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 23 of 111
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Brett Bastian, Fire Chief
Date: February 25, 2022
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Odessa Memorial Interlocal Purchasing Cooperative
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: March 8, 2022 Budgeted Amount: N/A
• Second Presentation: Unbudgeted Amount:
• Action: Motion Total Cost:
Overview
Odessa Memorial Healthcare, a public agency, has expressed interest into entering into a
cooperative purchasing agreement as established under RCW 39.33 and 39.34. The hospital wishes
to order an identical medic unit to the medic unit delivered in 2021 to the City and the one
currently on order for the City. Entering into the cooperative purchasing agreement allows the
hospital district to “piggyback” onto our contract and would allow the City to jointly bid future
purchases with the hospital district which may benefit both agencies with more competitive
pricing.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Cooperative purchasing agreements may benefit the cooperating agencies by enabling the
agencies to receive better pricing through bulk purchasing.
Finance Committee Review N-A
Legal Review N-A
Council Packet Attachment
A. Interlocal Purchasing Agreement
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 24 of 111
Page 2 of 2
Options
Option Results
• Authorize as presented Enter into an Interlocal Purchasing Cooperative with
Odessa Memorial Healthcare.
• Take no action Will not enter into the purchasing cooperative.
Action Requested
Staff recommends entering into the purchasing cooperative with Odessa Memorial Healthcare
which has potential competitive pricing benefits for both the City and the Hospital District.
Historical Note: The City Council authorized an Interlocal Purchasing Cooperative with Douglas
County Fire District 5 for an identical medic unit on May 25, 2021.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 25 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 26 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 27 of 111
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Kevin Fuhr, Police Chief
Date: March 3, 2022
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Amendment to Redflex Agreement
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: March 8, 2022 Budgeted Amount: N-A
• Second Presentation: Unbudgeted Amount:
• Action: Motion Total Cost:
Overview
The City of Moses Lake entered into an agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems in October of
2006. The agreement has been amended several times over the past 16 years for various
reasons.
The current amendment, with is the sixth such amendment, is due to interruption of services
during construction on Stratford Rd at Valley Rd. During the construction of the roadway, the
camera system was inoperable for a period of 22 months.
Fiscal and Policy Implications - N/A
Council Packet Attachment
A. Sixth Amendment of Agreement between City of Moses Lake and Redflex Traffic
Systems.
Finance Committee Review - N/A
Legal Review
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed
Agreement Sixth Amendment between
City of Moses Lake and
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc
March 3, 2022
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 28 of 111
Page 2 of 2
Options
Option Results
• Authorize as presented Staff will process the Agreement
• Provide staff with changes
• Take no action
Action Requested
Staff requests Council authorize the City Manage to execute the Agreement as presented.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 29 of 111
Page 1 of 2
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE AND REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
FOR PHOTO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
This Sixth Amendment (the “Sixth Amendment”) is executed this 9th day of March 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (“Redflex”) and the City of Moses Lake, Washington (the
“City”) (with Redflex and City each individually a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”).
RECITALS
A. The Parties entered into an Exclusive Agreement between the City of Moses Lake and Redflex Traffic
Systems, Inc. for Photo Red Light Enforcement Program on October 17, 2006 (the “Original Agreement”);
B. The Parties amended the Original Agreement in December 2008 (“First Amendment”), December 2009 (“Second Amendment”), March 2011 (“Third Amendment”), June 2014 (“Fourth Amendment”), and
October 2019 (“Fifth Amendment”) (Each amendment and the Original Agreement collectively referred to herein as the “Agreement”);
C. Section 3 of the Third Amendment authorizes the extension of the Agreement’s term equal to the period of time of an Interruption (defined in the Third Amendment);
D. The Parties recognize and acknowledge the twenty-two (22) months Interruption from December 2019
through September 2021, desire to memorialize the automatic 22 months extension of the current term
of the Agreement pursuant to the Third Amendment; and
E. The address of the Provider has changed requiring the address in Section 9.1. “Notice” of the Original
Agreement to be amended.
F. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, City and Provider agree as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Extended Term Due to Interruption. For the time period of December 2019 through September 2021
all operations of the City’s Photo Enforcement Program were suspended creating an Interruption. Pursuant the Third Amendment, the term of the Agreement shall be extended for the time period of the Interruption. As the
time period of the Interruption was for twenty-two (22) months (December 2019 through September 2021) the current term of the Agreement set to expire on March 14, 2022 is hereby extended to expire at midnight on January 13, 2024.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Interruption Extension stated above shall not be construed as altering the City’s
ability to renew the Agreement for automatic two (2) year periods as authorized in the Fourth Amendment,
provided the City gives Redflex forty-five (45) days written notice of its intent to extend the term of the Agreement and Redflex accepts the City’s request to renew the Agreement for another two (2) year term.
2. Notices. Section 9.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
9.1 Notices to Redflex:
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. Attn: Legal Department
1150 N. Alma School Road
Mesa, AZ 85201
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 30 of 111
Page 2 of 2
3. Representations and Warranties. The City represents and warrants that it has all rights, powers, and
authorities to enter into this Sixth Amendment and has complied with all local and state procurement laws.
4. Enforceability of Non-amended Terms and Conditions. Except as expressly stated in this Sixth Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in fully force and effect. To the extent this
Sixth Amendment conflicts with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, this Sixth Amendment shall control. Any capitalized terms not defined in Sixth Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed in the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Sixth Amendment effective as of the Effective
Date.
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
By:____________________________________
Allison Williams, City Manager
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
By:_________________________________
Bose Adewusi, Account Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:_________________________________
Katherine Kenison, City Attorney
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 31 of 111
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: David Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: March 2, 2022
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Sagecrest Major Plat – Phase 3
Resolution to Accept Plat Improvements and Bonding
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: March 23, 2021 Budgeted Amount: N/A
• Second Presentation: March 8, 2022 Unbudgeted Amount: N/A
• Action: Resolution to Accept Total Cost: N/A
Overview
The platting regulations require all the street and utility improvements installed in right of way and
municipal easements to be accepted by City Council or bonded for prior to recording the plat and
issuing building permits. The construction plans are required to be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to construction. All the construction work is inspected to ensure compliance with the
construction plans and city standards. The street and utility improvements in place will serve a
Nineteen (19) lot residential subdivision.
As part of the platting process
the Developer is responsible for
the half width improvements to
Westshore Drive and Hansen
Road for the frontage of the plat.
The Developer has a Developer
agreement in place for these
improvements to take place
with the Sagecrest Phase 3
Major Plat.
WESTSHORE DRIVE LOOKING NORTHWEST
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 32 of 111
Page 2 of 3
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Upon acceptance, the City will be responsible for the maintenance and repairs of the
improvements. A SUBDIVISION MAINTENANCE BOND or other approved security in the amount
of $306,935.00 (50% of total costs of $613,869.00) to the City is required to be provided by the
owners for the two year maintenance period which commences on the date of acceptance of the
improvements by the City Council.
Council Packet Attachments
A. Site Map
B. Resolution
Finance Committee Review
N/A
Legal Review:
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Council
• Resolution • Resolution to Accept Improvements
HANSEN ROAD & WESTSHORE DRIVE INTERSECTION LOOKING SOUTH
HANSEN ROAD & WESTSHORE DRIVE INTERSECTION LOOKING SOUTHWEST
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 33 of 111
Page 3 of 3
Options
Option Results
• Adopt, the resolution as presented The improvements will be accepted and the
plat can be completed.
• Modify the resolution Action would require staff to bring a revised
resolution to Council for consideration.
• Take no action The City will not accept the plat improvements
and the plat could not be completed.
Action Requested
Staff recommends City Council adopt the resolution as presented.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 34 of 111
RESOLUTION 3886
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL USE AS PART OF SAGECREST PHASE 3 MAJOR PLAT Recitals:
1. Street and utility improvements, lying in dedicated right-of-way or easements, are in
place and connected to the City of Moses Lake’s street and utility systems as part of
Sagecrest Phase 3 Major Plat. The project included the residential streets within the major plat and the reconstruction of Westshore Drive and Hansen Road adjacent to the Sagecrest Phase 1, 2 and 3 Major Plats. 2. Said street and utility improvements have been installed in accordance with the City of Moses Lake’s Community Standards, such facilities being completed in March 2022. 3. RCW 35.90.030 indicates that public street and utility facilities, which are developer installed should be accepted by the City of Moses Lake upon completion if the facilities are built to city standards. 4. A Subdivision Maintenance Bond shall be provided by the developer for a two-year
maintenance period, which commences on the March 8, 2022, resolution date.
Resolved:
1. The City Council of the City of Moses Lake accepts the street and utility
improvements as facilities of the City of Moses Lake and as such will charge for use of facilities as authorized by ordinance.
2. After March 8, 2022, all operational costs of said street and utility improvements,
shall be borne by the City of Moses Lake, as provided by City ordinance.
3. Subject to final inspection, after March 08, 2024, all further maintenance and
operational costs of said street and utility improvements, shall be borne by the City of Moses Lake, as provided by City ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 8, 2022.
______________________________ Dean Hankins, Mayor ATTEST:
_______________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 35 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 36 of 111
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: March 2, 2022
Proceeding Type: Old Business
Subject: Interlocal Planning Agreement
with the Moses Lake Irrigation and Reclamation District (MLIRD)
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
•First Presentation: February 22, 2022 Budgeted Amount: $ 0
•Second Presentation: March 8, 2022 Unbudgeted Amount: $ 50,000
•Action: Motion Total Cost: $ 100,000
Overview
The City of Moses Lake uses domestic drinking
water to irrigate green spaces. The Summer
use of domestic drinking water is (4) times as
high as the Winter use and we are using most
of our available water rights during the
Summer.
If the City could find a way to use irrigation
water for irrigation that would free up the
City’s drinking water rights for future growth.
Finding an irrigation water alterative is
important to the City’s future water system
plans and capacities.
Surrounded by Irrigation Water: Moses Lake is (in part) an irrigation water reservoir and the
irrigation water rights associated with the lake water belong to the Moses Lake Irrigation and
Reclamation District (MLIRD). Most of the City is within the MLIRD service area and the MLIRD is
interested in exploring opportunities to make its irrigation water available for use in the City.
Through joint cooperation and dialogue, the MLIRD and the City could explore the opportunities
to create a delivery system for irrigation water to City residents.
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
Interlocal Planning Agreement: A interlocal planning agreement is the first step in working with
the MLIRD. This will allow the respective agency staff to start working together to identify options
for furthering the goal of making MLIRD lake water available for irrigation in the City. Identified
options would include analysis and discussion of the financial piece, engineering, and legal rights
and obligations of the parties. Working together cooperatively through an interlocal agreement
will be the first step in determining the long-term viability of developing the MLIRD water right into
an irrigation water delivery system within the City.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The City of Moses Lake has never constructed, operated,
or maintained a separate irrigation utility system. The
costs to do so would be very high and similar to domestic
water mains on a linear foot costing. However, the costs
could be spread out over several decades and could be
conducted in a phased plan, starting with the big
irrigation users. This could grow an Irrigation Utility which
could fund its own growth over time.
Phase 1: Parks and Ball Fields
Phase 2: Industrial/Commercial/Agricultural uses
Phase 3: New Development
Phase 4: High Density Old Developments
Council Packet Attachment
A. MLIRD Interlocal Planning Agreement (DRAFT)
Finance Committee Review
The City and MLIRD will contribute funds to the development of a joint irrigation plan at a
50/50 cost sharing rate. Similar plans by other consultants cost upwards of $100,000.
Therefore, an unbudgeted amount of up to $50,000 will be needed. In addition, the long-
term operation and maintenance of an irrigation district is a fiscal consideration for the
future.
Legal Review:
Type of
Document
Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal
Counsel
• ILA • Interlocal Planning Agreement
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
Options
Option Results
• Motion to Approve Authorize the Interlocal Planning Agreement between
the City and the MLIRD
• Review and Comment Update the proposed Interlocal Planning Agreement
per Council comments and feedback.
• Take no action Irrigation system planning will be conducted
separately by the City and the MLIRD.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council authorize execution of the Interlocal Planning Agreement with
the Moses Lake Irrigation and Reclamation District (MLIRD).
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE AND
MOSES LAKE IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION DISTRICT REGARDING STAFF PLANNING AND COOPERATION ON A FUTURE CITY IRRIGATION UTILITY
SECTION 1. PARTIES This Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the CITY OF MOSES LAKE, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (“City”), and the MOSES LAKE
IRRIGATION AND REHABILITATION DISTRICT, an RCW Chapter 87.84 irrigation and
rehabilitation district (“MLIRD”), and both collectively referred to as the “Parties,” for the mutual provision of certain irrigation planning and cooperation activities. SECTION 2. RECITALS
WHEREAS, the MLIRD and the City maintain, for the benefit of the customers and citizens of their respective jurisdictions, water rights, water infrastructure including reservoirs and delivery systems for providing services within the jurisdictional limits or service area of each of the above entities; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into an agreement for joint planning and use of water rights in the best interests of the public and the environment; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth their rights, duties, and responsibilities with
respect to said agreement, as allowed by State law; and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34, allows municipal corporations to enter into agreements for the joint pursuit and exercise of their authority; NOW, THEREFORE,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
SECTION 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Interlocal Formation. Pursuant to authority granted by Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Parties do hereby agree to engage in joint planning and cooperation regarding water rights, water infrastructure, and water use in accordance with the terms and
conditions as set forth below.
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
2. Joint Planning and Cooperation. The parties hereby agree to joint planning and cooperation regarding water rights, water infrastructure, and water usage as follows:
a. Both parties will contribute funds to the development of a joint irrigation plan at a 50/50 cost sharing rate. Similar plans by other consultants cost upwards of $60,000-$100,000.
b. City staff and MLIRD staff or appointed representative board member(s) are
authorized to work together and share information in order to develop an
infrastructure plan that maximizes value to our mutual stakeholders. Both parties consent to third party review of the outcomes and commit to a public process to review the outcomes. Each party may use their executive powers for closed session deliberations if matters pertain to acquisition of real property, potential litigation, or
other qualifying subject.
c. City of Moses Lake and MLIRD will mutually support each other in pursuing regulatory or legislative changes that may be required in order to implement an agreed upon plan.
d. The parties agree to a series of work sessions and collaboration over (12) months in
2022-2023 to study how each party’s long-term planning, missions, statutory
responsibilities, and infrastructure can be maximized for public benefit. Topics will include statutory authorities, real property assets, financial assets, areas of expertise, organizational capacity, and other relevant planning categories. At the end of the (12) month period, elected officials from both organizations will be briefed on the results,
recommendations, and proposed next steps.
3. Insurance and Waver of Subrogation. Each entity shall obtain and maintain personal injury and property damage liability insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per occurrence and TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) aggregate for bodily injury and property damage
covering any injury or damage arising from or related to activities undertaken pursuant to this
Agreement, which policies shall name the other Party to this agreement as an additional insured. Each such policy will provide a 30-day cancellation notice to the additional insured. Each party shall provide the other with a certified copy of the insurance policy prior to any activity being undertaken pursuant to this Agreement and shall provide a certified copy of the insurance policy
to the other party each time said policy has been renewed. Failure to renew the policy,
cancellation of the policy, and/or failure to provide a certified copy of the insurance policy showing renewal shall cause an immediate termination of this agreement. The insurance of the Party whose action(s) or inaction(s) are determined to be more than fifty percent at fault pursuant to RCW Ch. for the injury or property damage shall be primary.
The Parties, for themselves and their respective insurers, agree to and do hereby, to the extent the
damage or injury to their property is covered by insurance, release each other of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, and causes of action that each may have or claim to have against the other for loss or damage to the property of the other, both real and personal, notwithstanding that any such loss or damage may be due to or result from the negligence of
either of the parties hereto or their respective employees or agents.
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
4. Indemnity and Hold Harmless. Each Party agrees to assume responsibility of all liabilities that occur or arise as to third parties in any way out of the performance of this
Agreement by its personnel, contractors, employees, agents, and other representatives only, and
to indemnify and hold harmless the other Party, its employees, agents, representatives, insurers, and officials, from all costs, expenses, losses, and damages, including cost of defense and attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of any acts and/or omission of the indemnifying Party’s employees, contractors, agents, or representatives that relate to the performance of this
Agreement.
5. Compensation for Employees.
a. The City and MLIRD shall each maintain suitable workman’s compensation
coverage for its own paid employees without cost to the other Party to this Agreement. Each Party shall pay its own personnel without cost to the other Party. Said payroll shall include existing employee benefits such as vacation time, retirement benefits, shift arrangements, health and accident insurance, and such other benefits as exist in each jurisdiction, all without cost to
the other during normal working hours.
b. Notwithstanding Paragraph 5.a, the City and MLIRD shall each agree to reimburse the other Party for actual costs of labor incurred for emergency response outside of that Party’s normal working hours. Or if any work is reimbursed by another entity, such as
FEMA, then the MLIRD and City shall agree to reimburse the other party for its fair share of
said reimbursement, including labor, equipment, materials and other associated costs. 6. Equipment Repair, Maintenance and Operation. Each of the Parties shall be fully
responsible for all repairs, maintenance, and upkeep of all its own equipment used pursuant to
this Agreement, while said equipment is used outside of its operational or municipal boundaries, said repair, upkeep, and maintenance to include gas, oil lubrication, parts replacement, and repair of casualty damage. The equipment and vehicles used pursuant to this Agreement, shall only be operated by the employees of the Party providing the equipment or vehicles.
7. Study Outcomes and Next Steps. The parties agree to study and consider whether formation of a Board of Joint Control pursuant to RCW Ch. 87.80 would be advisable to move the collective objectives of the parties. The analysis will determine the breadth and need of roles
for the parties carrying out the identified need. Should a joint board be created to manage
implementation, that would be a recommended outcome of the study. Another outcome may be that roles are clearly defined and that each party may be able to move forward on their own. The creation of a joint board is an entirely separate effort that will require a deep dive to identify roles, responsibilities, the delegation of duties to the board by the respective parties and the legal
rights of providing the service by the MLIRD and City water utility.
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
8. Cost Allocation. No money payments shall be made for manpower or equipment, except for overtime if another entity, such as FEMA, provides reimbursement for any or all the costs
incurred. Any materials transferred pursuant to this contract shall be replaced with like materials
by the Party that requested assistance. 9. Term/Termination. This Agreement shall become effective thirty (30) days after being signed and the provision of the certified copies of the insurance policies to both parties as called
for in paragraph 3 above, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in full force and effect for one
year from the first date indicated above, and shall be automatically renewed from year to year by the Parties after an annual review, unless terminated. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party giving notice in writing of its intention to terminate no less than ninety (90) days from or after the date of said notice.
10. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or this application is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected.
SECTION 4. NOTICE Any notice required to be given by either party to the other shall be deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the City at:
City of Moses Lake
City Clerk PO Box 1579 Moses Lake WA 98837
Or to the MLIRD, at:
Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District 934 E Wheeler Rd Moses Lake WA 98837
Or at such other address as either party may designate to the other in writing from time to time.
All notices to be given with respect to this Agreement shall be in writing. Every notice shall be deemed to have been given at the time it shall be deposited in the United States mail in the manner prescribed herein. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for personal service of a summons or other legal
process.
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
SECTION 5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of any dispute or difference arising by reason of this Agreement or any
provision or term thereof or the use of and/or payment for any facility for the purpose of this Agreement, and prior to initiation of any litigation, the dispute or difference shall be resolved jointly by the MLIRD Director and the City Municipal Services Director. The parties agree time is of the essence in resolving such disputes and differences. All disputes and differences shall be
addressed within 30 days of the identification of the dispute and difference.
Formal requests to initiate litigation shall be in the form of Certified Letter to the MLIRD Director, if initiated by the City, or the City Manager, if initiated by the MLIRD. The parties hereby agree to be bound by the laws of the State of Washington and subjected to the jurisdiction
of the State of Washington. The parties hereby stipulate that this Interlocal Agreement shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Washington and that any lawsuit regarding this contract must be brought in Grant County, Washington, or in the case of a federal action, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington at Spokane, Washington.
SECTION 6. APPLICABLE LAW, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be submitted to the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for Grant County. SECTION 7. THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement, and this Agreement shall not be
interpreted to create such rights. SECTION 8. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT/AMENDMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and may be amended at any time in writing by mutual agreement.
SECTION 9. INVALIDITY Any provision of this Agreement which shall prove to be invalid, void or illegal shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any of the other provisions hereof and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect despite such invalidity or illegality.
Council 3-8-22 updated pg 37 - 46
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: March 2, 2022
Proceeding Type: Old Business
Subject: Moses Lake Municipal Airport
Residential Airpark Feasibility Report by Jeff Bishop
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: November 23, 2021 Budgeted Amount: $ 0
• Second Presentation: March 8, 2022 Unbudgeted Amount: $ 10,000
• Action: Discussion Total Cost: $ 10,000
Overview
In November of 2021, the Council requested
City Staff research the possibility of a Public
Development Authority (PDA) for the
Development of a Residential Airpark on the
grounds of the Moses Lake Municipal Airport.
The MRSC website provided several Public
Development Authority examples throughout
the State of Washington.
PDA’s are special purpose quasi-municipal
corporations that are primarily authorized
under RCW 35.21.730-759. A Municipal
Airpark fits the examples provided by MRSC.
Financial Feasibility Analysis:
The Development of the Moses Lake Municipal Airport into and Residential Airpark would be a
major financial project for the City. It is very important to study the financial options, with a
financial feasibility analysis, before proceeding with the project. A local consultant with both
Airport and Land Development feasibility expertise was selected from the MRSC list for the
Airpark financial feasibility analysis:
Jeff Bishop, Principal Advisor
Effectuate LLC
FALL 2021 AIRPORT
LOOKING SOUTH-EAST
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 47 of 111
Page 2 of 3
Effectuate LLC was contracted to research
airparks, coordinate with staff, coordinate with
the Airport Advisory Board, and prepare a
Residential Airpark Feasibility Report (See
Attachment A). Effectuate LLC completed the
Report and has briefed the Airport Advisory
Board on its findings already.
Public vs. Private Airpark Development Costs
The financial feasibility options for the development of the Airpark include:
City Costs Ownership Developer Assurance of Airpark Stability & Conformity
Lowest Private Private
(Exhibit 1)
PG16
Use of Strong Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CCR) attached to the real estate
via development agreement, plat restrictions,
or combinations of plat restrictions and deed
restrictions. HOA Fees to operate and manage
the airport. (Similar to the Desert Aire Airpark)
Low Public Private
(Exhibit 1)
PG16
Long-Term Development Agreement allowing
Private Construction and Management of an
Airpark. Conducted by a Public Development
Authority (PDA) or directly with the City as a
Development Agreement.
Highest
Public Public Public Development Authority (PDA) allowing
for a special purpose quasi-municipal
corporation to Publicly Construct and Manage
the Airpark with phased improvements.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The development of an airpark, whether public or privately conducted, would ensure the long-
term operations and management of the airport through economic viability. In addition, the
development construction and tax base growth would be beneficial to the community.
Council Packet Attachment
A. Residential Airpark Feasibility Report
RESIDENTIAL AIRPARK LIVE / WORK HANGAR
Prevailing Wage Construction
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 48 of 111
Page 3 of 3
Finance Committee Review
N/A
Legal Review:
N/A
Action Requested
No action is requested at this time. This discussion is intended to introduce the Financial Feasibility
Analysis findings to the Council for review and comment. Staff has not formally recommended a
financial path for the Airpark Development yet.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 49 of 111
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Dave Bren, Municipal Services Director FROM: Jeffrey Bishop, Principal Advisor
DATE: January 22, 2022
SUBJECT: Task Order #2, Residential Airpark Feasibility Analysis
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the financial and physical feasibility of developing a
residential airpark in the vicinity of the Moses Lake Airport. The current Municipal Airport
Advisory Board wishes to create a long‐term sustainability platform for the airport’s operations.
The board recognizes that many municipal airports are under threat of redevelopment, which
threatens the general aviation industry in the United States. Encroaching incompatible land
uses and competing land uses are significant obstacles facing general aviation airports in the
nation. It’s the vision of the Moses Lake Airport Advisory Board to create a compatible land use
that maximizes the benefits to both the community and the airport and, by its extension,
general aviation.
This study is performed in three tasks:
Task order #1 – Consultant will develop a tentative feasibility analysis, studying market
conditions, absorption potential, possible configurations based on highest and best utility for
the intended purpose. The City would need to provide a rough order of magnitude estimates
for infrastructure for task order one in the form of a price per linear foot of standard design of
infrastructure for water, wastewater, streets/taxiways. The City would also provide drafting
support for development concepts.
Task order #2 – Consultant will perform a more in‐depth analysis, developing pro forma
financial estimates based on the updated rough order of magnitude estimates for infrastructure
development. Included in that analysis would be a development strategy (e.g., a master
developer vs. a more ad hoc process whereby individual lots are sold). Task two culminates with
the establishment of a broker’s price opinion (BPO) and developing
finance and risk models (sensitivity analysis to include leveraged capital). Update: client opted
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 50 of 111
to forgo brokerage services at this time limiting the work to only consultation, therefore the
BPO was omitted and the consultant chose to use a residual land value approach and a
forecasted sales price as the timeline for offering the property for sale is unknown.
Task order #3 – This is envisioned as the implementation phase, which would involve the
formulation of strategies related to grant funding, the creation of financing structures, and the
respective effectuation thereof. The consultant would prepare a draft lease and development
an agreement, develop a strategy for implementation of various techniques to market and
develop the property.
This report is submitted in response to task order #2 of the study.
Preliminary Financial Feasibility
A successful development avoids risk and maximizes financial returns, achieving this is certainly
complicated in normal conditions without factoring in the abnormal economic conditions
created by the recent pandemic. One could say that developers are hedonists in the sense that
they wish to avoid the pain of risk and seek the pleasure of maximized return on investment, to
achieve this hedonism, developers need to assess risk and evaluate the potential yield.
Regardless of the market conditions, a financial feasibility study is key to evaluating the rate of
return for any real estate development. Just as an effective business requires a sound business
plan, a development project requires plenty of strategic thinking before construction. Most
developers, just like investors, are concerned about adjusting data for the time value of money.
Usually, $1 is more valuable today than the same dollar in the future. Therefore, cash flows
should be discounted in value to reflect their current present value. This is critical when trying
to determine the value of a proposed project as you can project cash flows into the future and
discount them back to today's value using an appropriate rate of return.
A financial feasibility study is a prudent effort to outline financial variables to develop the
business plan for the development. Most feasibility models are built on a variation of the basic
formula revenue, less costs equal profits.
Using this traditional model, you estimate the total development cost and current dollars
including interest on short‐term and in some cases long‐term loans. The process of financial
modeling of development is an iterative process full of nuance and constant adjustments. The
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 51 of 111
model becomes more accurate as more detailed information on the timing of revenue and
costs is honed by sensitivity analysis and the formation of risk models. This sensitivity analysis
includes discounted cash flow, net present value, internal rate of return analysis, and
establishment of a discount rate. Discounted cash flow analysis (DCF) measures the value of an
investment based on its future cash flows. DCF analysis attempts to determine the value of an
investment today based on projections of how much money it will generate in the future.
Usually, $1 today is worth more than $1 next year. DCF analysis considers the time value of
money and how that impacts the return to the developer over time. In this method, the value
of all cash items is calculated for each period, estimating a net cash flow range over time. This
approach is highly dependent on a selection of an appropriate discount rate and can be highly
sensitive to certain assumptions, especially on short‐term projects. Setting discount rates for
municipalities is difficult, as most public entities are traditionally evaluated via other metrics.
The concept of the cost of capital is generally used only by those government units that operate
enterprise operations as a core function or larger organizations with ample analytical staff. But
there is indeed a cost to all municipalities for the use of its capital especially in comparing
different alternatives – most commonly used in cost‐benefit analysis.
Net Present Value (NPV) is the current estimated dollar value of an asset investment or project.
NPV measures expected future cash flows and outflows adjusted for the initial purchase price
to calculate how much the asset is worth. An NPV of zero indicates the project will repay the
original investment plus the required rate of return based on the investor's discount rate.
Positive NPV stipulates that the project repays over‐and‐above the original investment plus the
required rate of return; conversely a negative NPV signals that the project will not deliver the
required rate of return to make the project feasible. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is another
measure of the time value of money and calculates the ‘actual’ return investment on an annual
basis. The IRR is equal to the discount rate at which the net present value equals zero and is
especially useful for evaluating unequal cash flows.
How do you decide what discount rate to use? One method is to determine the opportunity
cost of capital rate using the following formula.
At present most economists and related professionals still regard current inflation to be
anomalous and are not yet adjusting inflation rates outside of longer‐term averages, this could
change and warrants observation. For a municipality, a discount rate often reflects the cost to
borrow money plus the safe rate received on investments.
Land value can be one of the biggest variables in property development. The others are sales
price and the cost of infrastructure. The price paid for land does not always determine the sale
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 52 of 111
price achieved for the finished product. For this reason, understanding the residual land value is
essential when conducting a feasibility study. There are two basic methods when it comes to
determining the value of the land. Those options are the direct comparison approach and the
residual land valuation method. The direct comparison approach is one of the easiest and most
convenient valuation methods with the help of some background knowledge an accurate value
can be established using the direct comparison approach in three steps. First, identify the
highest and best use of the site based on location and demographics, regulations, planning
controls, financial feasibility, and profit. Second: assess recent transactions of similar sites,
compare similarities and differences to determine the market value of the site. Finally adjust
comparable sales values to reflect superior or inferior characteristics such as location
attributes, amenities, size, shape, and topography. The advantages of this approach are it is
quick and easy to calculate and a good guide when analyzing similar projects or similar
timeframes. Conversely, it can be disadvantageous as no development site is identical making
exact comparisons can be very challenging. The residual land value model is the most common
model used to assess financial feasibility. The land’s residual land equals revenue minus costs
which include the projected cost of the development (excluding land) are added to the required
developer’s margin. This combined figure is subtracted from projected revenue to provide an
estimate of the value of the undeveloped land, thus referred to as the residual land value. The
final figure is calculated by working in reverse to determine what land price will achieve the
target return. This land value helps the developer to determine the maximum amount that can
be paid for a parcel of land and still achieve the required profit. The advantage of this approach
is that it requires a simple calculation to determine a realistic value for the land, assesses
project viability, and compares options without needing an actual land value. Disadvantages ‐‐
it eventually requires a detailed estimate of expenses to ensure accuracy.
As mentioned, development feasibility is an iterative process. It is rare for initial feasibility to
exactly mirror the outcome. Typically, feasibility studies are undertaken over three stages. Each
uncovering deeper detail about the project. The very first feasibility step is sometimes called a
preliminary analysis or napkin analysis (originates from discussions taking place over a meal and
the only convenient source of paper is a napkin). This may be just a page that explores ideas
and considers the pluses and minuses of the development site. Assumptions are based on the
attributes and constraints and require some guesses as to local supply and demand.
Once a foundation for the feasibility study is created, it must be refined. At this stage,
professionals such as architects, planners, valuers, quantity surveyors, and more are needed to
provide a more accurate picture of the development and the assumptions you made during the
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 53 of 111
high‐level feasibility study will become less nebulous and a clearer understanding of the highest
and best use for the site emerges. There is still work to do, particularly relating to revenue,
time, and cost, before a go/no go decision is made.
Finally, you get down to the minute detail, especially around funding requirements. This level of
detail is dynamic and will have a significant impact on your returns much more so than the
static model. This stage presents a good opportunity to challenge assumptions and test the
preliminary analysis.
Risk
Successful property development always balances the risk and reward ratio to find the
optimized return on investment. Understanding the risk inherent in property development
should be an important element for any feasibility study. Property Development risks generally
be listed under three clear categories: Development Risks, such as delays in site acquisition or
development approval process cost and time overruns, unexpected weather conditions, or
contract disputes. Market Risk, like a downturn in demand and sales rates, or competing new
developments and an increasing supply. And finally, Financial Risk ‐‐ changes to interest rates,
tax legislation, or investment settings.
Modeling and Mitigating Risk
What is a risk model? In essence, it is a model that attempts to identify the financial risks
associated with the project for the sponsor and serves as a useful tool to enable the sponsor to
develop strategies and mitigation measures to offset that risk or, in the worst‐case scenario
avoid the risk entirely by not pursuing the project. From a public sector perspective, financial
risk models are not that widely used as opposed to risk management, which can be found as a
focus in most public organizations. However, risk management is a very similar concept in the
sense that risk management attempts to identify risk and avoid casualty loss or tort‐related
exposure as opposed to protecting the sponsor from the uncertainties of financial investment.
The private sector, on the other hand, utilizes risk models frequently in addition to risk
management. The private sector has several tools available to it to identify and analyze
financial risks inherent in a project as do municipalities although somewhat different because
while both could be called fruit, one could be an apple and the other a banana.
Most all private sector investment is focused on the return of the original investment plus
additional yield. The financial return of the investment is measured in several ways. Most
simplistic is what is known as the cash‐on‐cash return. It's a measurement of how much money
is returned in comparison to the amount of money invested. Cash‐on‐cash is a simplistic
measurement, and it does not take into consideration the time value of money. The time value
of money is the concept that $1 is worth a different amount tomorrow than it is today or
yesterday. This is usually measured through what is known as present value analysis. Net
present value analysis measures the delta between the amount invested and the amount you
could have invested and achieved the same discounted yield. For real estate, almost all cash
flows are not consistent, they vary from period to period. Therefore, the most common
measurement of yield in private sector commercial real estate or any other real estate
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 54 of 111
investment is what is known as the internal rate of return. The Internal Rate of Return can be
greatly influenced by creating what is known as positive leverage. In an investment, the
maximum yield can be obtained by correctly correlating the amount of cash invested to the
amount borrowed to maximize the return from the investment. This is one of the primary tools
the private sector has in real estate investment – both the return is enhanced, and the amount
of investment is smaller, and accordingly less capital is at risk.
Community Wealth via Economic Development
The public sector is motivated by things different than just pure cash return on an investment.
This difference is often described as economic development, whereby the focus is on the
generation of community wealth as opposed to strictly financial wealth. The two are not
mutually exclusive but community wealth embodies a much broader perspective in the sense
that it creates financial capacity in a community to be able to leverage those things that impact
the quality of life and also support the social infrastructure of the community. Providing
meaningful work opportunities for its inhabitants creates economic multipliers and enhances
the tax base. If you were to imagine a continuum, with one end being economic development
and the other end being return on investment, all public sector investments fall somewhere on
that continuum. Exactly where on that continuum the project falls is dependent upon the
policies and the vision of the community.
Positive Leverage
Positive leverage is also available to the public sector both in the use of financing and equity
investment. The public sector’s concept of positive leverage can be greatly influenced by the
use of what is known as OPM (other people's money) this can come not just in the form of
partner equity but also from grants, donations, and estate gifts. This has the same effect that
utilizing financing has for the private sector in that non‐sponsor‐related capital is at risk. The
municipality can use financing to achieve positive leverage also and sometimes with special
terms and conditions that increase the effect of the leverage which unavailable to the private
sector. The amount of OPM brought into a project can maximize the community wealth impact
of economic development projects as well, especially if it bridges the gap between feasibility
and infeasibility. It should be noted that neutral and negative leverage also exist.
Non-recourse Financing
When borrowing money, the private sector and the public sector share a preference for what is
known as non‐recourse financing. Non‐recourse financing is in essence what the name would
imply ‐‐ there is no recourse for the holders of the financing instrument against the borrower.
For the private sector, this could mean that the creditor cannot attach liens to other assets
owned by the borrower – such as in a mortgage for a home for which the only collateral is the
home. For a municipality, it can mean the avoidance of a pledge of the full faith and credit of
the government and is often outside the statutory limits of debt as it is generally associated
with a self‐contained project.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 55 of 111
Phasing
Phasing is a tool that is used by the private sector to match market demand with capital
expenditure by creating a strategy where development occurs at an incremental basis that
matches the investment to the level of absorption the product will receive when placed on the
market. This concept allows for expedited implementation of phasing if absorption exceeds
expectations, likewise, the phasing can be done in modest increments to also avoid a capital
investment that is not accompanied by a corresponding cash flow. Therefore, exposing the
sponsor to a smaller probability of losing the initial capital investment.
Design
Similar to the concept of phasing is designing the actual physical configuration of the
development to create the highest probability of favorable absorption at reduced capital cost
by taking advantage of the sunken costs of infrastructure that already exists in the vicinity of
the development. Consider a development that takes place on a greenfield far removed from
the community, the cost of extending services to that development creates an unbalanced risk
with more investment necessary just to be able to get the infrastructure to the location vis‐à‐vis
development that is adjacent to existing infrastructure. In the case of this development, a
considerable amount of investment has already been made on infrastructure around the
development. Unfortunately, this type of infrastructure is not readily available in the areas of
this project that have the highest value as the vista lots are the furthest location from
infrastructure. But you can look at strategies that maximize the potential for cash flow sooner
rather than later by developing where there are already sunken development costs. This is also
true with acquisition since the property was acquired in 1952, by the city for airport use. This
strategy could also be referred to as the “low hanging fruit.” Easy, simple time‐to‐market
advantages and reduced costs create a larger delta between the price of the real estate and the
amount of capital investment to achieve that yield.
Governance
Another popular risk mitigation tool utilized by the private sector is the governance structure of
the organization. From a business standpoint, there are sole proprietorships which are an
individual acting in a business capacity. There are partnerships whereby multiple people
operate together and may make use of some statutory protection to create a firewall between
the business operations and the principal's assets. These are sometimes known as limited
partnerships or limited liability companies. Another structure is the formation of a corporation
which also creates a firewall between the investors in the company and the liability created by
the company. The beauty of this structure is that it provides a fire wall between risky
investments and the personal assets of the principals. It's different for a municipality in the
sense that the municipality is the entity, and its principals are the public. And while that does
create some buffer between the municipality and its investors, it does not create any insulation
for the municipality proper. But there are structures available that allow municipalities to
create a trust or public corporations of their own which creates some insulation between the
business activity and the municipality. Perhaps of more value to the government body of the
municipality is the nuisance factor. Because there are so many detailed decisions that must
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 56 of 111
take place in the development and for that matter, the operation of a municipal airport,
establishing a semi‐autonomous deliberative body to process the minutiae can be a major time
saver for the parent organization.
In Washington state. These are often referred to as public development authorities (PDA) or
public corporations. State law still provides the municipality with the ability to exert some
authority over the PDA but the governing body can convey some autonomy to the organization
that is formed via its own charter and/or operating agreement.
Quite a bit of flexibility exists in that the municipality can make as much investment in the
Public Development Authority as the municipality desires, and then also allow the Public
Development Authority to create its own income streams and its own financial capacity that is
above and beyond that of the city. Ultimately, if the PDA is dissolved, all its assets are
transferred to the city.
Local Improvement Districts
One of the best tools available to municipalities in the State of Washington is through Chapter
35.43 RCW, which authorizes local improvement districts (LID). LIDs are special tools available
to finance projects that can provide non‐recourse financing that insulates the sponsoring
municipality from liability related to its full faith and credit. LIDs are specialized financing that
creates localized infrastructure development and its costs are attached to the value of the
property that is directly receiving the benefit of the improvements. LIDs offer flexibility in how
they are paid; in a developer LID, the purchaser of the respective lot has the option to retire the
assessment during acquisition or choose to make payments per the prescribed schedule
created at the time of formation. The PDA could provide the difference in the purchase price.
The difference between the options is generally a tax issue and potential purchasers would
need to consult their tax professional for advice.
Analysis
For this analysis, the consultant opted to look at three models. The first model is simplistic,
sometimes referred to as a napkin analysis or a preliminary feasibility analysis (Exhibit 2). But is
a simple approach to quickly ascertain the financial viability of a project from a private
developer’s perspective. The land identified for the airpark is approximately 1,240,000 square
feet or roughly 28.47 acres. In developing a financial pro forma for the site three basic
approaches were considered. One would be for a developer to take over the entire project and
manage it as a private‐sector project. The other two models were both driven by the creation of
a Public Development Authority (PDA) by the City of Moses Lake to operate and manage the
project, in addition to the Municipal Airport. Those two options evaluate feasibility with the
PDA as the developer with the second option adding a phased schedule for infrastructure
improvements.
In the developer model, the perception is that the developer would acquire the property from
the owner and proceed with developing the project. The public’s interests would be protected
through the form of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) attached to the real estate
via either a development agreement, plat restrictions, or a combination of plat restrictions and
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 57 of 111
deed restrictions. As mentioned earlier, in the preliminary marketing study there are two levels
of property classes in the proposed development. The area along the west side of the
development, referred to as the vista property, would have a higher market presence than the
interior lots that are more adjacent to the airport. Accordingly, in the development design,
those lots that are on the west side have a larger configuration than the lots in the interior of
the development. Conversely, it's more expensive to provide infrastructure to the lots on the
west side than it is for the lots in the interior development. It is assumed that a developer
would develop the entirety of the project to take advantage of economies of scale.
Disclaimer
Before presenting the analysis it's important to present some qualifying statements. First of all,
the consultant is not an engineer. The consultant is not an architect. The consultant is not an
attorney. The consultant is not a tax professional. Therefore, all the numbers to be presented
are to be evaluated by the client utilizing professional services as are necessary. The subject
property, as mentioned previously in this report and other reports, has two distinct value
classes of property. Many properties are classified as either Class A, Class B, or Class C, each
level connotates a level of quality and age (for buildings), but more importantly denotes a
differentiation in value.
The Developer Model
The consultant identified this particular parcel as having a section of property that has a higher
appeal to a potential purchaser than other portions of the property. Therefore, the property
has been divided into two distinct sections. Class A properties are located along the western
boundary of the parcel. These lots have a remarkable view of the city of Moses Lake and the
western horizon, in the distance on clear days, mountains can be viewed in addition to
breathtaking sunsets accordingly. For evaluation purposes, a premium has been attached to
these parcels. Therefore, in creating this developer’s model, the sale of property for the Class A
lots in the area known as the vista is projected for $9 per square foot at the time of delivery,
the client opted not to have any professional real estate services provided in this engagement,
therefore, all numbers are estimates for comparative purposes only and should not be relied
upon for setting prices for listing purposes. Future refinement of the models will require either
an appraisal or an official broker’s price opinion. The Class B properties are projected at a value
of $8 per square foot in this model. These numbers are adjusted for sensitivity in subsequent
iterations of the models.
A residual valuation model is sometimes referred to as the back door model. In the back door
model, the developer believes they know the sales price that they can obtain for the lot once it
is fully served. They also know the cost of financing the project and what is considered to be an
acceptable rate of return on the equity investment. The developer knows the revenue stream
and wants to figure out the maximum total project cost that can be supported with that
revenue stream.
At that point, the developer can refine the process by breaking the total project cost into land
and improvements. If the cost for improvements can be estimated, the developer can back into
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 58 of 111
the maximum land value that can justify the deal. Emphasis on land “value” rather than “cost”
because sometimes the land may already be owned. If that’s the case, then the decision can be
reached via the Back Door as to whether the project envisioned is the best economic use of the
land.
A developer generally tries to achieve a net present value of zero or greater on a discount rate
of 20%. Most developers of raw land opt for a higher return on investment to offset the
perception of risk. This is somewhat of an industry standard that fluctuates between 20% to
30%. As you can tell in this model, attached as Exhibit 2, the project does not meet a
developer's discount rate of 20% thus requiring a more detailed model that incorporates
additional risk mitigation.
To produce the 10%, the first model assumes that the real estate development would sell out
within three years during a five‐year evaluation period. As previously identified in the original
preliminary market feasibility analysis, the absorption rate for airparks at three years is suspect
at best. Evidence indicates that large blocks of real estate frequently do sell fast in airparks but
a complete sellout in three years is not a reasonable expectation.
A model based on a seven‐year (eight including entitlement and infrastructure development)
was examined (Exhibit 3) and indicated that with positive financing leverage, a discount rate of
30% can be met (provided all other variables are met). As previously mentioned, a much higher
discount rate is generally used by developers than normal real estate investors. Developers face
the highest level of risk in real estate because the market could change before the product is
finished. Historically development initiated during an expansive business cycle can be caught by
a change in the cycle and the developer is unable to adjust to the market as contractual
obligations require the project to be completed at the agreed price. If the developer is unable
to renegotiate terms the impact can and does sometimes lead to bankruptcy.
Accordingly, if you expand the base developer model to include a seven‐year investment
period, with financing with a loan‐to‐value(LTV) of 70% (on a seven‐year amortization schedule,
but often this is done with a much longer amortization with a balloon payment at the projected
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 59 of 111
conclusion of the project), the benefits of positive leverage creates an IRR of 38.08% on the
30% cash investment. Please note that this is before tax. Since the consultant does not know
the tax criteria of the potential developer it's difficult to theorize what that impact would be.
Some developers evaluate projects after‐tax and others before tax. Tax mitigation is a very
expansive subject and recommendations should be reserved for tax professionals. For this
analysis, the consultant just considered before tax analysis. The before‐tax analysis gives a
better comparison to the two different models of both a PDA‐led effort and a private
developer‐led effort since the PDA would not pay taxes.
The PDA Model
The second model that was considered is a public‐driven model of developing the property
utilizing a local improvement district for the financing of the improvements. In the public‐
driven scenario, a discount rate of 6% was selected for the City of Moses Lake and any trust it
may create (Exhibit 4).
This is based on the city's cost of borrowing and safe rate of 3%. The financial model selected
prescribes the sale of the Class A property and the lease of the Class B property thus creating a
long‐term revenue base for the airport in addition to creating infusions of cash from the sale of
the Class A properties to help offset the cost of infrastructure development. Assuming a cash
investment of $100,000 and a bond of $7.9 million would create an IRR of 55.05%. Achieving a
net present value of well over $1 million and over 30 years the generation of over $4.8 million
in actual cash contributions to the airport operations.
The final model considered was the same approach but with the inclusion of a phased approach
to the infrastructure delivery (Exhibit 5). All the configuration of the property as mentioned in
previous reports to maximize the value of the vista lots predicates that the development occurs
in an L shape. There are in the attached concept drawing three basic road/taxiways segments.
To reach the vista lots, it is necessary to construct at least two legs, one of the bottom
connections to the runway and the northern connection to RD 4 NE. Therefore, the phasing
approach would separate the third and final taxiway roadway into another mini‐L shape project
that could be financed and developed at a time in the future when sufficient cash flow has
developed from the project to sufficiently support the initial project. This phased scenario
utilizes the same discount rate of 6% and the same total investment but splits that investment
into a lower initial bond amount of only $6.15 million to start. This split produces an internal
rate of return of over 89%, a perfect example of positive leverage, and a net present value of
close to $2.5 million. In addition to that, over $6.8 million is generated over 30 years in cash
reserves.
Sustainability
The biggest problem with the developer‐related model is that it does not necessarily address
the long‐term sustainability goal of the municipal airport advisory board. It may be unlikely
that a developer would want to take on a smaller project than that of the whole, especially
when an investment has to be made in infrastructure to attach the development to the
Municipal Airport for taxiway access. To that end, if the city and airport were willing to pursue
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 60 of 111
this process, some type of through‐the‐fence agreement would need to be negotiated between
the developer and the airport to provide for an ongoing revenue stream for the airport. The
attractiveness of the development to a private developer would be wholly dependent upon
that developer’s perspectives of the project and the inherent risks contained therein. To that
end, the negotiation between a developer and the public may likely take on an entirely
unforeseen structure. It is in the public’s interest to have an advisor on hand to cost and
evaluate potential deals.
As mentioned, development is an iterative process. Therefore, all the models contained herein
are intended to be tools that can be utilized for sensitivity analysis and changing scenarios as
the project progresses. It is an evolutionary process, as more and more information is brought
forward, such as detailed engineering reports, the models can be tweaked to adjust to changing
deal structures.
It has been said that because of the tools that are available to public agencies in the State of
Washington, the public’s capital is sometimes called “patient.” There is plenty of time from a
public sector standpoint, to continue to explore and perfect the models until it becomes readily
apparent that an acceptable opportunity exists. This will be further explored in the
recommendation section of this report.
Governance un et deux
The PDA model assumes that the City of Moses Lake forms a public development authority to
manage the project at the airport and in that scenario, under the State of Washington's laws,
the PDA is authorized to create local improvement districts for finance purposes and therefore
could sponsor a developer’s LID. This creates a great deal of insulation for the City of Moses in
the sense that the project would be sponsored by a separate public agency and most likely
those bonds would be non‐recourse provided the appropriate reserve fund is created.
The most significant difference between a Public Development Authority‐led development
project and that of a private developer is the cost of infrastructure. Under Washington State
law, infrastructure projects that involve public money must pay what is known as prevailing
wages. Several other prescribed processes must be adhered to in the public contracting of
improvements as well. Accordingly, it's generally accepted that these costs are higher than
those experienced by the private sector, who unless there is federal money involved, are not
subject to the same conditions. As a result, the rough order of magnitude infrastructure
estimates provided by the City of Moses are very conservative and are exceptionally different
than those that were used for the private developer model. Utilizing both ‘positive leverage’
from the LID and the patient capital of the public sector there is a case to be made for the
financial viability of the project ‐‐ appropriately administered and implemented, especially if the
infrastructure costs can be refined (reduced) for value.
In the first scenario, which does not involve phasing the cursory financial analysis indicated that
the project would produce an IRR of over 58% This is a bit deceiving in the sense that there's
very little actual cash invested by the public entity into the project as there is not a significant
amount of resources available. This could be greatly altered through the use of presales of
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 61 of 111
some lots to create an initial cash injection into the project. In addition to that, incorporating
into the financing, some reserve money available to be used for cash flow purposes.
The project also assumes that a portion of the property would be sold in fee and another
portion of the property will be sold on a lease basis. To encourage private investment on leased
properties, the PDA would need to adopt one of the common business models similar to those
used by Port Districts allowing longer‐term leases with some mechanism that makes it
attractive to a private lender to lend on the property.
Phasing improves the financial performance of the development considerably in the sense that
it creates a smaller capital investment early on in the project when the majority of the cash
flow is produced and delays that till later in the project when there are fewer development
opportunities this has a further impact on leveraging, creating significant positive leverage and
as indicated in the pro forma attached (Exhibit 5) produces an IRR of over 89%. Again, this
number is greatly exaggerated because of the lack of cash contribution on the part of the public
entity in contrast to the million‐plus dollar investment the private sector developer would make
the project to meet their financial objectives.
Recommendation
All the analysis models assumed a sales price of $9 for the Class A lots and $8 for the Class B lots
for the first version. This is based on a cursory review of recent residential sales at the very high
end of the residential real estate fully served vacant land market in the Moses Lake area. It is a
premier price for premier properties in the area. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the financial
viability of residential airpark declines swiftly with even a slight decrease in the future sales
price of a lot. Each scenario was subjected to decrements in sales value for sensitivity and are
presented in the respective exhibits. While an argument could be made that the local market
may not necessarily be the limiting factor in what would be paid for an airpark lot in an arm’s
length transaction, the lots will indeed face a valuation analysis should the lender require an
appraisal.
There are several variables in these analyses and as indicated, a development feasibility analysis
is an iterative process and therefore needs to be refined and perfected at different points in
time. Accordingly, the decision makers must keep an eye on the values in the local market. But
the most suspect number in the entire analysis is the cost for infrastructure (Exhibit 1).
Therefore, the consultant’s strongest recommendation is that before a decision is made to
move forward an engineering study be undertaken to solidify these estimates. The model is
very easy to manipulate and alter as data begins to be refined with higher confidence.
Plan Recommendation
1. Form a Public Development Authority
2. Transfer subject real estate to PDA
3. Undertake engineering study to perfect infrastructure costs – refine the financial
analysis
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 62 of 111
4. Attempt to find a private developer
a. Create developer equity via entitlements
b. Auction or Direct Marketing
c. Create user fee‐based “through the fence agreement.”
5. Attempt to find grants
6. Created phased development plan
7. Market Property for Pre‐sales
8. Create LID
9. Construct improvements
10. Market Property
11. Adjust plans based on absorption.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 63 of 111
Exhibit 1
Infrastructure &
Soft Costs
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 64 of 111
Cost Linear Foot Per Lot Cost Linear Foot Per Lot
Street/Taxi 286 Street/Taxi 100
Water 265 Water 45
Sewer 247 Sewer 45
Stormwate 47 Stormwater 47
Electric*2,500 Electric 2,500
Phase 1 Linear Foot Per Lot Cost Phase 1 Linear Foot Per Lot Cost
Street/Taxi 4,000 1,144,000.00$ Street/Taxi 4,000 400,000.00$
Water 4,000 1,060,000.00$ Water 4,000 180,000.00$
Sewer 4,000 988,000.00$ Sewer 4,000 180,000.00$
Stormwate 4,000 188,000.00$ Stormwater 4,000 188,000.00$
Electric 36 90,000.00$ Per Lot Electric 36 90,000.00$ Per Lot
Total 3,470,000.00$ 96,388.89$ Total 1,038,000.00$ 28,833.33$
Phase 2 Linear Foot Per Lot Cost Phase 2 Linear Foot Per Lot Cost
Street/Taxi 2,000 572,000.00$ Street/Taxi 2,000 200,000.00$
Water 2,000 530,000.00$ Water 2,000 90,000.00$
Sewer 2,000 494,000.00$ Sewer 2,000 90,000.00$
Stormwate 2,000 94,000.00$ Stormwater 2,000 94,000.00$
Electric 24 60,000.00$ Per Lot Electric 24 60,000.00$ Per Lot
Total 1,750,000.00$ 72,916.67$ Total 534,000.00$ 22,250.00$
Total Infrastructure 5,220,000.00$ Total Infrastructure 1,572,000.00$
*Private Sector Estimate
Land Are Sq. Ft.Acres
Class A 525,000 12.05
Class B 706,875 16.23
1,231,875 28.28
Infrastructure Estimates -- City of Moses Lake Infrastructure Estimates -- Private Sector
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 65 of 111
Construction Loan 6,000,000$ 80%-$
Mezzanine Loan -$ 0%-$
Borrower Equity 1,499,200$ 20%
Total Sources 7,499,200$ 100%10,000$
66,000$
-$
Sources 75,000$
Construction Loan 6,000,000$ 132,000$
Mezzanine Loan -$ 25,000$
Borrower Equity 1,499,200$ 60,000$
Total Sources 7,499,200$ 28,500$
Uses 30,500$
Total Site Acquisition -$ -$
Total Soft Costs 814,200$ 20,000$
Total Hard Costs 6,370,000$ 15,000$
Interest Reserves 150,000$ 18,000$
Operating Reserves 75,000$ 35,000$
Origination Fee 90,000$ 75,000$
Development Fee -$ -$
Total Uses 7,499,200$ 60,000$
25,000$
20,000$
10,000$
3,000$
708,000$
Soft Cost Contingency @ 15.00%106,200$
814,200$
5,200,000$
Construction Contingency @ 15.00%780,000$
-$
-$
-$
125,000$
50,000$
30,000$
35,000$
150,000$
6,370,000$
7,184,200$
150,000$
75,000$
Origination Fee @ 1.50%90,000$
Development Fee @ 0.00%-$
7,499,200$
Operating Reserves
Total Uses
Security
Signage
Sitework (Gates)
Total Hard Costs
Total Site, Hard and Soft Costs
Interest Reserves
General Conditions
Other (Advertising)
Real Estate Taxes
Survey
Title-Doucment Stamps
Soft Costs (subtotal)
Total Soft Costs
Construction Cost (Core & Shell)
Demolition
Environmental Remediation
FF&E
GC Fee
Other (Loan Cost)
Entitlement Fees
Environmental
Geo Tech
General Liability Insurance
Impact Fees
Borrower Legal--Closing
Borrower Legal--Pre-closing
Lender Inspections (Post Closing)
Lender Legal and Other Closing
Other Professional
Commissions
Civil Engineer
Sources and Uses Example
Sources Uses
Land
Total Site Acquisition
Appraisal
Survey
Summary Builders Risk Insurance
Building Permits
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 66 of 111
Exhibit 2
Developer Preliminary
Feasibility
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 67 of 111
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Market Value Land Sq. Ft.Acres
1,240,000 28.47
Sale of Class A Land 1,575,000 1,575,000 1,575,000 9.00$ 25,000
Sale of Class B Land 1,820,000 1,820,000 1,820,000 8.00$ 17,500
Commissions 3.5%(118,825) (118,825) (118,825)
Cost of Sale (50,925) (50,925) (50,925)
Purchase (1,922,000)
Commission 3.5%(67,270)
Cost of Purchase (96,100)
Excise Tax (52,855)
Infrastructure (1,600,000)
Soft Costs (700,000)
Holding Costs (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000)
Financing Costs (117,500) (117,500) (117,500) (117,500) (117,500)
Net Cash Flow (2,138,225.00) (2,467,500) (167,500) 3,057,750 3,057,750 3,057,750 Discount Rate
Discount Factor @10%1.00 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.62 10%
Discount NCF (2,138,225.00) (2,243,182) (138,430) 2,297,333 2,088,484 1,898,622
NPV at 10%$35,901.95
IRR 10%
Revenue
Costs
Construction
Analysis
1.55$
Residual Value of Purchase
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 68 of 111
Exhibit 3
Developer Leveraged
Pro Forma
Three Levels of Sensitivity
High
Mid
Low
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 69 of 111
Property Name: 4,700,000 Prepared For: Effectuate, LLC Per Sq. Ft. ValuePrepared By: 2,383,866 1.92$
Date Prepared: 1,240,000
1,410,000 No
Loan ▼Class A 9.00$ Class B 8.00$
Amount 3,290,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 4.25%0.00%2.00%
Term 7 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.00
Payments ($553,221)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Building Size FT2 IRR 38.08%Debt Service ($553,221)0 30.00%NPV $461,866.49Debt Coverage ($691,526)
Class A Class B Other Income Gross NetLandLandVacancy and Effective Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating CashYearSalesSales Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Income Depreciation Flow
(1,410,000) 2023 225,000.00 140,000.00 0 365,000.00 0 365,000.00 (100,000)(553,221)(288,220.78) (288,220.78) 2024 675,000.00 840,000.00 0 1,515,000.00 0 1,515,000.00 (103,000)(553,221)858,779.22 (317,748)541,030.91 2025 688,500.00 856,800.00 0 1,545,300.00 0 1,545,300.00 (106,090)(553,221)885,989.22 (327,816)558,173.21
2026 702,270.00 873,936.00 0 1,576,206.00 0 1,576,206.00 (109,273)(553,221)913,712.52 (338,074)575,638.89 2027 716,315.40 891,414.72 0 1,607,730.12 0 1,607,730.12 (112,551)(553,221)941,958.46 (348,525)593,433.83 2028 730,641.71 909,243.01 0 1,639,884.72 0 1,639,884.72 (115,927)(553,221)970,736.53 (359,173)611,564.02 2029 745,254.54 927,427.87 0 1,672,682.42 0 1,672,682.42 (119,405)(553,221)1,000,056.41 (370,021)630,035.54
2030 760,159.63 945,976.43 0 1,706,136.07 0 1,706,136.07 (122,987)(553,221)1,029,927.90 (381,073)648,854.58
2031 775,362.83 964,895.96 0 1,740,258.79 0 1,740,258.79 (126,677)(553,221)1,060,361.00 (392,334)668,027.43 2032 - 984,193.88 0 984,193.88 0 984,193.88 (130,477)(553,221)300,495.78 (111,183)189,312.34 Total 6,018,504.11 0 14,352,391.99 14,352,391.99 (1,146,388)7,673,796.25 (2,945,946)4,727,849.95
Inflation Rate
Moses Lake Airpark
Monthly Base Rent
3.00%
Purchase Price:SourceLand Value
Land Mass FT2
Source:Down Payment:Depreciation Yes/No
Assumptions
$0.00
7 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Port of Moses LakeJeffrey Bishop
1/19/2021
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.00
The facts contained herein,while not guaranteed, are fromwhatthe author considers to be reliable sources.Financialprojections represent a rough order of magnitude forcomparative purposes only.As with all investments, pastperformance of real estate investments are not necessarilyindicative of future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 70 of 111
Property Name: 4,700,000 Prepared For: Effectuate, LLC Per Sq. Ft. ValuePrepared By: 1,184,263 0.96$
Date Prepared: 1,240,000
1,410,000 No
Loan ▼Class A 7.00$ Class B 5.00$
Amount 3,290,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 4.25%0.00%2.00%
Term 7 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.00
Payments ($553,221)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Building Size FT2 IRR 14.59%Debt Service ($553,221)0 30.00%NPV ($737,736.69)Debt Coverage ($691,526)
Class A Class B Other Income Gross NetLandLandVacancy and Effective Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating CashYearSalesSales Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Income Depreciation Flow
(1,410,000) 2023 175,000.00 87,500.00 0 262,500.00 0 262,500.00 (100,000)(553,221)(390,720.78) (390,720.78) 2024 525,000.00 525,000.00 0 1,050,000.00 0 1,050,000.00 (103,000)(553,221)393,779.22 (145,698)248,080.91 2025 535,500.00 535,500.00 0 1,071,000.00 0 1,071,000.00 (106,090)(553,221)411,689.22 (152,325)259,364.21
2026 546,210.00 546,210.00 0 1,092,420.00 0 1,092,420.00 (109,273)(553,221)429,926.52 (159,073)270,853.71 2027 557,134.20 557,134.20 0 1,114,268.40 0 1,114,268.40 (112,551)(553,221)448,496.74 (165,944)282,552.95 2028 568,276.88 568,276.88 0 1,136,553.77 0 1,136,553.77 (115,927)(553,221)467,405.58 (172,940)294,465.52 2029 579,642.42 579,642.42 0 1,159,284.84 0 1,159,284.84 (119,405)(553,221)486,658.83 (180,064)306,595.06
2030 591,235.27 591,235.27 0 1,182,470.54 0 1,182,470.54 (122,987)(553,221)506,262.37 (187,317)318,945.30
2031 603,059.98 603,059.98 0 1,206,119.95 0 1,206,119.95 (126,677)(553,221)526,222.16 (194,702)331,519.96 2032 - 615,121.18 0 615,121.18 0 615,121.18 (130,477)(553,221)(68,576.92) 25,373 (43,203.46) Total 4,681,058.75 0 9,889,738.68 9,889,738.68 (1,146,388)3,211,142.94 (1,332,690)1,878,453.36
Depreciation Yes/No
Assumptions
$0.00
7 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Port of Moses LakeJeffrey Bishop
1/19/2021
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.00
Inflation Rate
Moses Lake Airpark
Monthly Base Rent
3.00%
Purchase Price:SourceLand Value
Land Mass FT2
Source:Down Payment:
The facts contained herein,while not guaranteed, are fromwhatthe author considers to be reliable sources.Financialprojections represent a rough order of magnitude forcomparative purposes only.As with all investments, pastperformance of real estate investments are not necessarilyindicative of future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 71 of 111
Property Name: 4,700,000 Prepared For: Effectuate, LLC Per Sq. Ft. ValuePrepared By: 523,489 0.42$
Date Prepared: 1,240,000
1,410,000 No
Loan ▼Class A 5.00$ Class B 4.00$
Amount 3,290,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 4.25%0.00%2.00%
Term 7 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.00
Payments ($553,221)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Building Size FT2 IRR -6.98%Debt Service ($553,221)0 30.00%NPV ($1,398,511.07)Debt Coverage ($691,526)
Class A Class B Other Income Gross NetLandLandVacancy and Effective Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating CashYearSalesSales Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Income Depreciation Flow
(1,410,000) 2023 125,000.00 70,000.00 0 195,000.00 0 195,000.00 (100,000)(553,221)(458,220.78) (458,220.78) 2024 375,000.00 420,000.00 0 795,000.00 0 795,000.00 (103,000)(553,221)138,779.22 (51,348)87,430.91 2025 382,500.00 428,400.00 0 810,900.00 0 810,900.00 (106,090)(553,221)151,589.22 (56,088)95,501.21
2026 390,150.00 436,968.00 0 827,118.00 0 827,118.00 (109,273)(553,221)164,624.52 (60,911)103,713.45 2027 397,953.00 445,707.36 0 843,660.36 0 843,660.36 (112,551)(553,221)177,888.70 (65,819)112,069.88 2028 405,912.06 454,621.51 0 860,533.57 0 860,533.57 (115,927)(553,221)191,385.38 (70,813)120,572.79 2029 414,030.30 463,713.94 0 877,744.24 0 877,744.24 (119,405)(553,221)205,118.23 (75,894)129,224.48
2030 422,310.91 472,988.22 0 895,299.12 0 895,299.12 (122,987)(553,221)219,090.96 (81,064)138,027.30
2031 430,757.13 482,447.98 0 913,205.11 0 913,205.11 (126,677)(553,221)233,307.32 (86,324)146,983.61 2032 - 492,096.94 0 492,096.94 0 492,096.94 (130,477)(553,221)(191,601.16) 70,892 (120,708.73) Total 3,343,613.39 0 7,510,557.33 7,510,557.33 (1,146,388)831,961.60 (477,367)354,594.12
Inflation Rate
Moses Lake Airpark
Monthly Base Rent
3.00%
Purchase Price:SourceLand Value
Land Mass FT2
Source:Down Payment:Depreciation Yes/No
Assumptions
$0.00
7 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Port of Moses LakeJeffrey Bishop
1/19/2021
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.00
The facts contained herein,while not guaranteed, are fromwhatthe author considers to be reliable sources.Financialprojections represent a rough order of magnitude forcomparative purposes only.As with all investments, pastperformance of real estate investments are not necessarilyindicative of future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 72 of 111
Exhibit 4
PDA as Developer
Three Levels of Sensitivity
High
Mid
Low
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 73 of 111
Property Name:
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Date Prepared:
NO
Bond ▼Class A 9.00$ Class B 8.00$
Amount 7,900,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 3.50%10.50%2.00%$0.04
Term 20 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.48
Payments ($555,853)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Lot Size FT2 IRR 55.05%
Debt Service ($555,853)0 6.00%17,500 NPV $1,303,743.88
Potential Other Income Effective Other Income Gross
Rental Affected By Vacancy and Rental Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating Contribution Cash
Year Income Vacancy Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Margin Depreciation Margin Position
(100,000) 400,800
2022 - - 0.00 - 225,000 225,000.00 (21,000)(555,853)(351,852.51) 0 (351,852.51) 48,947.49
2023 25,200.00 - (2,646.00)22,554.00 675,000.00 697,554.00 (21,630)(555,853)120,071.49 0 120,071.49 169,018.99
2024 59,304.00 - (6,226.92)53,077.08 918,000.00 971,077.08 (22,279)(555,853)392,945.67 0 392,945.67 561,964.66
2025 94,090.08 - (9,879.46)84,210.62 936,000.00 1,020,210.62 (22,947)(555,853)441,410.85 0 441,410.85 1,003,375.51
2026 129,571.88 - (13,605.05)115,966.83 954,000.00 1,069,966.83 (23,636)(555,853)490,478.64 0 490,478.64 1,493,854.15
2027 165,763.32 - (17,405.15)148,358.17 972,000.00 1,120,358.17 (24,345)(555,853)540,160.91 0 540,160.91 2,034,015.06
2028 202,678.59 - (21,281.25)181,397.33 990,000.00 1,171,397.33 (25,075)(555,853)590,469.73 0 590,469.73 2,624,484.79
2029 240,332.16 - (25,234.88)215,097.28 - 215,097.28 (25,827)(555,853)(366,582.58) 0 (366,582.58) 2,257,902.21
2030 278,738.80 - (29,267.57)249,471.23 - 249,471.23 (26,602)(555,853)(332,983.45) 0 (332,983.45) 1,924,918.76
2031 317,913.58 - (33,380.93)284,532.65 - 284,532.65 (27,400)(555,853)(298,720.09) 0 (298,720.09) 1,626,198.67
2032 357,871.85 - (37,576.54)320,295.30 - 320,295.30 (28,222)(555,853)(263,779.45) 0 (263,779.45) 1,362,419.22
2033 391,471.85 - (41,104.54)350,367.30 - 350,367.30 (29,069)(555,853)(234,554.11) 0 (234,554.11) 1,127,865.11
2034 432,901.28 - (45,454.63)387,446.65 - 387,446.65 (29,941)(555,853)(198,346.84) 0 (198,346.84) 929,518.27
2035 475,159.31 - (49,891.73)425,267.58 - 425,267.58 (30,839)(555,853)(161,424.13) 0 (161,424.13) 768,094.14
2036 484,662.50 - (50,889.56)433,772.93 - 433,772.93 (31,764)(555,853)(153,843.96) 0 (153,843.96) 614,250.18
2037 494,355.75 - (51,907.35)442,448.39 - 442,448.39 (32,717)(555,853)(146,121.43) 0 (146,121.43) 468,128.76
2038 504,242.86 - (52,945.50)451,297.36 - 451,297.36 (33,699)(555,853)(138,253.98) 0 (138,253.98) 329,874.77
2039 514,327.72 - (54,004.41)460,323.31 - 460,323.31 (34,710)(555,853)(130,239.00) 0 (130,239.00) 199,635.78
2040 524,614.27 - (55,084.50)469,529.77 - 469,529.77 (35,751)(555,853)(122,073.83) 0 (122,073.83) 77,561.95
2041 535,106.56 - (56,186.19)478,920.37 - 478,920.37 (36,824)(555,853)(113,755.76) 0 (113,755.76) (36,193.81)
2042 545,808.69 - (57,309.91)488,498.78 - 488,498.78 (37,928)450,570.44 0 450,570.44 414,376.63
2043 556,724.86 - (58,456.11)498,268.75 - 498,268.75 (39,066)459,202.57 0 459,202.57 873,579.20
2044 567,859.36 - (59,625.23)508,234.13 - 508,234.13 (40,238)467,995.96 0 467,995.96 1,341,575.15
2045 579,216.55 - (60,817.74)518,398.81 - 518,398.81 (41,445)476,953.49 0 476,953.49 1,818,528.65
2046 590,800.88 - (62,034.09)528,766.79 - 528,766.79 (42,689)486,078.11 0 486,078.11 2,304,606.76
2047 602,616.90 - (63,274.77)539,342.12 - 539,342.12 (43,969)495,372.79 0 495,372.79 2,799,979.54
2048 614,669.23 - (64,540.27)550,128.97 - 550,128.97 (45,288)504,840.55 0 504,840.55 3,304,820.09
2049 626,962.62 - (65,831.08)561,131.54 - 561,131.54 (46,647)514,484.48 0 514,484.48 3,819,304.57
2050 639,501.87 - (67,147.70)572,354.18 - 572,354.18 (48,046)524,307.69 0 524,307.69 4,343,612.26
2051 652,291.91 - (68,490.65)583,801.26 - 583,801.26 (49,488)534,313.38 0 534,313.38 4,877,925.64
Total 12,204,759.22 (1,281,500)10,923,259.51 16,593,259.51 (999,084)4,477,125.64 0 4,477,125.64
Land Value
30 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Moses Lake Airpark LID
City of Moses Lake Data Source
1/18/2022 Land Mass FT2
Source:
Down Payment:
Depreciation Yes/No
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Effectuate, LLC & City of Moses Lake
8,000,000
11,160,000
1,240,000
City of Moses Lake
100,000
Monthly Base Rent
$700.00
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.10
Assumptions
Jeffrey Bishop
The facts contained herein,whilenot guaranteed,are from what theauthorconsidersto be reliable sources.Financial projectionsrepresentarough order of magnitude for comparative purposesonly.As with all investments,past performance of real estateinvestmentsarenotnecessarilyindicativeof future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 74 of 111
Property Name:
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Date Prepared:
Disposition Value NO
Bond ▼Class A 7.00$ Class B 5.00$
Amount 7,900,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 3.50%10.50%2.00%$0.03
Term 20 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.30
Payments ($555,853)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Lot Size FT2 IRR -2.42%
Debt Service ($555,853)0 6.00%17,500 NPV ($1,052,400.49)
Potential Other Income Effective Other Income Gross
Rental Affected By Vacancy and Rental Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating Contribution Cash
Year Income Vacancy Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Margin Depreciation Margin Position
(Lots Sales)(100,000) 400,800
2022 - - 0.00 - 175,000 175,000.00 (21,000)(555,853)(401,852.51) 0 (401,852.51) (1,052.51)
2023 15,750.00 - (1,653.75)14,096.25 525,000.00 539,096.25 (21,630)(555,853)(38,386.26) 0 (38,386.26) (39,438.76)
2024 37,065.00 - (3,891.83)33,173.18 718,000.00 751,173.18 (22,279)(555,853)173,041.77 0 173,041.77 133,603.01
2025 58,806.30 - (6,174.66)52,631.64 736,000.00 788,631.64 (22,947)(555,853)209,831.86 0 209,831.86 343,434.87
2026 80,982.43 - (8,503.15)72,479.27 754,000.00 826,479.27 (23,636)(555,853)246,991.08 0 246,991.08 590,425.95
2027 103,602.07 - (10,878.22)92,723.86 772,000.00 864,723.86 (24,345)(555,853)284,526.59 0 284,526.59 874,952.54
2028 126,674.12 - (13,300.78)113,373.33 790,000.00 903,373.33 (25,075)(555,853)322,445.73 0 322,445.73 1,197,398.27
2029 150,207.60 - (15,771.80)134,435.80 - 134,435.80 (25,827)(555,853)(447,244.06) 0 (447,244.06) 750,154.22
2030 174,211.75 - (18,292.23)155,919.52 - 155,919.52 (26,602)(555,853)(426,535.16) 0 (426,535.16) 323,619.05
2031 198,695.99 - (20,863.08)177,832.91 - 177,832.91 (27,400)(555,853)(405,419.84) 0 (405,419.84) (81,800.78)
2032 223,669.91 - (23,485.34)200,184.56 - 200,184.56 (28,222)(555,853)(383,890.19) 0 (383,890.19) (465,690.97)
2033 244,669.91 - (25,690.34)218,979.56 - 218,979.56 (29,069)(555,853)(365,941.85) 0 (365,941.85) (831,632.82)
2034 270,563.30 - (28,409.15)242,154.16 - 242,154.16 (29,941)(555,853)(343,639.33) 0 (343,639.33) (1,175,272.15)
2035 296,974.57 - (31,182.33)265,792.24 - 265,792.24 (30,839)(555,853)(320,899.48) 0 (320,899.48) (1,496,171.62)
2036 302,914.06 - (31,805.98)271,108.08 - 271,108.08 (31,764)(555,853)(316,508.81) 0 (316,508.81) (1,812,680.43)
2037 308,972.34 - (32,442.10)276,530.25 - 276,530.25 (32,717)(555,853)(312,039.58) 0 (312,039.58) (2,124,720.01)
2038 315,151.79 - (33,090.94)282,060.85 - 282,060.85 (33,699)(555,853)(307,490.49) 0 (307,490.49) (2,432,210.50)
2039 321,454.82 - (33,752.76)287,702.07 - 287,702.07 (34,710)(555,853)(302,860.24) 0 (302,860.24) (2,735,070.74)
2040 327,883.92 - (34,427.81)293,456.11 - 293,456.11 (35,751)(555,853)(298,147.49) 0 (298,147.49) (3,033,218.23)
2041 334,441.60 - (35,116.37)299,325.23 - 299,325.23 (36,824)(555,853)(293,350.90) 0 (293,350.90) (3,326,569.13)
2042 341,130.43 - (35,818.70)305,311.74 - 305,311.74 (37,928)267,383.40 0 267,383.40 (3,059,185.73)
2043 347,953.04 - (36,535.07)311,417.97 - 311,417.97 (39,066)272,351.78 0 272,351.78 (2,786,833.95)
2044 354,912.10 - (37,265.77)317,646.33 - 317,646.33 (40,238)277,408.16 0 277,408.16 (2,509,425.79)
2045 362,010.34 - (38,011.09)323,999.26 - 323,999.26 (41,445)282,553.94 0 282,553.94 (2,226,871.85)
2046 369,250.55 - (38,771.31)330,479.24 - 330,479.24 (42,689)287,790.57 0 287,790.57 (1,939,081.28)
2047 376,635.56 - (39,546.73)337,088.83 - 337,088.83 (43,969)293,119.49 0 293,119.49 (1,645,961.79)
2048 384,168.27 - (40,337.67)343,830.60 - 343,830.60 (45,288)298,542.19 0 298,542.19 (1,347,419.61)
2049 391,851.64 - (41,144.42)350,707.22 - 350,707.22 (46,647)304,060.15 0 304,060.15 (1,043,359.46)
2050 399,688.67 - (41,967.31)357,721.36 - 357,721.36 (48,046)309,674.88 0 309,674.88 (733,684.58)
2051 407,682.44 - (42,806.66)364,875.79 - 364,875.79 (49,488)315,387.91 0 315,387.91 (418,296.67)
Total 7,627,974.52 (800,937)6,827,037.19 11,297,037.19 (999,084)(819,096.67) 0 (819,096.67)
Land Value
30 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Moses Lake Airpark LID
City of Moses Lake Data Source
1/18/2022 Land Mass FT2
Source:
Down Payment:
Depreciation Yes/No
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Effectuate, LLC & City of Moses Lake
8,000,000
8,680,000
1,240,000
City of Moses Lake
100,000
Monthly Base Rent
$437.50
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.10
Assumptions
Jeffrey Bishop
The facts contained herein,whilenot guaranteed,are from what theauthorconsidersto be reliable sources.Financial projectionsrepresentarough order of magnitude for comparative purposesonly.As with all investments,past performance of real estateinvestmentsarenotnecessarilyindicativeof future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 75 of 111
Property Name:
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Date Prepared:
Disposition Value NO
Bond ▼Class A 5.00$ Class B 4.00$
Amount 7,900,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 3.50%10.50%2.00%$0.02
Term 20 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.24
Payments ($555,853)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Lot Size FT2 IRR -7.10%
Debt Service ($555,853)0 6.00%17,500 NPV ($2,458,093.31)
Potential Other Income Effective Other Income Gross
Rental Affected By Vacancy and Rental Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating Contribution Cash
Year Income Vacancy Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Margin Depreciation Margin Position
(Lot Sales)(100,000) 400,800
2022 - - 0.00 - 125,000 125,000.00 (21,000)(555,853)(451,852.51) 0 (451,852.51) (51,052.51)
2023 12,600.00 - (1,323.00)11,277.00 375,000.00 386,277.00 (21,630)(555,853)(191,205.51) 0 (191,205.51) (242,258.01)
2024 29,652.00 - (3,113.46)26,538.54 518,000.00 544,538.54 (22,279)(555,853)(33,592.87) 0 (33,592.87) (275,850.88)
2025 47,045.04 - (4,939.73)42,105.31 536,000.00 578,105.31 (22,947)(555,853)(694.46) 0 (694.46) (276,545.34)
2026 64,785.94 - (6,802.52)57,983.42 554,000.00 611,983.42 (23,636)(555,853)32,495.23 0 32,495.23 (244,050.12)
2027 82,881.66 - (8,702.57)74,179.09 572,000.00 646,179.09 (24,345)(555,853)65,981.82 0 65,981.82 (178,068.29)
2028 101,339.29 - (10,640.63)90,698.67 590,000.00 680,698.67 (25,075)(555,853)99,771.06 0 99,771.06 (78,297.23)
2029 120,166.08 - (12,617.44)107,548.64 - 107,548.64 (25,827)(555,853)(474,131.22) 0 (474,131.22) (552,428.45)
2030 139,369.40 - (14,633.79)124,735.61 - 124,735.61 (26,602)(555,853)(457,719.07) 0 (457,719.07) (1,010,147.51)
2031 158,956.79 - (16,690.46)142,266.33 - 142,266.33 (27,400)(555,853)(440,986.42) 0 (440,986.42) (1,451,133.93)
2032 178,935.92 - (18,788.27)160,147.65 - 160,147.65 (28,222)(555,853)(423,927.10) 0 (423,927.10) (1,875,061.03)
2033 195,735.92 - (20,552.27)175,183.65 - 175,183.65 (29,069)(555,853)(409,737.77) 0 (409,737.77) (2,284,798.80)
2034 216,450.64 - (22,727.32)193,723.33 - 193,723.33 (29,941)(555,853)(392,070.16) 0 (392,070.16) (2,676,868.96)
2035 237,579.66 - (24,945.86)212,633.79 - 212,633.79 (30,839)(555,853)(374,057.92) 0 (374,057.92) (3,050,926.88)
2036 242,331.25 - (25,444.78)216,886.47 - 216,886.47 (31,764)(555,853)(370,730.42) 0 (370,730.42) (3,421,657.30)
2037 247,177.87 - (25,953.68)221,224.20 - 221,224.20 (32,717)(555,853)(367,345.63) 0 (367,345.63) (3,789,002.93)
2038 252,121.43 - (26,472.75)225,648.68 - 225,648.68 (33,699)(555,853)(363,902.66) 0 (363,902.66) (4,152,905.59)
2039 257,163.86 - (27,002.21)230,161.65 - 230,161.65 (34,710)(555,853)(360,400.65) 0 (360,400.65) (4,513,306.24)
2040 262,307.14 - (27,542.25)234,764.89 - 234,764.89 (35,751)(555,853)(356,838.71) 0 (356,838.71) (4,870,144.96)
2041 267,553.28 - (28,093.09)239,460.19 - 239,460.19 (36,824)(555,853)(353,215.95) 0 (353,215.95) (5,223,360.90)
2042 272,904.35 - (28,654.96)244,249.39 - 244,249.39 (37,928)206,321.05 0 206,321.05 (5,017,039.85)
2043 278,362.43 - (29,228.06)249,134.38 - 249,134.38 (39,066)210,068.19 0 210,068.19 (4,806,971.66)
2044 283,929.68 - (29,812.62)254,117.06 - 254,117.06 (40,238)213,878.89 0 213,878.89 (4,593,092.77)
2045 289,608.27 - (30,408.87)259,199.41 - 259,199.41 (41,445)217,754.09 0 217,754.09 (4,375,338.68)
2046 295,400.44 - (31,017.05)264,383.39 - 264,383.39 (42,689)221,694.72 0 221,694.72 (4,153,643.96)
2047 301,308.45 - (31,637.39)269,671.06 - 269,671.06 (43,969)225,701.72 0 225,701.72 (3,927,942.24)
2048 307,334.62 - (32,270.13)275,064.48 - 275,064.48 (45,288)229,776.07 0 229,776.07 (3,698,166.17)
2049 313,481.31 - (32,915.54)280,565.77 - 280,565.77 (46,647)233,918.70 0 233,918.70 (3,464,247.47)
2050 319,750.94 - (33,573.85)286,177.09 - 286,177.09 (48,046)238,130.61 0 238,130.61 (3,226,116.86)
2051 326,145.95 - (34,245.33)291,900.63 - 291,900.63 (49,488)242,412.75 0 242,412.75 (2,983,704.11)
Total 6,102,379.61 (640,750)5,461,629.75 8,731,629.75 (999,084)(3,384,504.11) 0 (3,384,504.11)
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Effectuate, LLC & City of Moses Lake
8,000,000
6,200,000
1,240,000
City of Moses Lake
100,000
Monthly Base Rent
$350.00
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.10
Assumptions
Jeffrey Bishop
1/18/2022 Land Mass FT2
Source:
Down Payment:
Depreciation Yes/No
Land Value
30 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Moses Lake Airpark LID
City of Moses Lake Data Source
The facts contained herein,whilenot guaranteed,are from what theauthorconsidersto be reliable sources.Financial projectionsrepresentarough order of magnitude for comparative purposesonly.As with all investments,past performance of real estateinvestmentsarenotnecessarilyindicativeof future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 76 of 111
Exhibit 5
PDA as Developer with Leverage
Three Levels of Sensitivity
High
Mid
Low
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 77 of 111
Property Name:
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Date Prepared:
NO
Bond ▼Class A 9.00$ Class B 8.00$
Amount 6,150,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 3.50%10.50%2.00%$0.04
Term 20 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.48
Payments ($432,721)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Lot Size FT2 IRR 89.34%
Debt Service ($432,721)0 6.00%17,500 NPV $2,513,970.74
Second Loan ($123,132)
Potential Other Income Effective Other Income Gross
Rental Affected By Vacancy and Rental Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating Contribution Cash
Year Income Vacancy Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Margin Depreciation Margin Position
(Lot Sales)(100,000) 400,800
2022 - - 0.00 - 225,000 225,000.00 (31,500)(432,721)(239,220.62) 0 (239,220.62) 161,579.38
2023 25,200.00 - (2,646.00)22,554.00 675,000.00 697,554.00 (32,445)(432,721)232,388.38 0 232,388.38 393,967.76
2024 59,304.00 - (6,226.92)53,077.08 918,000.00 971,077.08 (33,418)(432,721)504,938.11 0 504,938.11 898,905.86
2025 94,090.08 - (9,879.46)84,210.62 936,000.00 1,020,210.62 (34,421)(432,721)553,069.10 0 553,069.10 1,451,974.96
2026 129,571.88 - (13,605.05)115,966.83 954,000.00 1,069,966.83 (35,454)(432,721)601,792.68 0 601,792.68 2,053,767.65
2027 165,763.32 - (17,405.15)148,358.17 972,000.00 1,120,358.17 (36,517)(432,721)651,120.42 0 651,120.42 2,704,888.06
2028 202,678.59 - (21,281.25)181,397.33 990,000.00 1,171,397.33 (37,613)(432,721)701,064.06 0 701,064.06 3,405,952.13
2029 240,332.16 - (25,234.88)215,097.28 - 215,097.28 (38,741)(432,721)(256,364.37) 0 (256,364.37) 3,149,587.76
2030 278,738.80 - (29,267.57)249,471.23 - 249,471.23 (39,903)(432,721)(223,152.65) (123,132)(346,284.54) 2,926,435.10
2031 317,913.58 - (33,380.93)284,532.65 - 284,532.65 (41,100)(432,721)(189,288.33) (123,132)(312,420.21) 2,737,146.78
2032 357,871.85 - (37,576.54)320,295.30 - 320,295.30 (42,333)(432,721)(154,758.68) (123,132)(277,890.57) 2,582,388.09
2033 391,471.85 - (41,104.54)350,367.30 - 350,367.30 (43,603)(432,721)(125,956.69) (123,132)(249,088.57) 2,456,431.41
2034 432,901.28 - (45,454.63)387,446.65 - 387,446.65 (44,911)(432,721)(90,185.44) (123,132)(213,317.32) 2,366,245.97
2035 475,159.31 - (49,891.73)425,267.58 - 425,267.58 (46,259)(432,721)(53,711.85) (123,132)(176,843.74) 2,312,534.12
2036 484,662.50 - (50,889.56)433,772.93 - 433,772.93 (47,647)(432,721)(46,594.26) (123,132)(169,726.15) 2,265,939.85
2037 494,355.75 - (51,907.35)442,448.39 - 442,448.39 (49,076)(432,721)(39,348.20) (123,132)(162,480.09) 2,226,591.65
2038 504,242.86 - (52,945.50)451,297.36 - 451,297.36 (50,548)(432,721)(31,971.51) (123,132)(155,103.40) 2,194,620.14
2039 514,327.72 - (54,004.41)460,323.31 - 460,323.31 (52,065)(432,721)(24,462.01) (123,132)(147,593.90) 2,170,158.12
2040 524,614.27 - (55,084.50)469,529.77 - 469,529.77 (53,627)(432,721)(16,817.49) (123,132)(139,949.37) 2,153,340.63
2041 535,106.56 - (56,186.19)478,920.37 - 478,920.37 (55,235)(432,721)(9,035.69) (123,132)(132,167.58) 2,144,304.94
2042 545,808.69 - (57,309.91)488,498.78 - 488,498.78 (56,893)431,606.27 (123,132)308,474.39 2,575,911.22
2043 556,724.86 - (58,456.11)498,268.75 - 498,268.75 (58,599)439,669.47 (123,132)316,537.59 3,015,580.69
2044 567,859.36 - (59,625.23)508,234.13 - 508,234.13 (60,357)447,876.87 (123,132)324,744.99 3,463,457.56
2045 579,216.55 - (60,817.74)518,398.81 - 518,398.81 (62,168)456,230.84 (123,132)333,098.95 3,919,688.40
2046 590,800.88 - (62,034.09)528,766.79 - 528,766.79 (64,033)464,733.77 (123,132)341,601.89 4,384,422.17
2047 602,616.90 - (63,274.77)539,342.12 - 539,342.12 (65,954)473,388.12 (123,132)350,256.23 4,857,810.29
2048 614,669.23 - (64,540.27)550,128.97 - 550,128.97 (67,933)482,196.34 (123,132)359,064.46 5,340,006.63
2049 626,962.62 - (65,831.08)561,131.54 - 561,131.54 (69,971)491,160.94 (123,132)368,029.06 5,831,167.57
2050 639,501.87 - (67,147.70)572,354.18 - 572,354.18 (72,070)500,284.45 0 500,284.45 6,331,452.02
2051 652,291.91 - (68,490.65)583,801.26 - 583,801.26 (74,232)509,569.45 0 509,569.45 6,841,021.47
Total 12,204,759.22 (1,281,500)10,923,259.51 16,593,259.51 (1,498,626)6,440,221.47 (2,462,638)3,977,583.78
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Effectuate, LLC & City of Moses Lake
8,000,000
11,160,000
1,240,000
City of Moses Lake
100,000
Monthly Base Rent
$700.00
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.15
1/18/2022 Land Mass FT2
Source:
Down Payment:
Depreciation Yes/No
Assumptions
Jeffrey Bishop Land Value
30 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Moses Lake Airpark LID
City of Moses Lake Data Source
The facts contained herein,while not guaranteed,are from what theauthorconsiderstobereliablesources.Financial projectionsrepresentarough order of magnitude for comparative purposes only.As with all investments, past performance of real estate investmentsarenotnecessarilyindicativeof future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 78 of 111
Property Name:
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Date Prepared:
NO
Bond ▼Class A 7.00$ Class B 5.00$
Amount 6,150,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 3.50%10.50%2.00%$0.03
Term 20 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.30
Payments ($432,721)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Lot Size FT2 IRR 42.01%
Debt Service ($432,721)0 6.00%17,500 NPV $157,826.37
Second Loan ($123,132)
Potential Other Income Effective Other Income Gross
Rental Affected By Vacancy and Rental Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating Contribution Cash
Year Income Vacancy Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Margin Depreciation Margin Position
(Lot Sales)(100,000) 400,800
2022 - - 0.00 - 175,000 175,000.00 (31,500)(432,721)(289,220.62) 0 (289,220.62) 111,579.38
2023 15,750.00 - (1,653.75)14,096.25 525,000.00 539,096.25 (32,445)(432,721)73,930.63 0 73,930.63 185,510.01
2024 37,065.00 - (3,891.83)33,173.18 718,000.00 751,173.18 (33,418)(432,721)285,034.20 0 285,034.20 470,544.21
2025 58,806.30 - (6,174.66)52,631.64 736,000.00 788,631.64 (34,421)(432,721)321,490.12 0 321,490.12 792,034.32
2026 80,982.43 - (8,503.15)72,479.27 754,000.00 826,479.27 (35,454)(432,721)358,305.12 0 358,305.12 1,150,339.45
2027 103,602.07 - (10,878.22)92,723.86 772,000.00 864,723.86 (36,517)(432,721)395,486.10 0 395,486.10 1,545,825.55
2028 126,674.12 - (13,300.78)113,373.33 790,000.00 903,373.33 (37,613)(432,721)433,040.06 0 433,040.06 1,978,865.61
2029 150,207.60 - (15,771.80)134,435.80 - 134,435.80 (38,741)(432,721)(337,025.85) 0 (337,025.85) 1,641,839.76
2030 174,211.75 - (18,292.23)155,919.52 - 155,919.52 (39,903)(432,721)(316,704.36) (123,132)(439,836.25) 1,325,135.40
2031 198,695.99 - (20,863.08)177,832.91 - 177,832.91 (41,100)(432,721)(295,988.07) (123,132)(419,119.96) 1,029,147.33
2032 223,669.91 - (23,485.34)200,184.56 - 200,184.56 (42,333)(432,721)(274,869.42) (123,132)(398,001.31) 754,277.91
2033 244,669.91 - (25,690.34)218,979.56 - 218,979.56 (43,603)(432,721)(257,344.42) (123,132)(380,476.31) 496,933.48
2034 270,563.30 - (28,409.15)242,154.16 - 242,154.16 (44,911)(432,721)(235,477.93) (123,132)(358,609.82) 261,455.55
2035 296,974.57 - (31,182.33)265,792.24 - 265,792.24 (46,259)(432,721)(213,187.19) (123,132)(336,319.08) 48,268.35
2036 302,914.06 - (31,805.98)271,108.08 - 271,108.08 (47,647)(432,721)(209,259.11) (123,132)(332,391.00) (160,990.76)
2037 308,972.34 - (32,442.10)276,530.25 - 276,530.25 (49,076)(432,721)(205,266.35) (123,132)(328,398.23) (366,257.11)
2038 315,151.79 - (33,090.94)282,060.85 - 282,060.85 (50,548)(432,721)(201,208.02) (123,132)(324,339.91) (567,465.14)
2039 321,454.82 - (33,752.76)287,702.07 - 287,702.07 (52,065)(432,721)(197,083.25) (123,132)(320,215.14) (764,548.39)
2040 327,883.92 - (34,427.81)293,456.11 - 293,456.11 (53,627)(432,721)(192,891.15) (123,132)(316,023.04) (957,439.55)
2041 334,441.60 - (35,116.37)299,325.23 - 299,325.23 (55,235)(432,721)(188,630.83) (123,132)(311,762.72) (1,146,070.38)
2042 341,130.43 - (35,818.70)305,311.74 - 305,311.74 (56,893)248,419.23 (123,132)125,287.35 (897,651.14)
2043 347,953.04 - (36,535.07)311,417.97 - 311,417.97 (58,599)252,818.69 (123,132)129,686.81 (644,832.45)
2044 354,912.10 - (37,265.77)317,646.33 - 317,646.33 (60,357)257,289.07 (123,132)134,157.19 (387,543.38)
2045 362,010.34 - (38,011.09)323,999.26 - 323,999.26 (62,168)261,831.28 (123,132)138,699.40 (125,712.10)
2046 369,250.55 - (38,771.31)330,479.24 - 330,479.24 (64,033)266,446.23 (123,132)143,314.34 140,734.13
2047 376,635.56 - (39,546.73)337,088.83 - 337,088.83 (65,954)271,134.82 (123,132)148,002.94 411,868.95
2048 384,168.27 - (40,337.67)343,830.60 - 343,830.60 (67,933)275,897.98 (123,132)152,766.09 687,766.93
2049 391,851.64 - (41,144.42)350,707.22 - 350,707.22 (69,971)280,736.61 (123,132)157,604.73 968,503.54
2050 399,688.67 - (41,967.31)357,721.36 - 357,721.36 (72,070)285,651.64 0 285,651.64 1,254,155.18
2051 407,682.44 - (42,806.66)364,875.79 - 364,875.79 (74,232)290,643.97 0 290,643.97 1,544,799.15
Total 7,627,974.52 (800,937)6,827,037.19 11,297,037.19 (1,498,626)1,143,999.15 (2,462,638)(1,318,638.54)
Jeffrey Bishop Land Value
30 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Moses Lake Airpark LID
City of Moses Lake Data Source
1/18/2022 Land Mass FT2
Source:
Down Payment:
Depreciation Yes/No
Assumptions
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Effectuate, LLC & City of Moses Lake
8,000,000
8,680,000
1,240,000
City of Moses Lake
100,000
Monthly Base Rent
$437.50
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.15
The facts contained herein,while not guaranteed,are from what theauthorconsiderstobereliablesources.Financial projectionsrepresentarough order of magnitude for comparative purposes only.As with all investments, past performance of real estate investmentsarenotnecessarilyindicativeof future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 79 of 111
Property Name:
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Date Prepared:
NO
Bond ▼Class A 5.00$ Class B 4.00$
Amount 6,150,000 Vacancy/Credit Escalations*Monthly Rent FT2
Interest Rate 3.50%10.50%2.00%$0.02
Term 20 Dep. Period Escalations Annual Rent FT2
Payment/Year 1 30 3.00%$0.24
Payments ($432,721)Depreciation Amt Discount Rate Lot Size FT2 IRR -4.58%
Debt Service ($432,721)0 6.00%17,500 NPV ($1,247,866.45)
Second Loan ($123,132)
Potential Other Income Effective Other Income Gross
Rental Affected By Vacancy and Rental Not Affected By Operating Operating Debt Operating Contribution Cash
Year Income Vacancy Credit Losses Income Vacancy Income Expenses Service Margin Depreciation Margin Position
(Lot Sales)(100,000) 400,800
2022 - - 0.00 - 125,000 125,000.00 (31,500)(432,721)(339,220.62) 0 (339,220.62) 61,579.38
2023 12,600.00 - (1,323.00)11,277.00 375,000.00 386,277.00 (32,445)(432,721)(78,888.62) 0 (78,888.62) (17,309.24)
2024 29,652.00 - (3,113.46)26,538.54 518,000.00 544,538.54 (33,418)(432,721)78,399.57 0 78,399.57 61,090.32
2025 47,045.04 - (4,939.73)42,105.31 536,000.00 578,105.31 (34,421)(432,721)110,963.79 0 110,963.79 172,054.11
2026 64,785.94 - (6,802.52)57,983.42 554,000.00 611,983.42 (35,454)(432,721)143,809.27 0 143,809.27 315,863.38
2027 82,881.66 - (8,702.57)74,179.09 572,000.00 646,179.09 (36,517)(432,721)176,941.33 0 176,941.33 492,804.71
2028 101,339.29 - (10,640.63)90,698.67 590,000.00 680,698.67 (37,613)(432,721)210,365.40 0 210,365.40 703,170.11
2029 120,166.08 - (12,617.44)107,548.64 - 107,548.64 (38,741)(432,721)(363,913.01) 0 (363,913.01) 339,257.10
2030 139,369.40 - (14,633.79)124,735.61 - 124,735.61 (39,903)(432,721)(347,888.27) (123,132)(471,020.15) (8,631.17)
2031 158,956.79 - (16,690.46)142,266.33 - 142,266.33 (41,100)(432,721)(331,554.65) (123,132)(454,686.54) (340,185.82)
2032 178,935.92 - (18,788.27)160,147.65 - 160,147.65 (42,333)(432,721)(314,906.34) (123,132)(438,038.22) (655,092.16)
2033 195,735.92 - (20,552.27)175,183.65 - 175,183.65 (43,603)(432,721)(301,140.34) (123,132)(424,272.22) (956,232.49)
2034 216,450.64 - (22,727.32)193,723.33 - 193,723.33 (44,911)(432,721)(283,908.77) (123,132)(407,040.65) (1,240,141.26)
2035 237,579.66 - (24,945.86)212,633.79 - 212,633.79 (46,259)(432,721)(266,345.64) (123,132)(389,477.53) (1,506,486.90)
2036 242,331.25 - (25,444.78)216,886.47 - 216,886.47 (47,647)(432,721)(263,480.73) (123,132)(386,612.62) (1,769,967.63)
2037 247,177.87 - (25,953.68)221,224.20 - 221,224.20 (49,076)(432,721)(260,572.40) (123,132)(383,704.28) (2,030,540.03)
2038 252,121.43 - (26,472.75)225,648.68 - 225,648.68 (50,548)(432,721)(257,620.19) (123,132)(380,752.08) (2,288,160.23)
2039 257,163.86 - (27,002.21)230,161.65 - 230,161.65 (52,065)(432,721)(254,623.67) (123,132)(377,755.55) (2,542,783.90)
2040 262,307.14 - (27,542.25)234,764.89 - 234,764.89 (53,627)(432,721)(251,582.38) (123,132)(374,714.26) (2,794,366.27)
2041 267,553.28 - (28,093.09)239,460.19 - 239,460.19 (55,235)(432,721)(248,495.88) (123,132)(371,627.76) (3,042,862.15)
2042 272,904.35 - (28,654.96)244,249.39 - 244,249.39 (56,893)187,356.88 (123,132)64,225.00 (2,855,505.26)
2043 278,362.43 - (29,228.06)249,134.38 - 249,134.38 (58,599)190,535.10 (123,132)67,403.21 (2,664,970.17)
2044 283,929.68 - (29,812.62)254,117.06 - 254,117.06 (60,357)193,759.81 (123,132)70,627.92 (2,471,210.36)
2045 289,608.27 - (30,408.87)259,199.41 - 259,199.41 (62,168)197,031.43 (123,132)73,899.55 (2,274,178.93)
2046 295,400.44 - (31,017.05)264,383.39 - 264,383.39 (64,033)200,350.38 (123,132)77,218.49 (2,073,828.55)
2047 301,308.45 - (31,637.39)269,671.06 - 269,671.06 (65,954)203,717.06 (123,132)80,585.17 (1,870,111.49)
2048 307,334.62 - (32,270.13)275,064.48 - 275,064.48 (67,933)207,131.86 (123,132)83,999.97 (1,662,979.64)
2049 313,481.31 - (32,915.54)280,565.77 - 280,565.77 (69,971)210,595.17 (123,132)87,463.28 (1,452,384.47)
2050 319,750.94 - (33,573.85)286,177.09 - 286,177.09 (72,070)214,107.37 0 214,107.37 (1,238,277.10)
2051 326,145.95 - (34,245.33)291,900.63 - 291,900.63 (74,232)217,668.82 0 217,668.82 (1,020,608.29)
Total 6,102,379.61 (640,750)5,461,629.75 8,731,629.75 (1,498,626)(1,421,408.29) (2,462,638)(3,884,045.97)
Jeffrey Bishop Land Value
30 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PRO-FORMA
Moses Lake Airpark LID
City of Moses Lake Data Source
1/18/2022 Land Mass FT2
Source:
Down Payment:
Depreciation Yes/No
Assumptions
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Effectuate, LLC & City of Moses Lake
8,000,000
6,200,000
1,240,000
City of Moses Lake
100,000
Monthly Base Rent
$350.00
Monthly Operating Expense
$0.15
The facts contained herein,while not guaranteed,are from what theauthorconsiderstobereliablesources.Financial projectionsrepresentarough order of magnitude for comparative purposes only.As with all investments, past performance of real estate investmentsarenotnecessarilyindicativeof future performance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 80 of 111
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Council
From: Allison Williams, City Manager
Date: March 2, 2022
Proceeding Type: Old Business
Subject: Annexation Status
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: November 5, 2020 Budgeted Amount: N/A
• Second Presentation: March 8, 2022 Unbudgeted Amount:
• Action: Information Total Cost:
Overview
From June 2020 through the fall of 2021, the City was in the process of doing the periodic review
and update of the City’s overall Comprehensive Plan. With that update, City Council took action
to pass Resolution 3834 which put in a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing
of annexation petitions. Annexation is a legislative process. Now that the overall Comprehensive
Plan has been adopted, annexations would be accepted. Action is not be required at this time as
the Resolution has sunset.
As City Council considers the future policy for ETA’s, annexation should be the first consideration
when the City is asked to extend services. With our past ETA agreements, language was included
that provided the City with power of attorney to annex the properties.
When annexation occurs, which is also the process staff is recommending for the extension of
services through an extra territorial agreement, an analysis would be carried out that would
identify the cost of extending or improving services compared to the revenues derived from the
area to be annexed. Considerations include the cost of police protection (personnel, equipment
and stations), fire protection (personnel, equipment, hydrants and fire stations), public works
(street lighting, maintenance, construction, storm drainage, garbage collection), parks and
recreation (parks acreage, programs and facilities), water and sewer (water/sewer main
construction, maintenance and old line replacement, and water rights).
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The City is accepting annexation petitions
Action Requested
This memo was for informational purposes unless the Council wishes to take any action with regard
to extending the moratorium.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 81 of 111
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: March 2, 2022
Proceeding Type: Old Business
Subject: ETA Application Processing Policy Resolution
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: February 8, 2022 Budgeted Amount: N/A
• Second Presentation: March 8, 2022 Unbudgeted Amount: N/A
• Action: Discussion Total Cost: N/A
Overview
Extra Territorial Agreements (ETA) are used to provide
water and sewer services outside the City Corporate
limits, but within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The City
is not obligated by State law to provide services into the
UGA, it does so voluntarily to provide for responsible
growth. As such, Extra Territorial Agreements (ETA) are
not defined in City Code, they are legally enabled by
Resolution #3717 (See Attachment C).
The current processing of Extra Territorial Agreements
uses an agreement form that was created by City legal
counsel (See Attachment D). This agreement form closely
follows the Resolution #3717 that legally enables Extra
Territorial Agreements.
City staff is requesting a policy that provides clarification and guidance for how staff will process
Extra Territorial Agreements and how they should be presented to City Council for consideration
of approval (See Attachment B). In short, not all Extra Territorial Agreements are financially equal
in their costs to the City to provide for them long-term. Therefore, Extra Territorial Agreements
need to be evaluated individually for financial feasibility and their true long-term costs be fairly
presented to the Council for approval consideration.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 82 of 111
Page 2 of 3
Evaluating Long-Term Costs
ETA requests need to be evaluated individually, as the long-term costs to maintain water and sewer
utilities outside of the corporate City limits can be very different. Close extensions, within the same
water pressure zone, and with existing reservoir capacity are very different from long extensions
out into areas without reservoirs, without wells, and without water rights.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
City water and sewer fees for extra territorial services is 125% of the fee for those within the City.
125% may be adequate to provide positive long-term cost-benefit analysis for short extensions near
the City, but may not be enough for maintenance of long extensions, with extra territorial reservoirs,
and extra territorial wastewater pump stations.
Therefore, an engineer’s estimate and cost-benefit analysis would be included in staff reports to
Council for each ETA. In many cases, ETA’s would be supported by City staff. However, ETA’s not
supported by City staff can still go forward to Council for approval consideration.
Council Packet Attachments
A. ETA Application Processing Policy Resolution
B. Extra Territorial Agreement Policy (Draft)
C. Resolution #3717 from 02.27.2018
D. Extra Territorial Agreement Form (Blank Example)
E. Existing Extra Territorial Agreement Parcels Map
Finance Committee Review
N/A
Legal Review:
Type of
Document
Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal
Council
• Policy • ETA Processing Policy
DUNES WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 83 of 111
Page 3 of 3
Options
Option Results
• Review & Comment Update the proposed policy per Council comments
and feedback.
Action Requested
No action is requested at this time by staff. This is the first reading of the ETA Policy. The ETA
Policy and associated documents will be updated given comments and feedback by Council and
staff for a future approval request.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 84 of 111
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN EXTRA TERRITORIAL AGREEMENT APPLICATION PROCESSING POLICY
Recitals:
1. It is recognized that the City of Moses Lake is not obligated by State law to provide services into the urban growth area, it does so voluntarily to provide for responsible community growth and the health and safety of its citizens.
2. Extra Territorial Agreements are legally enabled by Resolution #3717.
3. The Municipal Services Director requested staff to establish an Extra Territorial Agreement Application Processing Policy to provide guidance for the review, processing, and presentation to Council of these applications.
4. Staff created an Application Processing Policy that follows the requirements of the enabling resolution 3717, the existing agreement form, and in accordance with current
state laws.
5. The intent of the Application Processing Policy is to qualify each Extra Territorial Agreement Application by its long-term financial feasibility to the City, public health for the community, and previous agreement history for the project, under a process that is fair and consistent with all state laws.
Resolved: 1. The City Council approves the attached Extra Territorial Agreement Application Processing Policy.
2. These polices will prevail over conflicting polices previously approved by the City
Manager or adopted by the City Council.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake on this 8th day of March, 2022.
Dean Hankins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 85 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 86 of 111
RESOLUTION NO. 3717
A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION 3509 AND ADOTING A NEW RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH A POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISION OF WATER AND/OR SEWER UTILITIES OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY AND SETTING FORTH AN ANNEXATION POLICY FOR THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON
Recitals:
1.Previously the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3509 setting forth a policy with regard
to the provision of water and/or sewer utilities outside the corporate limits of the City and
setting forth an annexation policy for the City of Moses lake, Washington.
2.That policy is now repealed by this resolution, which adopts a new resolution setting forth
a policy with regard to the provision of water and/or sewer utilities outside the corporate
limits of the City and setting forth an annexation policy for the City of Moses Lake,Washington.
Resolved:
1.The following definitions shall be applicable to the terms used in this resolution.
2.
Contiguous Lands means any lands touching or abutting the corporate limits of the City
and any lands within one half mile of the corporate limits of the City as measured at the
point the corporate limits and the involved lands are closest together.
Non-Contiguous Lands means any lands beyond one half mile of the corporate limits of
the City as measured at the point the corporate limits and the involved lands are closesttogether.
Provision. Delivery, or Furnishing City Water and/or Sewer Utilities means the extension
of water and/or sewer mains, or tapping into an existing water and/or sewer main by a
lateral to serve a customer, or the expansion of an existing water and/or sewer use, or any
combination of these.
City Water means potable water delivered from the water utility system operated by the
City.
City Sewer means the sanitary sewerage collection utility system operated by the City.
City Utility Service or Water and/or Sewer Utilities means City water and/or City sewer.
Adjacent lands means any lands located immediately adjacent to a city water and/or city
sewer main within the city's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and which lands are contiguous
lands as defined herein.
Requests for Extensions: The Moses lake City Council shall review all requests for the provision of water and/or sewer utilities whether the request involves property which is contiguous or non-contiguous. Only the City Council can grant permission for the
provision, delivery, or furnishing of water and/or sewer utilities to anyone beyond the corporate limits of the City, such permission being evidenced by a formal commitment
noted in the minutes of a regular City Council meeting. All extensions of water and/or sewer utilities beyond the corporate limits of the City shall be made by the City Council within their sole and complete discretion.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 87 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 88 of 111
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 89 of 111
RECORD AND RETURN TO Development Engineering City of Moses Lake P. O. Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837
EXTRA TERRITORIAL UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT Grantor: XXXX Grantee: The City of Moses Lake, WA Legal Desc. XXXX
Assessor’s Tax Parcel No. #XXXX
1. Parties: The parties to this Agreement are the City of Moses Lake, Washington (herein City), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, located entirely within Grant County, Washington,
and Sidney Richard Deane (herein Developer).
2. Recitals:
2.1 The City is the owner of a municipal water and sewer system which operates within the City’s limits and adjacent to real property near Moses Lake, Washington.
2,2 Developer desires to receive water and/or sewer utility service from the City for use upon
Developer's real property located more than one half mile from the corporate limits of the City and located within the City’s Urban Growth Area (UGA).
2.3 The City, pursuant to Resolution No. 3717, requires that all contiguous and non-contiguous
real property which receives water and/or sewer utility services from the City be subject to an agreement which affects the use of the real property served by the City utilities, restricts
expansion of City utility services beyond those contracted for, and creates a covenant running with the land.
2.4 Developer is fully aware of the restrictions imposed upon Developer and Developer's
successor(s), heir(s), and assign(s) by City Resolutions No. 3717 and enters into this Agreement freely and voluntarily.
3. Agreement: It is agreed by and between the parties as follows: 3.1 The City will provide the water and sewer utility services listed below to Developer at the
premises stated, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
3.2 The real property to be serviced is located within the City’s UGA and is described per Grant County Assessor records as:
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 90 of 111
PARCEL #XXXX XXXX 3.3 This Agreement shall be filed for record in the Office of the Grant County Auditor and shall be in the nature of a covenant running with the premises. It is the intent of Developer to have this
Agreement, so long as it is in force, to be considered, interpreted, and regarded as a covenant running with the land as to the premises. 3.4 All connections to the City water system or to the City sewer system shall comply with the ordinances and rules of the City with respect to the appropriate utility. Any connection to the City’s water and/or sewer system is subject to payment for the utility service of a rate
established by the City which shall be subject to adjustment from time to time by the Moses Lake City Council. The availability of the utility authorized by this Agreement is subject to the capacity of the City's water system.
3.5 The water delivered pursuant to this Agreement shall be the same as other water delivered within the City’s system. The City makes no warranty as to such water quantity or quality other
than it shall be delivered in accordance with the regulations applicable to city water systems. 3.6 The water service provided by the City is for one service connection to serve a commercial training facility.
3.7 The sewer utility service provided by the City is for one service connection to serve a single-
family residence.
3.8 Developer agrees and covenants that all sewer and/or water utility system components to be built and attached to the City's utility system shall be built to City standards. The standards
applied by the City may include requiring construction in excess of that minimally required to connect the premises to City utilities where such additional construction is consistent with a
City plan of service within the area of the premises.
3.9 Developer agrees and covenants that the premises will not be used in any manner or for any purpose inconsistent with or contrary to the land use controls in place as those controls now
exist or as they may be from time to time altered, amended, or re-adopted. The Developer acknowledges the premises are subject to development pursuant to regulations administered
by Grant County. The Developer agrees the City may impose development conditions greater than those imposed by Grant County, but in no event greater than those imposed for similar
development within the City’s limits, as a condition of receiving utility services under this Agreement. The premises currently are used in a manner consistent with the existing land use
controls.
3.10 This Agreement is entered into by the City based on the utility uses identified above and the land uses identified by the Developer for the premises. Developer or the successor holder of
the fee title to the premises shall be bound by this Agreement and be responsible to perform under this Agreement. No subsequent leasehold, joint venture, or other tenancy or use
agreement shall relieve the Developer or the Developer’s successor in interest from performing under this Agreement. To continue this Agreement in effect and to continue a delivery of the identified utilities, any
successor in interest shall execute an acknowledgment of this Agreement, Covenant, and Power of Attorney in a form approved by the City.
3.11 Developer shall execute contemporaneously with this Agreement the subjoined Power of Attorney and subjoined Covenant respecting the annexation of the premises by the City. This Power of Attorney is executed, as is this Agreement, by Developer with a full understanding
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 91 of 111
that Developer may be waiving and transferring to the City a valuable right as a land owner as respects annexation by the City. Developer waives any objection to annexation by the City. Developer acknowledges Developer has relied solely upon Developer's own legal counsel and fully understands the legal rights Developer is or may be surrendering to the City by the execution of this Agreement and the subjoined Covenant and Power of Attorney.
3.12 Developer understands the delivery of utility services to these premises so long as they remain outside the corporate limits of the city, is a discretionary act of the City and the execution of this Agreement and performance hereunder are not intended and shall not be considered as an indication by the City of the intention to become a general provider of utility service beyond the terms of this contract, to these premises or any other lands located outside the corporate limits of Moses Lake.
3.13 Developer acknowledges that so long as the premises remain outside the corporate limits of the City, any or all utility service provided under this Agreement by the City are, or may become subject to, surcharges and/or increased charges in addition to the charges to similar
customers located within the corporate limits.
3.14 Developer agrees that payment of service charges, surcharge assessments, and/or additional charges required by City ordinances to be paid for the utility services mentioned above will in no way relieve the premises from Developer's share of any future Local Improvement District or Utility Local Improvement District payments which may be assessed to pay all or a portion
of the expenses of installing main or mains, together with necessary valves, fire hydrants, pipe fittings and all other appurtenances which may be installed to serve a district which includes
the premises.
3.15 Developer agrees that in the event of a sale, gift, transfer, segregation, assignment, or device of Developer's fee interest in the premises it will disclose the existence of this Agreement.
3.16 In the event of a breach of this Agreement by the Developer or any successor in interest, this
Agreement, and all deliveries of utilities hereunder, shall be subject to termination thirty (30) days after notice to the Developer of the breach if the breach has not been cured.
3.17 In the event the premises is delivered City utilities pursuant to this Agreement and the
premises become located outside the City’s UGA, this Agreement shall be deemed to have been terminated as provided for in the provisions dealing with the term of this Agreement. The
period of termination shall begin upon the date the premises become located outside the City’s UGA unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.
3.18 The permission to obtain City utilities contained in this Agreement shall lapse and become null
and void if the premises are not connected to the City’s utility system within two (2) years of the execution of this Agreement. Except there shall be no limitation for residential properties
up to nine (9) lots from the date the commitment is given.
4. Term: This Agreement shall be in effect so long as Developer abides, observes, and performs this Agreement and the premises remains outside the corporate limits of the City of Moses Lake. This
Agreement may be terminated by either party giving at least eighteen (18) months written notice of termination to the other, unless a shorter notice is agreed to in writing. Upon annexation of these entire premises into the City of Moses Lake, this Agreement and the subjoined Covenant and Power of Attorney shall terminate and be of no further force or effect.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 92 of 111
Dated: ____________________________________ Dated: _______________________________
By _______________________________________ By XXXX XXXX
State of Washington
County of Grant I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that XXXX signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated _____________________________________ __________________________________________ Notary Public My appointment expires _______________________
State of Washington County of Grant
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that XXXX signed this instrument, on oath stated that
he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated _____________________________________ __________________________________________ Notary Public My appointment expires _______________________
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 93 of 111
By Allison Williams City Manager
Approved by Council XX-XX-XXXX
State of Washington County of Grant I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Allison Williams signed this instrument, on oath stated
that they were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the City Manager of the City of Moses Lake to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument. Dated _____________________________________
__________________________________________ Notary Public
My appointment expires _______________________
Approved by Council XX-XX-XXXX
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 94 of 111
COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND 1. Basis: The foregoing Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land affecting the entire premises described above. Such Covenant shall be recorded with the Grant County Auditor and become a covenant of record. Such Covenant shall remain in full force and effect for the life of the Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement. Any
attempt to cancel, restrict, or modify this Covenant independent of the Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement shall terminate said Agreement immediately unless such cancellation, modification, or restriction is agreed to by the Moses Lake City Council. This Covenant shall expire and be of no further force or effect upon the annexation of the entire premises described in the foregoing Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement into the City of Moses Lake.
2. Creation: Developer, as the owner in fee simple of the above described premises, hereby creates a covenant running with the land to affect and include the entire described premises. That Covenant shall include all the terms, conditions, limitations, and obligations of the Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement above.
Dated: _________________________________
By_____________________________________ XXXX
State of Washington County of Grant
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that XXXX signed this instrument, on oath stated that
he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated _____________________________________
__________________________________________ Notary Public My appointment expires _______________________
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 95 of 111
Dated: _________________________________ By_____________________________________ XXXX
State of Washington County of Grant I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that XXXX signed this instrument, on oath stated that
he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated _____________________________________
__________________________________________ Notary Public
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 96 of 111
POWER OF ATTORNEY 1. Appointment: Developer hereby makes, constitutes, and appoints the City of Moses Lake, Washington Developer's true and lawful attorney for Developer and in Developer's name, place, and stead for the purposes stated herein.
2. Independent Advice: Developer has executed this Power of Attorney for the purposes stated after having a full understanding of the implications of the execution of this instrument. This Power of Attorney is also executed after being fully advised by Developer's own counsel as to the power being conveyed to the City of Moses Lake and with a full appreciation and waiver of any rights being abrogated.
3. Purpose: Developer appoints the City of Moses Lake as Developer's attorney for the purpose of executing any and all documents, petitions, requests, letters, or the like necessary or desirable in the process of the annexation of the premises described in the foregoing Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement into the corporate limits of the City of Moses Lake.
4. Termination: This Power of Attorney may be revoked by Developer only upon the termination of the
forgoing Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement, or upon the consent of the City of Moses Lake's City Council. The continued validity, viability, and existence of this Power of Attorney is a prerequisite of continued utility service delivery to the premises under the terms of the Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement by the City of Moses Lake. Termination of this Power of Attorney by
Developer shall immediately and automatically terminate the Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement between Developer and the City of Moses Lake. This Power of Attorney is deemed
revoked automatically upon the annexation of the entire premises described in the foregoing Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement into the corporate limits of the City of Moses Lake.
Dated: _________________________________
By_____________________________________ XXXX
State of Washington
County of Grant
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that XXXX signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated _____________________________________ By________________________________________ Notary Public
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 97 of 111
State of Washington County of Grant I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that XXXX signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of
such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated _____________________________________ __________________________________________ Notary Public
My appointment expires _______________________
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 98 of 111
ETA APPLICATION PROCESSING POLICY
EFFECTIVE XX.XX.2022 PAGE:1
City of
Moses Lake
Extra Territorial Agreement
Application Processing Policy
City Council Resolution XXXX
Effective XX.XX.2022
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 99 of 111
ETA APPLICATION PROCESSING POLICY
EFFECTIVE XX.XX.2022 PAGE:2
Table of Contents
PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
PROCESS FLOW CHART .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
APPLICATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................... 4
PROCESSING, COUNCIL ACTION, & FINALIZATION ........................................................................................................................ 5
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS LIST .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 100 of 111
ETA APPLICATION PROCESSING POLICY
EFFECTIVE XX.XX.2022 PAGE:3
ETA APPLICATION PROCESSING POLICY
RESOLUTION XXXX
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide clarification and guidance regarding the Extra Territorial Agreement
(“ETA”) instructions found within Resolution #3717 and the Extra Territorial Agreement form currently in
use. The following updated policy closely follows the Resolution and Agreement forms. The policy further
clarifies how ETA applications are to be made, guidance in how they will be processed, and guidance for
presentation to City Council for approval consideration.
STEP1
APPLICATION
(LETTER & SITE PLAN)
STEP 2A
EVALUATION
CONTIGUOUS
(ANNEXATION)
STEP 2B
EVALUATION
NON-CONTIGUOUS
(ETA)
STEP 3
STAFF PROCESSING
(PREPARE STAFF
REPORT)
STEP 4
COUNCIL
(DETERMINATION)
STEP 5A
COUNCIL DENIAL
(PROCESS ENDS)
STEP 5B
ETA FINALIZATION
(WITH CONDITIONS)
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 101 of 111
ETA APPLICATION PROCESSING POLICY
EFFECTIVE XX.XX.2022 PAGE:4
STEP 1: APPLICATION
The applicant formally makes a request for City Water and/or Sewer for specified parcels outside of
the corporate limits by a letter from the property owner(s) to the Municipal Services Director. The
letter shall include a narrative and conceptual site plan that describes the numbers of residential units
to be served, commercial uses to be served, or industrial process volumes and fire flows to be served.
STEP 2: EVALUATION:
Staff reviews the formal request and processes per the following criteria:
ETA CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
CLASS 0
IN CITY LIMITS
ANNEXATION
The parcel(s) are contiguous (touching/abutting) to existing corporate limits of the
City. These requests for Water and Sewer will require annexation as part of service.
No ETA to be issued. The only exception is if the application is accompanied by a
Grant County Health District public health emergency hookup request.
CLASS 1
PUBLIC HEALTH
STAFF SUPPORTED
The parcel(s) are not contiguous to existing corporate limits of the City. However,
the application is accompanied by a State or Local agency public health emergency
hookup request.
CLASS 2
SHORT EXTENSION
STAFF SUPPORTED
The parcel(s) are not contiguous to existing corporate limits of the City. However,
the parcel(s) have a short, developer provided, Water extension, Sewer extension,
and/or Reservoir Placement, with extensions of 0-660FT (1/8 mile), with no
pressure or fire flow capacity issues.
Residential Lot Example: New house in UGA has City water main on their frontage
street, they are requesting water service. Existing house with failing septic system,
has sewer main on their frontage street, they are requesting sewer service.
CLASS 3
PREVIOUS ETA
STAFF SUPPORTED
The parcel(s) are not contiguous to existing corporate limits of the City. However,
the parcel(s) have had previous ETA Council Approvals or Commitments that have
since expired and the proposed development has had no substantial changes.
CLASS 4
COST/SERVICE BENEFIT
STAFF SUPPORTED
The parcel(s) are not contiguous to existing corporate limits of the City. However,
the parcel(s) have a long, developer provided, Water extension, Sewer extension,
and/or Reservoir Placement that provides a benefit that is shown to exceed the
long-term costs of the service. An private engineer’s estimate for long-term City
cost-benefit analysis shall be provided with the developer’s application.
CLASS 5
NOT STAFF SUPPORTED
The parcel(s) are not contiguous to existing corporate limits of the City. However,
the long-term costs to provide the service to the parcel(s) is shown to exceed the
long-term benefits. The Applicant is encouraged to provide a narrative to the
Council for consideration in lieu of Staff support. Council may choose to provide
the service, even if it costs the City more to provide it.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 102 of 111
ETA APPLICATION PROCESSING POLICY
EFFECTIVE XX.XX.2022 PAGE:5
STEP 3: STAFF PROCESSING
The applicant will complete the ETA application by providing materials as defined in Resolution #3717, Extra
Territorial Agreement Form, and this ETA Policy. Staff will review the application and prepare a Staff Report
which includes a narrative analysis, proposed conditions of approval, and type of recommendation to the
Council. The ETA application will be presented to Council, regardless of being supported by Staff, for City
Council action consideration.
STEP 4: COUNCIL ACTION
Council reviews the Staff Report and associated application materials for approval consideration of the Extra
Territorial Agreement presented.
STEP 5A: ETA NOT PROCESSED
Staff will take no action.
STEP 5B: ETA FINALIZATION
With Council approval, Staff will prepare the ETA forms, along with any conditions of approval, for signature
the City Manager and property owner(s). The ETA will then be recorded and will run with the land for which
it provides for.
ETA INACTION AND RETURNS
The ETA must be acted upon within 2-years of issuance or it expires per Resolution #3717. The expired ETA
shall be withdrawn and returned to the land owner.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
• Resolution 3717
• Extra Territorial Agreement Form
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 103 of 111
HANSENRDSR-17
BROADWAYAVESTRATFORD RDSOUTH FRONTAGE RDE RANDOLPH RDGRAPE DRINTERSTATE90BROAD
W
AY
AV
E
PIONEERWAYPATTON BLVDK IT T ELSONRDDIVISIONSTCLOVERDRTHIRD AVE
NELSON RD
VALLEY RD
NELSON RD
WHEELER RD
YONEZAWA BLVD
TYNDALLRD
ROAD LCLOVERDRI-90ON -RAMP
ROAD 7
V
A
L
L
EYRD
ROAD NSR
-
1
7
S FRONTAGE RD N FRONTAGE RD
CITY OF MOSES LAKE | ETUA
Date: 3/2/2022
Extra-Territorial Utility Agreement
City Limits
Urban Growth Area
0 1 2Miles´Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 104 of 111
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: March 2, 2022
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: Assistant Municipal Services Director
Motion to Fund Position Once Again
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: March 8, 2022 Budgeted Amount: $ 0
• Second Presentation: Unbudgeted Amount: $ 160,000
• Action: Motion Total Cost: $ 160,000
Overview
The Municipal Services Department
previously included an Assistant Municipal
Services Director. The Assistant Director role
is very much needed for a department having
(75) staff members (See Attachment A).
However, agencies throughout the central
Washington region are having difficulty hiring
and retaining Licensed Professional
Engineers for these roles.
It should be noted that the Director position
has changed hands several times and/or has
been unfilled over the last couple years, so it is understandable that the Assistant Director position
has gone unfilled below the Director. The Department is behind on planning, management, and
organization for a reason, there has been a missing leadership role for some time now. It is time
to rebuild the Department.
PE Desired, But Not Required: A Professional Engineer with Transportation Planning and Design
Experience would be ideal, but not required for the Assistant Municipal Services Director position,
as the current Municipal Services Director, Dave Bren is a Professional Engineer.
Desired Qualities Include: Good leadership skills, good budgeting experience, good writing skills,
grant writing experience, excellent project manager experience, transportation planning experience,
transportation design experience, engineering experience, and/or construction experience.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 105 of 111
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal and Policy Implications
There is a long-term cost in Salary and Benefits for the position to be funded again. However, there
has also been a long-term production efficiency cost, as the department is behind on planning,
management, and organization over the last couple years, as the department has been missing a
key leadership role.
It should be noted that it is planned for this position to go after federal and state infrastructure
grants, thus this position should pay for itself with both production efficiency in the department
and funding infrastructure by external funding sources.
Council Packet Attachment
A. Municipal Services Organizational Chart
Finance Committee Review
N/A
Legal Review
N/A
Options
Option Results
• Motion to Fund Position Authorize funding for the Assistant Municipal Services
Director Position.
• Review and Comment Update the position per Council comments and
feedback.
• Take no action The open position will remain unfunded.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a motion to fund the Assistant Municipal Services Director position once again.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 106 of 111
Municipal Services
Organizational Chart
Wayne Ostler, PLS
Development
Surveyor
Richard Law, PE
City Engineer
Streets & Storm
Dave Bren, PE
Municipal Services
Director
Jeff Holm, EIT
Design Engineer
Streets & Storm
Michael Limbaugh
Engineering Tech 3
CAD Operator
Mark Beaulieu, PE
Project Engineer
Water & Sewer
Scott Myers
Engineering Tech 3
Senior Inspector
Levi Bisnett, PLS
Project Surveyor
Special Projects
Tyler Brady
Engineering Tech 1
Technology Specialist
Robert Harris
Development
Engineering Manager
Caleb Henson
GIS Tech 3
Utility Locates
Jason Grubb
Engineering Tech 3
Senior Inspector
Lori Lopez
Engineering Tech 1
Inspector
Cindy Smith
GIS
Program Manager
(TBD)
GIS Tech 1
Technician
(TBD)
Municipal Services
Assistant Director
(TBA)
Streets Foreman
Scott Allsbrook
Stromwater
Maintenance Tech
Doug Brant
Streets Operator
Don Terrel
Stormwater Foreman
Felix Rea
Stormwater Operator
Sheryl McHargue
Stormwater Operator
Nancy Cortez
Office Manager
Tracey Law
Public Works
Technician
Dustin Roth
Wastewater
Collection Foreman
Gary Vela
Operator I
Zack Martinez
Operator I
Franklin Ridgeway
Wastewater
Treatment Foreman
Joey Barkle
Operator III
Ignacio Deleon
Operator I
Alex Morton
Operator I
Justin Akerley
Operator in Training
Chris Campbell
Wastewater Manager
Andy Ritchie
Engineering Tech 3
CAD Operator
Chad Strevy
Water Manager
Reuel Klempel
Water Supervisor
Roger Thornton
Water Crew Leader
Gabe Deleon
Water Crew Leader
Erik Galliart
Streets Maintenance
Tech II
Adam Croy
Streets Operator
Doug Wraspir
Stormwater Operator
Jamie Lamb
Operator II
Chris Hare
Operator II
Tracy Vorwerk
Capital Projects
Coordinator
Randy Penrose
Operator II
Gary Johnson
Operator II
James McEachran
Operator II
Travis Mohs
Operator II
Bo Hancock
Operator II
Shanda Creiglow
Water Quality
Assistant
Jaime Gonzalez
Water Quality
Assistant
Rick Wadsworth
Fleet Supervisor
Joey Cliffner
Vehicle Technician
James Flippen
Vehicle Technician
Matt Wood
Fleet Manager
Devin Edwards
Vehicle Technician
Erik Johnson
Vehicle Technician
(TBD)
Vehicle Technician
Steven Mugnos
Building Maintenance
Worker II
Josh Gilmartin
Building Maintenance
Worker II
(TBD)
Building Maintenance
Manager
Dillon Massey
Building Maintenance
Worker II
(TBD)
Engineering
Admin Assistant
Brian Balzell
Streets Manager
Tony Massa
Public Works
Superintendent
(TBD)
Stormwater Manager
Ramiro Munoz
Engineering Tech 3
Senior Inspector
Josh McPherson
Building Maintenance
Supervisor
Brianna Schick
Lead Custodian
Marlie Tarakai
Custodian
Teresa Holman
Custodian
Daele Morrison
Custodian
(TBA)
Custodian
Kathy Heroux
Custodian
Devin Morris
Custodian (76) TOTAL STAFF MEMBERS
(8) OPEN POSITIONS
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 107 of 111
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: March 2, 2021
Proceeding Type: Administrative Report
Subject: Permit Center Update
PERMIT CENTER REMODEL: The Permit Center is currently
under construction. The goal is to have a single service
counter and move to an online permit portal. In addition,
the Permit Center will be operated by (2) Permit
Coordinators that will route permit projects through their
entire life cycle.
STEP1: Permit Center Remodel (current step)
STEP2: Hire Second Permit Coordinator
STEP3: Prepare and Launch Online Permit Portal
PERMIT FOR THE PERMIT CENTER: The Municipal Services
Department prepared and paid for a permit for the work. It was
important to show that the City follows the rules too.
Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 108 of 111
Community Development Project ListCouncil Admin Report March 8, 2022PERMIT NUMBER TYPELOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONSTATUSAPPLICANTPLN2021‐0077 BLAWESTSHOREBOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT for lot line correctionWAITING FOR MYLARS* KINCAIDPLN2021‐0072 BLABLUE JAY LOT CONSOLIDATIONWAITING FOR MYLARS* O'ROURKEPLN2021‐0092 BLAPENINNSULABOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT for connectivityIncomplete Application MOLITORPLN2021‐0095 BLADIVISIONLOT CONSOLIDATIONApproved w/Conditions BLANCASPLN2021‐0082 Short Subdivision WILLOW 2‐ LOT SHORT PLATApproved w/conditions ADROCKPLN2021‐0040 Short Subdivision MARINA 9 LOT SHORT PLAT, SEPA Review Approved w/Mitigations MBAR LUA2020‐0070 Short Subdivision RANDOLPH TWO LOT SHORT PLAT Final Submitted PLN2022‐0019 ODM FOREVERPLN2021‐0013 Short Subdivision RAMM SHORT PLAT TO CREATE BINDING SITE PLAN Approved w/conditions ML RV PARKPLN2021‐0058 Short Subdivision GRAPE 2 LOT SHORT PLAT Approved w/conditions BOYCHUKPLN2021‐0031 Short Subdivision WHEELERSHORT PLAT TO CREATE BINDING SITE PLAN Approved w/Conditions GOOD FAITHLUA2020‐0086 Short Subdivision KITTLESON SHORT PLAT to build storage units Covenant Required REINHARDLUA2020‐0040 Short Subdivision BEACON 1 LOT SHORT PLAT to build short plat Need to resumit FOODBANKPLN2021‐0050 Short Subdivision SHARON2‐LOT SHORT PLAT to separate house from churchWAITING FOR MYLARS* CHURCH OF CHRISTPLN2021‐0032 Binding Site Plan WHEELER 58 TRACT BINDING SITE PLANApproved w/Conditions GOOD FAITHPLN2021‐0089 Binding Site Plan AmendmentMART SEGREGATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE LARGE LOT BSPIn ReviewBUSH CARWASHPLN2021‐0083 Zoning/Subdivision Code UpdateBALSAM 2021 CODE AMENDEMENTIn ProcessCITY OF MLPLN2021‐0057 Conditional Use PermitNELSON PRESCHOOL REQUIRES CUPPublic Hearing Scheduled 3/8/22YUSOPLN2021‐0023 Major Final Plat 9TH AVE 38‐LOT PDD Phase 2RecordedGREEN'S PHASE 2PLN2021‐0034 Major Final Plat FAIRWAY 39 LOT FINAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION SUN TERRACE #8RecordedAHOMoses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 109 of 111
Community Development Project ListCouncil Admin Report March 8, 2022PERMIT NUMBER TYPELOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONSTATUSAPPLICANTPLN2021‐0090 Major Final Plat PAXSON 20+ LOT MAJOR PLAT FINAL PHASE In Final Review OLSEN HOMESPLN2021‐0027 Major Preliminary PlatGRAPE 27 LOT MAJOR PLAT Public Hearing Continued CAD HOMESLUA2020‐0063 Major Preliminary PlatWESTSHORE 57 LOT MAJOR PLAT (1 OF 3 PHASES) Approved w/conditions MITCHELL DEVELOPMENTPLN2021‐0048 Major Preliminary PlatBEAUMONT 98 Lot Residential PUD Public Hearing 03/23/22 Lakemont PMP + SEPAPLN2021‐0093 RezoneHILLSITE SPECIFIC REZONEPublic Hearing 03/23/22 CONFLUENCE PLN2021‐0088 Rezone NELSON ZONE CHANGE AND CUP FOR DENTIST OFFICEApproved ML PEDIATRICPLN2021‐0071 Shoreline ‐ Substantial Dev Pmt ResCRESTVIEW DOCK AND GANGWAYApprovedLawson Dock and GangwayPLN2021‐0079 Shoreline ‐ Substantial Dev Pmt ResLAKESHORE DOCK AND BOAT LIFT ApprovedSSDP‐ Fran Grant Dock and BoatliftPLN2021‐0038 UGA County ReviewAmend Urban Growth AreaPreparing applicationCentral Terminals LLC Short PlatPLN2021‐0070 UGA Amendment Amend Urban Growth AreaPreparing applicationCITY OF MLPLN2021‐0042 Vacation Rental LAKESIDEVacation RentalInspection required Desert Escape LLC Vacation Rental Max Occ‐ 8PLN2021‐0080 Vacation Rental INGLEWOODVacation RentalApproved VR‐ Max Occupancy 8PLN2021‐0028 ROW Vacation BLANCHETROW VACATION Public Hearing 2/8/22‐ApprovedCAD HOMESPLN2021‐0091 SEPA RANDOLPHSEPA Review for food processing facilityApplication pending HANSEN‐RICEPLN2022‐0001 SHORELINE/SEPA/JARPAMULTIPLESHORELINE STABILIZATION FOR 10 CITY OF ML SHORELINE/PARKSApprovedCITY OF MLPLN2021‐0094 SEPANORTHSHORESEPA REVIEW FOR CITY LIFT STATIONSEPA reviewCITY OF MLPLN2022‐0008 Preliminary Major SubdivisionMae Valley106‐ LOT MAJOR SUBDIVISIONIn reviewJason LinkemMoses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 110 of 111
Community Development Project ListCouncil Admin Report March 8, 2022PERMIT NUMBER TYPELOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONSTATUSAPPLICANTPLN2022‐0009 Final Short SubdivisionE. Broadway1‐Lot Short PlatApproved w/Conditions Dr. Sruti SreeramaPLN2022‐0010 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentMae ValleyAmend UGA2022 Docket Dan HerringPLN2022‐0013 Shoreline ‐ Substantial Dev Pmt ResSand Dune RdShoreline Stabilization‐new retaining wallIn reviewJohn RickeyPLN2022‐0014 Preliminary Major Subdivision/PDDLakeshore Dr17‐Lot Residential Planned Development DistrictApplication receivedCAD HOMES, LLC.PLN2022‐0015Final Subdivision/PDDGrape Dr.44‐lot Maple Grove PDD Phase 1In review Hayden Home's, LLCPLN2022‐0016 Preliminary Major Subdivision/PDDGrape Dr.98‐Single Family, ten 12‐plex apartmentsPending application Maple Landing LLC.PLN2022‐0017 Binding Site Plan AmendmentThird AveRevise ParcelsIn reviewMaiers Enterprises, LLC.PLN2022‐0018 Boundary Line AdjustmentWestshore Dr Lot ConsolidationIn reviewDustin & Jessica GerberPLN2022‐0019Final Short SubdivisionRandolph RdOne‐lot Short PlatIn ReviewTMEC Product, LLC.Wireless Communication Facilities Code Update*Waiting for Mylars‐The application has been approved. The applicant must submit final plat drawings on Mylar to record with the County Auditor.Moses Lake Council Packet 3-8-22, Page 111 of 111