FINAL 2021 1026 Council Agenda PacketMoses Lake City Council
David Curnel, Mayor | Daryl Jackson, Deputy Mayor | Mike Riggs, Council Member | Karen Liebrecht, Council Member
Don Myers, Council Member | David Eck, Council Member| Dean Hankins, Council Member
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/83652426280. 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 in person attendees.
Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, October 26, 2021
Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam or remote access
Call to Order – 7 p.m.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of the Agenda
Summary Reports:
Mayor’s Report
-Moment of Silence for Parks Superintendent Clayton Pray
Additional Business
City Manager’s Report
-Employee Promotions: Executive Assistant Jen Schober and
HR Coordinator Laura Elzig
-New Employees HR Director Shannon Springer and
Building Maintenance Custodian Devin Morice
- Utility Billing Delinquent Account Update
Motion - Berk Consultants Contract Amendment
- Agreement for Firefighter Accomodations
Citizen’s Communications Moses Lake Council Packet 10-26-21, Page 1 of 883
October 26, 2021, City Council Meeting Page 2 _________________
Public Hearings
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.
#1
Motion
#2
Motion
pg 4
Complete Streets Policy Ordinance 2991
Presented by Dave Bren, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Conduct Hearing, review, and consider adoption
pg 19
Comprehensive Plan / Housing Action Plan
Presented by Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
Summary: Conduct Hearing, discuss, and continue deliberations on Nov 9
Housing Action Plan Resolution is listed for adoption under Old Business below.
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.
#3 pg 707
a.City Council Meeting Minutes Dated October 12, 2021
b.Claims and Payroll
c.Set Dates for Public Hearing – Property Tax and Budget
d.Accept Sewer Lining Project 2019
e.Authorize CityWorks Software Contract Amendment #1
Old Business
#4
Motion
#5
Motion
pg 743
Homeless Program Contract Updates
Presented by Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
Summary: Council to review and consider approval
pg 760
Housing Action Plan Resolution 3862
Presented by Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
Summary: Council to review and consider adoption
New Business
#6
Motion
pg 881
Annual Review and approval of LTAC Application Recommendations
Presented by Allison Williams, City Manager
Summary: Council to review and consider approval
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 2 of 883
October 26, 2021, City Council Meeting Page 3 ___________ ______
Administrative Reports
Council Communications and Reports
Adjournment
Next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for November 9, 2021
Zoom Meeting – Audio Only Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://cityofml.zoom.us/j/83652426280
Or iPhone one-tap: US: +12532158782,,95160346024# or +13462487799,,95160346024# 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: 836 5242 6280. 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 10-26-21, Page 3 of 883
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: October 21, 2021
Proceeding Type: Public Hearing
Subject: Complete Streets Policy Update Ordinance 2991
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: October 12, 2021
• Second Presentation:
• Action: Public Hearing and Motion
Overview
In 2012, the City of Moses Lake adopted Ordinance 2644 establishing a Complete Streets
program and committing the City to ensure all users are planned for in the construction of all City
transportation improvement projects and encouraging healthy, active living, reduction of traffic
congestion and fossil fuels, and improvement in the safety and quality of life. Ordinance 2644
also committed the City to planning for, designing, and construcing all new transportation
projects to provide reasonable and appropriate accommodations for bicyclists, pedestrians, and
transit users, except in the following cases: (1) where the establishment would be contrary to
public safety; (2) When the cost would be disproportionate to the need or probable future use;
(3) Where there is no identified need; or (4) Where the establishment would be contraty to the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
When adopted, Moses Lake was considered an early adopter and leader in the Complete Streets
movement. Since then, policies have strengthened, additional resources made available and
eligible jurisdictions increased. As a result, it is imperative for Moses Lake to remain a competitive
entity vying for the limited technical and financial resources.
The City contracted with Firm Foundations Community Consulting (FFCC) to develop an updated
policy that strengthens the language demonstrating the commitment Moses Lake made in 2012
to provide a multimodal transportation network for the community.
City staff introduced the effort to reenergize the Complete Streets Policy and pursue available
funding directly tied to a strong policy and commitment. The staff of FFCC were also introduced
and shared a brief introduction to their work in Complete Streets and the three phases of the
Agreement which include policy development, community outreach and funding requests.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 4 of 883
Page 2 of 2
There have already been 3 application deadlines for Complete Streets funding; two of which
Moses Lake was eligble to submit an application for. In partnership with FFCC staff, City staff
presented to the Community Transportation of the Northwest (CTANW) on October 20, 2021
after being selected as a finalist in their nomination process for Complete Streets funding.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Adoption of the updated policy would replace Ordinance 2644 and place the City of Moses Lake
in a more competitive position to receive funding from the Washington State Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB) in an amount ranging from $250,000 to $1,000,000 in their current
grant process that closes on November 1, 2021 and any future Complete Streets grant programs.
Finance Committee Review N/A
Council Packet Attachments
A. 2012 EXISITING ORDINANCE #2644
B. DRAFT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY
C. 2021 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2991
Legal Review
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed
Ordinance Complete Streets Update October 21, 2021
Proposed Options
Option Results
• Adopt the Ordinance The City would be in an eligble and competitive
place to receive Complete Streets funding and
future resources to support the transportation
network.
• Take no action Staff will revisit the update process.
• Reject the Policy Ordinance 2644 will remain in place and the City
will be in a less competitive position to receive
resources to support Complete Streets.
Action Requested
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 2991 to update Complete Streets Policy as presented.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 5 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 6 of 883
COMPLETE STREETS
POLICY
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2991
“Multimodal in Moses Lake!”
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 7 of 883
Table of Contents DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 1 VISION & PURPOSE .......................................................................................................... 1 COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY ...................................................................... 3 EXPECTATIONS .................................................................................................................. 3 ACCOUNTABILITY AND BEST PRACTICES ............................................................. 4 IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 6
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 8 of 883
1
DEFINITIONS
All Users: Individuals of all ages and abilities, including, but not limited to, pedestrians,
bicyclists, public/para transit riders, people with disabilities, emergency responders, motorists,
water-based (boat, kayak, canoe, etc.) freight providers, commercial vehicles, green modes
(skateboards, rollerblades, scooters, etc.), delivery/service personnel and adjacent land users.
Complete Streets: Safe, comfortable and convenient right-of-ways for all users no matter their
age, ability or identity.
Facilities: An area or structure which is built, installed or established to serve a particular
purpose or transportation mode/user.
Maintenance Activity: Ordinary repair designed to keep Facilities in safe working condition,
such as, but not limited to, mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair,
pothole filling, water, sewer and drainage or other utility installation or repairs.
Multimodal Transportation System: A single transportation system that appropriately and
adequately accommodates two or more modes of transportation.
Right-of-Way: An area, public or private, dedicated for use by the community including
thoroughfares such as streets, highways, multiuse paths and walkways while also normally
incorporating curbs, lawn strips, street trees, sidewalks, lighting, signage, drainage facilities,
street furniture and similar features that may or may not be real property.
VISION & PURPOSE
“People need a safe and secure place to live, an
economy that provides jobs, an efficient circulation
network, alternatives to the private automobile,
schools, and recreational opportunities. It is the
local government’s responsibility to provide public
services and facilities, develop policies, and adopt
regulations to guide the growth of a city that needs
the needs of its people. This plan is for the people.”
~ City of Moses Lake Opening Paragraph
in the Comprehensive Plan
In the spirit demonstrated by the Comprehensive
Plan Introduction, this policy is for the people. The people choosing to make Moses
Lake the place to live, work and visit.
VISION
A multimodal
transportation system
for the people of Moses Lake.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 9 of 883
2
VISION: A multimodal trasnportation system for
the people of Moses Lake.
The City of Moses Lake recognizes the significant value Complete Streets brings to a
community and thus looks to strengthen the commitment originally made nearly a
decade ago (Ordinance #2644 in 2012) with a comprehensive policy update.
In order to realize the vision, the City seeks to plan, design, construct, operate, maintain
and fund complete streets in all new construction, retrofit or reconstruction projects
subject to the exceptions contained herein. Progress towards such a vision will provide
comfortable and convenient access and mobility upon, along and across right-of-ways,
trails, waterways and the transit system. Such a network will be intentionally designed
to serve users of all ages and abilities no matter the mode of transportation chosen.
Regardless of race, ethnicity, income, religion, gender identity, immigration status, age,
ability, language literacy or level of access to a personal vehicle, all individuals are valid
users of the transportation system in Moses Lake. As such, the City seeks to provide a
reliable, aesthetic, affordable and intentionally connected multimodal transportation
system that promotes health, wellbeing, quality of life, neighborhood revitalization,
economic vitality and environmental stewardship.
Moses Lake prioritizes a transportation system that provides essential connections
between home, school, work, recreation and commerce destinations for all users. In
order to facilitate access to community destinations, the City recognizes the need for a
system that complements and enhances the surrounding land use/zoning and
neighborhood character. By doing this, Complete Streets are able to:
• Preserve and contribute to improving the natural environment
• Support vibrant, livable residential neighborhoods
• Increase opportunities for improved physical health by expanding access to a
network that supports recreational use and commute-alternatives
• Develop inviting community spaces for gathering and utilization
The City recognizes the importance of quality of life and how Complete Streets
contribute to the overall health of the community by providing access to parks, trails,
sidewalks, bike lanes, transit, waterways and recreational options such as community
or senior centers. Complete Streets help make an active lifestyle more realistic for the
Moses Lake community and such an environment contributes to a reduction in chronic
disease, heart disease, stroke and depression.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 10 of 883
3
COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
Moses Lake has a great asset in the diversity of its community. From almost forty percent (40%)
Spanish-speaking and just below fifteen percent (15%) living with a disability to households
with lived experiences across a broad distribution of income and generations, local perspectives
can contribute to well-rounded considerations of needs, values and priorities. Aligning with the
2021 update to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Comprehensive Plan, a Complete
Streets survey resulted in the following community priorities:
• Public Safety
• Outdoor Activities
• Social Activity (followed closely by a priority of personal health)
While projects and programs are implemented to support such priorities, it is important to
consider both overall community values and greatest community benefit. The Complete Streets
survey identified “Transparency” as the top voted value the City should operate within when
moving forward with improving the transportation network. At a tie for the second and third
community-identified values, “Implementation” and “Community Engagement” demonstrated
a desire from the community to see the policy be an active, living document that leads to change
in partnership with those it will affect.
Together, the three top values demonstrate and opportunity for the City to complete next steps
after adopting the policy with support of the community and through an approach that is both
transparent and engaging of the Moses Lake community.
Transparency is specifically an important piece to Complete Streets policy as it relates to both
accountability and appropriate use of the policy. Strength of the policy is found in the way its
guidance is applied including:
• Consideration of all users and all modes in new construction, retrofit and reconstruction;
• Consideration of needs or gap-opportunities for all users and all modes in maintenance
and ongoing operations such as resurfacing, repaving, restriping, rehabilitation or other
non-construction projects; and
• Consideration of how all users and all modes can continually utilizing the transportation
network safely and efficiently during active projects that may infringe upon right-of-
way access for any length of duration.
EXPECTATIONS
Completing projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner often requires coordination among
multiple entities and support from the community whether residents or advocacy groups.
When affected stakeholders have an understanding of policy application, projects are able to see
a more streamlined process to completion.
Working intra- and interdepartmentally at the City or across jurisdictions such as Grant County
or Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) are expectations with future
projects. A coordinated manner supports consistency in project design, construction and
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 11 of 883
4
maintenance. Non-City entities funding a project directly benefiting the Moses Lake community
are encouraged to recognize this Policy and, to the greatest extent feasible, incorporate
principles herein and work with City staff to contribute to an intentionally connected
multimodal transportation system in Moses Lake from the earliest stages of project planning,
design and engineering.
Supporting Complete Streets in Moses Lake with transparency includes identifying where the
application of this policy may be an exception. While committed to Complete Streets and the
implementation of this policy and/or its principles, extraordinary circumstances will arise such
as the following:
• Where a project of any degree involves prohibited use (interstate, freeways, pedestrian
malls, etc.) by law. Exclusion of specific users should not exempt projects from
accommodating other permitted users. In a case such as this, In this case, an effort to
accommodate access elsewhere should be considered;
• Where a reasonable and equivalent project along the same corridor is already
programmed to provide facilities exempted from the project at hand;
• When there is a document absence of current and future need;
• When the cost of accommodation demonstrations a disproportion to the cost;
• During routine maintenance of the transportation network that does not change the
geometry or operations such as mowing, sweeping, spot-repair, surface treatments (chip
sealing or interim measures) and other similarly-identified approaches;
• During an emergency (e.g., water main leak) that requires immediate, rapid response.
Seeing that Complete Streets extends beyond a physical project and includes aesthetics,
functionality of a community and complementary uses of the infrastructure and facilities, it is
expected that both transportation and non-transportation projects seek to consider
implementation of the Policy. Projects such as residential, commerce or social services hold a
significant contribution to the community and its diverse users and therefore are important to
consider access to and mobility of these spaces.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND BEST PRACTICES
As indicated in the Transportation element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, transportation
infrastructure needs are high, met with constraints and require foresight in planning for future
demand. Together, these factors demand that communities are proactive in broadening access
to available resources, partnerships and community support; updating this Policy from its 2012
version directly supports such an action.
“By adopting a Complete Streets ordinance, the City Council has committed to building
‘Complete Streets’, which means accommodating all forms of transportation, including vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, transit and freight. Street design and location planning will need to this
into account.”
~ City of Moses Lake in the
Transportation Element (6-3, 2016)
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 12 of 883
5
As adopted in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and established by the Quad-County
Regional Transportation Plan, this Policy aligns with the following goals and objectives
identified for the region’s transportation network:
• Safety: Improving transportation and pedestrian safety
• Economic Vitality: Enhancing the
region’s economic vitality by promoting
and developing transportation systems
that stimulate, support and enhance the
movement of people and goods,
recreation and tourism, and access to
jobs.
• Environment: Protecting the region’s
environment and high quality of life
through transportation investments that
promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the
environment.
• Preservation: Preserving and extending the useful life of prior
transportation system investments.
• Mobility: Enhancing the mobility of
people and goods throughout the region by providing an interconnected
transportation system and opportunities
for choosing different transportation
modes.
• Stewardship: Improving the quality,
effectiveness, and efficiency of the
region’s transportation system and
growing communities with cost effective investments that have public support.
Consistent at all levels of jurisdictions (local, county and region) is the emphasis of Complete
Streets concepts and the acknowledgement that efforts expand beyond physical infrastructure
and facilities. Such coordination among transportation-focused entities is vital and may be
strengthened by considering viewpoints and consultation with additional community-focused
stakeholders such as housing, social services, economic development and public health.
The City of Moses Lake strives to operate within the highest of standards, best practices and
latest design guidelines when considering development flexibility within safe design
parameters and balanced design solutions. A balanced approach takes into consideration
considers street functionality, desired operating speed, hierarchy of streets, connectivity, way-
finding signs and signal variation from a human scale for the needs and comforts of all users. In
general, the City will follow accepted or adopted standards when implementing this Policy and
where comparable levels of safety and service are maintained will consider innovative or non-
traditional options. Criteria for design shall be based on the thoughtful application of
engineering, architectural and urban design principles in addition to prescriptive guidelines.
Best practices, policies, criteria, standards and guidelines related to street design, construction,
maintenance and operations can be found in, but are not limited to, the following:
1. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
2. National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design
3. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
4. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
5. ADA Standards for Accessible Design
6. Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board
Additional agencies that provide support in contextual application for Complete Street include:
• Smart Growth America
• National Complete Streets Coalition
• Washington State Transportation Improvement Board
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 13 of 883
6
IMPLEMENTATION
Complete Streets is more than a checkbox in the world of transportation and actually a way of
moving forward both community and economic development comprehensively. This Policy is
an integral part of City operations, decision processes and serving the community well.
Implementation of this Policy will begin with formal adoption and continue through updated
plans, complementary policies and development processes as identified in this section.
City departments most appropriate to support implementation of the Policy are Municipal
Services (public works/engineering), Community Development and Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services. In close working relation with these departments, the Moses Lake Trails
Planning Team (TPT) is aptly structured to provide a community perspective to the efforts.
Together, the aforementioned will be able to support the following steps to implementation:
1. Develop a Complete Streets committee that includes representatives from the City,
public transit, ADA users, education and employment. Consideration of expanding the
focus of the Trails Planning Team may be an opportunistic adjustment.
2. Establish a project selection criteria that prioritizes the following factors via a
quantitative analysis process:
a. Benefit to neighborhoods with low- or moderate-income households
b. Benefit to historically disadvantaged neighborhoods
c. Improving access to opportunity for vulnerable users
d. Supports access for 2+ modes that are not single occupant vehicles
e. Value attributed to each category where access is improved for non-single-
occupant vehicles including locations of employment, education, nutrition,
health, safety and recreation.
3. Establish a project evaluation criteria that examines the following considerations via a
combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis within 6mo of project completion.
a. Was there a community engagement process before, during and after the project?
b. Did the project receive feedback from individuals that reflect the diversity of the
Moses Lake community?
i. Percent Hispanic/Latino
ii. Distribution of income
iii. Representation of generations
iv. Neighborhood of residence
c. Did any unintended consequences (involuntary displacement) result?
4. Create an annual Moses Lake Complete Streets Report that includes selection and
evaluation criteria for each project and Complete Street metrics including, but not
limited to, the following:
a. Miles of bike lanes (sharrows, striped, protected, separated, etc.)
b. Miles of sidewalk (new, reconstructed, repaired, etc.)
c. Intersection improvements (crosswalks, new timing, stop signs, etc.)
d. Crosswalks (striped, improved signal, signage, distance, etc.)
e. ADA (curb ramps, parking, access ramps, etc.)
f. Collision data (location and modes involved)
g. Beautification efforts (trees, murals, façade improvements, etc.) It is recommended that the annual report be produced in partnership with the City of Moses Lake
staff and the Moses Lake Trails Planning Team.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 14 of 883
7
5. Examine Complete Streets language, goals and policy in the Comprehensive Plan for
necessary updates including in the Transportation, Land Use and Housing elements.
6. Provide a Complete Streets workshop or training opportunity for the Moses Lake
community including City staff, elected officials and other stakeholders by end of 2022.
It is recommended to at least include planners, engineers, planning commission members and
members of the City Council.
7. Establish a Complete Streets location on the City’s website where the community may
become familiar with how to receive updates, provide feedback and learn.
When streets are complete – safe, comfortable, convenient and intentionally connected – all
users have more opportunities to be active when they travel from place to place. Complete
Streets affect transportation planning, design, maintenance and funding decisions while
transforming streets from a barrier to public health and equal opportunity to an asset for public
health and access to opportunity enabling greater return on investment of public dollars.
The City of Moses Lake recognizes this Policy is a community benefit and a responsible way to
accommodate a growing community, create an inclusive environment and promote safety in a
cost-effective, comprehensive way.
This policy is for the people!
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 15 of 883
ORDINANCE 2991
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2644 AND UPDATING
THE MOSES LAKE COMPLETE STREETS POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake adopted Ordinance 2644 on March 13, 2012
establishing a Complete Streets Program; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2644 established a purpose to ensure all users are
planned for in the construction of all City transportation improvement projects and
encouraging healthy, active living, reduction of traffic congestion and fossil fuels, and
improvement in the safety and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2644 committed Moses Lake to plan for, design, and
construct all new transportation projects to provide reasonable and appropriate
accommodations for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users; except where identified;
and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2644 placed Moses Lake among other early-adopters that
committed to Complete Streets before its rapid growth around 2015; and
WHEREAS, Since the Complete Streets movement has continued to evolve, so
has the need to maintain a strong Complete Streets policy in order to be competitive for
resources made available to support Complete Streets efforts; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the legislature provided funding for the Complete Streets
Award as a new opportunity for local governments that have an adopted ordinance and
are able to demonstrate an ethic of planning and constructing streets that use context
sensitive solutions to accommodate all users (walk, bike, transit, boat, etc.) to be
considered as an eligible jurisdiction for nomination to receive between $250,000 to
$1,000,000 in Washington State Transportation Improvement Board funding; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake recognizes the value or actively promoting
safe, comfortable, convenient and intentionally connected streets through design,
education and enforcement of all its transportation network for users of all ages and
abilities including, but not limited to, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists,
boaters, emergency responders, fright transfers and commercial vehicle operators; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake seeks to plan, design, construct, operate and
maintain public right-of-ways that safely and adequately provide access and mobility
for users of all ages, abilities and modes; and
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 16 of 883
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake acknowledges that comprehensive
implementation if Complete Streets concepts extends beyond the physical right-of-way
to include facilities and amenities such as pavement markings, signs, medians, curbs
extensions, crosswalks, ADA ramps or signals, transit shelters, access routes to right-of-
way, user detection technology, travel lanes, parking, shade trees, landscaping,
planters, lighting, street furniture, vendors and storm water treatment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses lake supports development that leads to the
potential for healthier citizenry, cleaner air, reduced traffic congestion, economic
development, livable neighborhoods, reduced fossil fuel reliance and efficient use of
right-of-way space and resources.
NOW, THEREOFRE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The Complete Streets Policy as set forth in Attachment “A” attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though fully set forth shall be and hereby is approved and
adopted and shall assist with the development and maintenance of transportation
systems in a manner consistent with established guidance and best practices.
The City of Moses Lake encourages transportation-interested entities to coordinate with
the City in implementing the Complete Streets Policy to enhance the local, county and
state right-of-ways designated within and adjacent to the Urban Growth Area.
The City of Moses Lake directs staff to consider the Complete Streets Policy in the
planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the comprehensive
multimodal transportation system initiated after the adoption hereof.
SECTION 2.
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, Washington and signed by its
Mayor on October 26, 2021.
___________________________________
David Curnel, Mayor
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 17 of 883
ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _____________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk Katherine L Kenison, City Attorney
Riggs Liebrecht Myers Jackson Curnel Eck Hankins
VOTE
Date Published: November 1, 2021
Date Effective: November 6, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 18 of 883
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA BILL
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
Date: October 18, 2021
Proceeding Type: Public Hearing
Subject: Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: Various workshops throughout fall of 2020 and spring and summer of 2021
• Public Hearing: October 26, 2021
• Action: Consider adoption of the HAP Resolution under Consent
Consider adoption of the Comp Plan on November 9, 2021
Overview
Over the last year the City of Moses Lake has been going through the process of updating its
Comprehensive Plan (A detailed staff report is attached as Exhibit 1).
On September 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and ultimately recommended
approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan. The Planning Commission
recommendation included changes in the Urban Growth Boundary different than presented by staff.
Those changes were presented in a workshop with Council on October 12, 2021.
Changes to the Comprehensive Plan since the Planning Commission process include the following:
• In response to public comment received during the Planning Commission hearing, the
Master Planned Development Priority overlay was removed from the Land Use element
and Future Land Use Map.
• In response to comments from the Port, we have corrected the plan maps to show the
corrected UGA boundary.
• We have updated the CFP Appendix to include updated capital project information from
the Parks department.
• General updates to correct typographical errors and document formatting.
Fiscal and Policy Implications:
The City of Moses Lake is updating its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations per the
Growth Management Act (GMA). Every eight years the City must review and, if needed, revise its
comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply
with the GMA. Review and evaluation include, but is not limited to, an analysis of the population
allocated to the City by the County from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the office of
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 19 of 883
Page 2 of 2
financial management. (RCW 36.70A.130). Failure to update the plan as required will place the City out
of compliance with the State GMA and future funding sources could be in jeopardy.
Council Packet Attachments
A. Staff Report (including attachments A-F)
B. Public Comment Received (Exhibits)
C. Comprehensive Plan (10 files)
Committee Review
Updates were given to various committees throughout the year.
Legal Review
Legal has been involved in the process and review during the update.
Options
Option Results
• Adoption of Comprehensive Plan and
HAP
The City will create an Ordinance to present at
the next City Council meeting to adopt the Comp
Plan.
The HAP Resolution is listed on tonight’s Consent
Agenda.
• Take no action
• Take public testimony and close Public
Hearing to deliberate at a future
meeting.
The City will remain out of compliance with the
State Growth Management Act which could
result in potential litigation and reduced funding.
The matter would be placed on the next
available council meeting for discussion and
deliberation by the Council. The Public Hearing
would be closed.
Action Requested
Staff recommends the City Council open the public hearing and take public testimony and then
close the hearing and continue the deliberations until the next regular scheduled meeting. A
suggested motion is available in the staff report (page 14). An Ordinance will be brought at the
next regular meeting (November 9, 2021) for adoption.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 20 of 883
Community Development Department
Moses Lake Civic Center Annex· 321 S. Balsam Street · P.O. Drawer 1579 · Moses Lake, WA 98837
www.cityofml.com · 509-764-3750
Exhibit 1
City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
Update
Staff Report to City Council October 18, 2021
Purpose of Plan Update
The City of Moses Lake is updating its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations per the
Growth Management Act (GMA). Every eight years the City must review and, if needed, revise its
comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations
comply with the GMA. Review and evaluation includes, but is not limited to, an analysis of the
population allocated to the City by the County from the most recent ten-year population
forecast by the office of financial management. (RCW 36.70A.130). In a related work program
that is underway, the City anticipates revising its development regulations starting in 2021 with
anticipated adoption in mid-2022. The new development code will implement the Future Land
Use Map and other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan including the Housing Action Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are meant to fulfil GMA goals to promote
urban growth where there are services and infrastructure, protect the environment and open
space, to meet housing needs, and economic development considerations, provide for fair
permit processes, and avoid sprawl (RCW 36.70A.020). The Comprehensive Plan is also meant to
meet the individual Element requirements in GMA which typically includes an inventory and
policies and plans for land use, housing, economic development, parks and recreation, utilities,
capital facilities, and transportation (RCW 36.70A.070).
The City of Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan Update is an opportunity not only to meet GMA
requirements, but also to refresh the plan vision, analyze key conditions and trends, create a
reader-friendly format with updated policies, and prepare new implementing codes to make
Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan more usable and fulfill its community vision.
Along with the Comprehensive Plan Update the City has developed a Housing Action Plan (HAP)
allowed under GMA (RCW 36.70A.600) to support the Comprehensive Plan and guide future
policies, programs, and regulatory proposals in the future.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 21 of 883
Page 2 of 14
Summary of Public Engagement and Stakeholder Outreach
Public engagement and stakeholder outreach for the Comprehensive Plan Update began in
September 2020. Engagement methods included interviews and group discussions, community
focus groups, an online Story Map, and an online survey. The engagement process was focused
concurrently on the development of the Moses Lake HAP and the Comprehensive Plan Update
process. The goal of the engagement process was to engage people in developing a community
vision, assessing housing needs, and identifying important community issues. Participants in the
engagement process included a broad cross-section of Moses Lake residents, businesses, and
community groups, including the following:
Local residents and local business owners;
Chamber of Commerce representatives;
Retired staff from Big Bend Community College;
Grant County Transit Authority;
Natural gas service provider;
Real estate agents;
Residential Lender;
Rotary Club members;
Grant County Public Utility District;
Grant County Housing Authority;
Land and housing developers;
An expert in sustainable tourism;
Moses Lake Community Coalition;
Grant County Public Libraries;
Moses Lake School District;
Hope Source;
Grant County Conservation District;
Columbia Basin Railroad/Central Washington Railroad;
Economic development professionals
Landlords;
A former Moses Lake City Council member;
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 22 of 883
Page 3 of 14
Moses Lake Youth Baseball representatives; and
Former City of Moses Lake employees.
Public Engagement Activities
The following engagement tools and activities were held to gain community and stakeholder
input regarding the HAP and Comprehensive Plan Update:
Interviews and Group Discussions – six discussions were held with thirteen housing
stakeholders.
Community Focus Groups – nine focus groups were held virtually and included nineteen
participants; one group was held in Spanish.
Story Map – An online visual Story Map was created to give community members and
stakeholders an opportunity to learn more about the Comprehensive Plan update and
concurrent HAP process. Participants provided comments related to community assets,
community needs, and future hopes; eighty-two comments were received.
Online Survey – a survey was offered which identified housing needs in Moses Lake,
community assets, community concerns, and respondents’ vision for Moses Lake; forty-
three survey responses were received.
Key Topics from the public engagement process related to the Comprehensive Plan included:
Increase activity in Downtown Moses Lake.
Activate and make use of the Moses Lake Waterfront.
Improve City relationship with businesses and foster a more supportive and welcoming
environment, especially for Spanish-speaking entrepreneurs.
Plan for growth around Yonezawa Boulevard and on the Peninsula.
Consider a long-term approach to the relationship with the Larson neighborhood.
Build perception of a community that is welcoming to new businesses and residents.
Improve lake water quality.
Protect prime agricultural land.
Smart Growth principles to accommodate growth, thoughtfully.
More housing choices; and
Opportunities for cooperation and partnership with Grant County, legislature, and
business community.
Community members and stakeholders who participated in the Phase I engagement also shared
their opinions on assets, concerns, and hopes and desires for Moses Lake. Key themes for each
category are detailed below.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 23 of 883
Page 4 of 14
Assets
Participants noted that Moses Lake has a great quality of life, including:
Weather: four complete seasons with lots of sun
Easy to get around by car
Good manufacturing jobs
Outdoor recreation, including the lake
Other assets expressed by participants include:
Participants like the small town feel and sense of community.
Central location within Washington and has good access to all parts of the state.
Affordable electricity, fast internet, and excellent coverage.
Large number of parks.
New Downtown transit center which opened in 2017.
Diversity of people.
Key Themes Related to Concerns
Participants expressed several concerns as follows:
Perception that civic institutions are unwelcoming and recalcitrant, including in relation
to new and existing businesses.
Rising housing prices were expressed as a key concern.
Participants expressed concern about lake water quality and continued deterioration.
Lack of recreation opportunities for youth, include non-sports activities and indoor
activities.
Increasing homelessness and lack of resources to address it.
Population growth, sprawl, and strain on existing transportation infrastructure and
schools were identified as a concern.
Decreasing aquifer water supply.
Lack of daycare services and other childcare options; and
Lack of high-quality healthcare services, including behavioral healthcare.
Other concerns expressed during the engagement process were related to perceptions of
increasing crime and lack of response by the City.
Hopes and Desires
In addition to assets and concerns, participants were given the opportunity to express their
hopes and desires for Moses Lake, as follows:
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 24 of 883
Page 5 of 14
Interest in Downtown businesses and parks orienting towards the lake as a key feature
of the Downtown.
Smart investment to improve lake water quality and protect aquifer.
More vibrant Downtown and investment in businesses.
Better opportunities for safe, healthy, engaging youth activities, such as arts and sports.
Better amenities, especially restaurants.
Build a tourism economy around the lake.
Improve transportation system with new bridge across the lake.
Better community aesthetics.
Enhance Patton and Broadway as a community gateways.
Keeping Moses Lake’s small town feel.
Jobs for community members, particularly young people who want to stay in the
community.
Urban Design Visioning and Visual Preference Surveys
To gather additional feedback from residents regarding the renewed vision for Moses Lake and
the direction of future development in the community, City staff attended community group
meetings and set up information stations at public events listed below. At these engagements,
staff answered questions and accepted comments from the public regarding the Comprehensive
Plan Update, the HAP, and the updated Vision for Moses Lake. Community members also had
the opportunity to participate in a visual preference survey exercise (pictures included as public
comment), in which they could vote on sample architectural and urban design image to indicate
their preferences for future development in Moses Lake. The City had over 300 citizens
participate.
Rotary
Chamber of Commerce
Grant County Fair
Chamber Business Expo
Othello-Moses Lake Association of Realtors
Comprehensive Plan Update
Vision
A vision states a community’s best desired future and guides the plan goals and policies and
development regulations toward that vision. Based on the public engagement and stakeholder
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 25 of 883
Page 6 of 14
outreach effort described in the previous section, the stakeholder group, Planning Commission,
and City Council worked to develop the following vision statement that embodies the desires
and aspirations of Moses Lake’s residents and forms the foundation for the goals, policies, and
priorities established in this Comprehensive Plan.
A Vision for Moses Lake
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, abundance of sunshine, and outdoor activities.
The Vision element of the Comprehensive Plan also establishes a series of supporting goals, each
based on a key element of the vision statement.
Embrace the city’s diversity and foster inclusivity.
Foster economic innovation and opportunity.
Strengthen the character and identity of Moses Lake.
Build upon the city’s recreational amenities.
Carry out long term planning to ensure sustainability.
Comprehensive Plan Elements
All elements of the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan have been updated with new inventory
information and analysis and refreshed goals and policies. To create a more streamlined and
cohesive document, several elements of the previous Comprehensive Plan have been
reorganized, the following elements have been consolidated:
The Roles and Responsibilities element has been incorporated into the plan Introduction;
and
The Essential Public Facilities element has been incorporated into the Capital Facilities
element.
The following subsections briefly describe the updates to each draft element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Introduction
Documents the public engagement process the guided development of this draft plan.
Incorporates the general goals and policies formerly contained in the Roles &
Responsibilities element.
Updates the discussion of Plan Implementation Measures to reflect items completed since
the last periodic plan update and new items identified in the current draft plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 26 of 883
Page 7 of 14
Vision
Establishes a new vision statement for the Comprehensive Plan, based on public input, and a
series of supporting goals.
Identifies a list of future catalyst projects that would help implement the Comprehensive
Plan.
Land Use
Updates the discussion of existing conditions and trends, including updated population
information from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) and updated
population growth projections for Moses Lake.
Updates description of existing land uses, economic conditions, and environmentally critical
areas.
Refreshes goals and policies with renewed emphasis on providing housing variety and
flexibility through land use regulations, broader application of design standards to foster
more cohesive urban design, and establish gateway corridors to welcome visitors to Moses
Lake.
Establishes two new Future Land Use Map designations:
Downtown – This designation replaces the existing Central Business District designation
and is written to emphasize Downtown as the civic, cultural, and artistic center of
Moses Lake and to provide a greater mix of land uses, including mixed-use, live-work,
and high-density multifamily residential.
Gateway Commercial – This designation promotes more aesthetically pleasing
commercial, mixed-use, and multifamily residential uses along major transportation
corridors.
Removes the Business & Office Center and Residential Redevelopment Area Future Land
Use Map designations.
Establishes three overlay districts for areas with special considerations for future
development. These overlays establish a common set of design principles and development
priorities, regardless of the underlying land use designation:
Downtown Creative District
Broadway Revitalization District
EPA Groundwater Institutional Control Boundary
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 27 of 883
Page 8 of 14
Housing
Updates description of housing conditions and trends in Moses Lake, including:
Population and demographic characteristics;
Households and household income;
Homelessness and housing affordability; and
Housing inventory, housing development capacity, and housing production trends.
Incorporates by reference the 2020 Housing Needs Analysis and the 2021 HAP, which
establishes the City’s strategy for meeting ongoing housing needs in Moses Lake.
Refreshes goals and policies to ensure alignment with the housing strategies established by
the HAP, specifically to provide greater housing variety and diversity, promote housing
affordability, and ensure Moses Lake’s housing stock is safe and of high-quality.
Utilities
Updates description of utilities and planned capital projects to reflect the latest available
system plans prepared by the City (water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste) and other
non-City providers (electricity, natural gas, telecommunications) operating in Moses Lake.
Establishes Level of Service (LOS) standards for City-provided utility services for the purpose
of evaluating concurrency under GMA.
Refreshes and reorganizes goals and policies for clarity and to remove duplicative policy
language.
Transportation
Updates the description of the city’s transportation network, including non-motorized and
multimodal facilities; public transit service; airport facilities; and traffic conditions, to reflect
the latest data available.
Establishes roadway LOS standards for the purpose of evaluating concurrency under GMA.
Updates forecasts of future traffic conditions based on anticipated population growth and
identifies necessary transportation improvements to meet future needs.
Refreshes and reorganizes goals and policies to better align with GMA concurrency
requirements and better promote transit and non-motorized transportation.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 28 of 883
Page 9 of 14
Capital Facilities
Updates description of City facilities and services, including municipal facilities, fire and
emergency medical services, police, parks and recreation, schools, and libraries to reflect
the latest available system plans prepared by the City and other non-City providers
operating in Moses Lake.
Establishes Level of Service (LOS) standards for City-provided services for the purpose of
evaluating concurrency under GMA and identifies planned capital projects.
Establishes a process for siting Essential Public Facilities, as required by GMA.
Refreshes and reorganizes goals and policies for greater clarity and to reduce duplication.
Capital Facilities goals and policies now include the goals and policies formerly contained in
the Essential Public Facilities element.
Capital Facilities Plan Appendix
The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Appendix contains a consolidated capital facility inventory and
capital funding analysis for the capital facility categories addressed in the Capital Facilities,
Transportation, and Utilities elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The CFP provides a detailed
forecast of capital improvements needed to meet GMA concurrency requirements and
associated revenue and cost projections; the cost estimates from the CFP and Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP) will inform the City’s annual budget. The CFP sets a framework for the
update of functional plans (e.g. water, sewer, etc.) to match the LOS and growth assumptions.
Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map (Attachment A) implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
specifically the Land Use element, which defines Future Land Use designations. These
designations serve as the basis for the City’s zoning map and development regulations.
As described in the discussion of the Land Use element, the draft Future Land Use Map contains
the following general changes from the current map:
Establish a new Downtown designation to replace the Central Business District designation
in the downtown core.
Establish a new Gateway Commercial designation along major transportation corridors and
entry points to Moses Lake.
Removes the Business & Office Center and Residential Redevelopment Area designations.
These areas have been re-designated to be consistent with surrounding designations and
land use patterns.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 29 of 883
Page 10 of 14
Redesignate single-family residential and medium-density residential properties in the
unincorporated UGA near the intersections of Valley Road NE/Ottmar Road NE and Valley
Road NE/Denton Road NE as High Density Residential to create additional residential
capacity near a planned neighborhood commercial node.
Redesignate properties in the unincorporated UGA south of I-90, north of Baseline Road NE,
and east of Potato Hill Road NE from Business & Office Center to Low Density Residential in
anticipation of this area being removed from the UGA.
Redesignate approximately 130 acres of vacant land between the municipal airport Road K
NE from Industrial to Medium Density Residential.
Redesignate approximately 29 of vacant, City-owned land adjacent to the west side of the
municipal airport from Parks & Open Space to Public Facilities to accommodate the planned
expansion of airport facilities onto this property.
Land Use/Zoning Amendment Requests
The draft Future Land Use Map also includes land use designation changes requested by private
applicants where such requests were determined to be consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and would not conflict with City-initiated changes. A memorandum
evaluating these requests for consistency with the goals and scope of the Comprehensive Plan
update process is presented in Attachment B.
Potential Urban Growth Area Revisions
As part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the City is considering revisions to its Urban
Growth Area boundary. (UGA boundary revisions must be coordinated with and approved by
Grant County.) The City began coordination with Grant County on the potential need for
revisions to the Moses Lake UGA in Fall 2020, including ongoing partnership between the
jurisdictions for the regulation of future development in the unincorporated UGA. Topics of
primary concern included the following:
• Consistency of County and City development regulations for unincorporated areas in the
UGA;
• Allocation of growth targets between incorporated and unincorporated areas of the UGA;
and
• Phasing of future growth in the unincorporated UGA based on availability of urban services
and infrastructure, land capacity, and development demand.
As part of this coordination effort, the City identified a series of growth-related objectives for
both incorporated and unincorporated portions of the UGA, which include the following:
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 30 of 883
Page 11 of 14
Creation of a UGA that meets the population and employment growth needs of Moses Lake,
but is compact and capable of being adequately served by public infrastructure and essential
City services, including water and sewer utilities, transportation, police protection, and fire
and emergency medical services, in keeping with GMA guidance.
Encouraging density in areas near the city center and re-orienting downtown toward the
lake.
Identifying and promoting areas of increased density near commercial centers that can
serve as “complete” community nodes.
Identifying zones/neighborhoods where infill housing could be promoted through
duplex/triplex/ADU development.
Incentivizing denser housing types and affordability to provide greater housing options.
Identifying opportunities for development around the municipal Airport.
In addition, the potential amendments to the UGA boundary under consideration respond the
following specific requests:
A request from Grant County to evaluate the southeastern UGA boundary, specifically the
possible enclosure of rural lands south of Wheeler Road and north of East Kittelson Road.
Requests from private property owners to add or remove properties from the UGA, if
considered consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, GMA guidance and best
practices for UGA sizing, and service availability, as described above. A memorandum
evaluating these requests for consistency with the goals and scope of the Comprehensive
Plan update process is presented in Attachment B.
A map of potential UGA boundary amendments for deliberation by the City Council is included as
Attachment C. As shown, the draft revision would result in a net decrease in the size of the UGA.
However, Moses Lake has more than sufficient development capacity within the incorporated
city limits and the unincorporated UGA to meet projected population growth for the next 20
years (which exceeds the City’s adopted GMA growth target). A memorandum presenting a
detailed analysis of land capacity and ability to meet growth targets is included as Attachment D.
In addition to growth capacity, present and projected ability to provide urban services is a key
consideration for any UGA boundary amendment, particularly if adding territory to the UGA. The
City currently has several extra-territorial utility agreements (ETUA) to provide water and/or
sewer services to areas outside city limits. A map of these areas is provided as Attachment E. The
draft UGA boundary would create a more compact, logical boundary while covering all
unincorporated areas currently subject to ETUA’s
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 31 of 883
Page 12 of 14
The Public Hearing Process
The Planning Commission and City Council held joint work sessions from April through July to
consider the Vision, Housing Action Plan (HAP), and Future Land Use Map among other topics.
The Planning Commission also held two work sessions over August and September to consider
the Draft Plan chapters.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing On September 16, 2021 to take comments on the
Comprehensive Plan and HAP. The Commission continued the hearing until September 23, 2021
to allow for additional public comment and allow for a presentation by BERK regarding growth
rates and Urban Growth Area sizing. On September 23, 2021 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan and HAP with UGA boundary adjustments.
On October 12, 2021 the City Council held a workshop to consider the Planning Commission
recommendations as well as comments from State agencies consistent with GMA.
At the time of deliberations, the City Council will develop motions based on the following
findings of facts and conclusions of law:
Findings of facts:
1. The City of Moses Lake has adopted the Moses Lake Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW Chapter 36.70A, which cover the
Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
2. The City of Moses Lake City Council is responsible for long-range planning matters and
providing implementation recommendations to assure compliance with the Growth
Management Act for the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area in coordination with Grant
County and within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Moses Lake. These measures
include updates and amendments to the comprehensive plan; development regulations,
environmental regulations, and any other rules, actions or regulations deemed necessary to
implement the Growth Management Act.
3. The City of Moses Lake held several joint workshops with both the Planning Commission and
the City Council throughout the planning process.
4. On August 24, 2021, the City of Moses Lake provided formal notice to the Washington State
Department of Commerce of the intent to adopt the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan,
initiating the sixty-day state agency review and comment periods. Submittals included the
Housing Action Plan, Draft Comprehensive Plan with attachments.
5. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on September 1, 2021, with the
comment period ending September 16, 2021. The Draft Comprehensive Plan, Housing Action
Plan, proposed amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary, DNS and SEPA Checklist were
submitted to the SEPA Register. (Attachment E)
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 32 of 883
Page 13 of 14
6. On September 16, 2021, the City of Moses Lake Planning Commission conducted an
advertised public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the hearing until September
23, 2021 to hear additional testimony and entered into the record the files on this
amendment, accepted public testimony, and deliberated the merits of the proposal. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan with adjustments to
the UGA boundary.
7. On October 8, 2021 written comment was received from the Department of Commerce
referencing the Housing Action Plan and Needs Assessment. The letter also commented on
the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area and agreed the City should consider removal of areas
where it would be difficult to extend urban services.
8. A revised DNS SEPA with additional comment period was submitted in response to comments
and additional information presented and received.
9. The City advertised the October 26th Public Hearing for City Council on October 4, 11, and 18,
2021. In addition the City advertised the legal notice with a ¼ page advertisement including
map on October 13, 19 and 26 of 2021.
10. The City of Moses Lake City Council has reviewed the entire record including the goals and
policies of the comprehensive plan and public testimony as it relates to the proposed
amendments and to the Moses Lake Urban Area Comprehensive Plan.
11. The City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan includes an updated Capital Facilities Element
that is consistent with and supports the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. RCW
36.70A.120 establishes that, “Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under
RCW 36.70A.040 shall perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity
with its comprehensive plan.” WAC 365-196-415(2)(c)(ii) establishes that, “The six-year plan
should be updated at least biennially so financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of the
present for concurrency to be evaluated. Such an update of the capital facilities element may
be integrated with the county’s or city’s annual budget process for capital facilities.”
Findings:
1. This is a non-project action setting goals and policies for the city.
2. Protection of the environment is inherently a goal of the draft Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City will adopt development regulations which are intended to provide further
protections for the environment and critical areas as well as implement the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 33 of 883
Page 14 of 14
Suggested Conclusions of Law:
1. The procedural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act have been
complied with.
2. The procedural requirements of RCW 36.70A have been complied with.
3. The proposed Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Grant County Countywide Planning
Policies
4. The proposed Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with the requirements of Revised Code of
Washington, and the Washington Administrative Code.
5. The process of amending the capital facility plan is consistent with the requirements of GMA
to ensure that capital budget decisions are in conformity with the city’s comprehensive plan.
Suggested Motion:
I move the Moses Lake City Council continue deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan and
associated documents until the next regular scheduled meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Future Land Use map
Attachment B- Urban Growth Boundary Analysis Memorandum
Attachment C- Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Map
Attachment D- Land Capacity Analysis Memorandum
Attachment E- Extra-Territorial Utility Agreements Map
Attachment F- September 16 and 23rd Minutes from the Planning Commission Public Hearing
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 34 of 883
Grant County
Intl Airport
Moses Lake
§¨90
UV17
UV17
UV171
UV17
UV17
UV17
UV17
MARKETSTNE
SPILGRIMST
NHANSENRDW SAGE RD
N
F
I
G
S
T
SBALSAMSTE LAR
K
A
V
E
S DIVISION STWBROADWAYAVESBATTERYRD W MARINA DRSTRATFORD RD NEE SHARON AVE SPI
ONE
E
RWA
Y
E H I L L AVE S CLOVER DREOLIVEAVEN PAXSON DRS LEANNE AVES B
U
R
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
S A STRANDOLPH RD NEW FIFTH AVES HAMILTON RDSMILWAUKEEAVE
W THIRD AVE
E NELSON RD
WHEELER RD NEPATTONBLVDNE
E KITTELSON RD22ND AVE NEWLAKESHOREDRNCENTRALDR
N GRAPE DRN
E
L
D
E
R
S
T
N
BLO
CK
S
T
SLAKELANDDRN W
E
S
T
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
S SAND DUNES RDW IVY AVEKINDER RD NE
W PENINSULA DROWEN RD NES GIBBY RD E FOURTH AVEE YONEZAWA BLVDW TEXAS STS LOC
U
S
T
L
N
W PRICHARD RD BELL RD NEHARRIS RD NE
VALLEY RD NE
S MONROE STSINTERLAKER DA S P IBLVD NE
E INDUSTRIAL ST
LORINGDRNE
TYNDALL RD
N
E
S W A N A P U M D R RD L NESDOGWOODSTW WESTLAKERD
ARLENE LN NE
CITATION RD NER D 7 NE
SMAIERSRD RD N NE![0 ½1 Miles Map Date: October 2021,Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021.
Moses Lake BoundaryUrban Growth AreaOverlays
Downtown Creative DistrictBroadway Revitalization CorridorEPA Groundwater Institutional Control Boundary
Future Land Use
Low Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialHigh Density ResidentialGeneral CommercialIndustrialPublic FacilitiesParks & Open SpaceEnvironmentally SensitivePort of Moses LakeGateway CommercialDowntownDRAFT - October 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 35 of 883
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 20, 2021 (Revised Draft September 8, 2021)
TO: Allison Williams, City Manager – City of Moses Lake
Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director – City of Moses Lake
Vivian Ramsey, Planning Manager – City of Moses Lake
FROM: Kevin Gifford, Senior Associate – BERK Consulting
Lisa Grueter, Principal – BERK Consulting
RE: Private Land Use Amendment Request Analysis – DRAFT
Introduction
The City of Moses Lake received multiple requests from property owners for land use amendments,
including changes to zoning and Future Land Use map designations and modifications to the boundary of
the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The City is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan, including the Future
Land Use Map, and a major overhaul of the City’s development code is scheduled for 2022. The City has
asked BERK Consulting to review these amendment requests and offer recommendations as to which of
these applications should be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Review Methodology
BERK reviewed each private amendment request based on consistency with the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. Additional screening criteria are applied to amendment applications that request
changes to the UGA boundary to ensure consistency with growth management goals, including the
creation of compact areas of urban development, reduction of urban sprawl, environmental protection,
and the efficient provision of public services to areas of new development.
Specific review criteria are described in detail in the following sections.
Consistency with Updated Comprehensive Plan
This memo reviews requested amendments to Comprehensive Plan land use designations or zoning
according to the following guidelines:
▪ Applications considered as part of the comprehensive plan update process should be those whose
land use and/or environmental impacts can be adequately analyzed and mitigated at a
programmatic level (e.g., Determination of Non-Significance) and would not require a dedicated
SEPA process.
▪ Proposed changes to land use should be consistent with the proposed goals and policies of the
updated comprehensive plan, including established designation criteria for the proposed land use
designation. The proposed land use should not conflict with any City-initiated changes to the Future
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 36 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 2
Land Use map proposed as part of the comprehensive plan update process.
▪ Proposed changes to land use should be generally compatible with surrounding land uses and have
adequate public infrastructure to serve the proposed use.
Urban Growth Area Sizing Considerations
BERK previously prepared an analysis of residential land capacity for the city limits and unincorporated
Urban Growth Area (UGA). This analysis determined that the combined population capacity of the City
and the unincorporated UGA is more than sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and projected 2038
growth levels. As such, the City is considering a request to Grant County to amend the UGA to create
more regular, logical boundaries and remove areas with limited development capacity or other
impediments to future development. For example:
▪ Interviews with stakeholders have indicated that several UGA subareas possess limited or no short-
term development potential, specifically subareas 5, 7, 9, and 10 (shown in Exhibit 1). Subareas 9
and 10 also have no residential development capacity, so removal of these areas would have no
effect on the City’s ability to accommodate future population growth. Residential capacity in
subarea 7 is also limited, but subarea 5 contains nearly a third of the UGA’s residential capacity, so
additional analysis should be completed before making UGA reductions in this area.
▪ The current shape of the southeastern UGA boundary creates an isolated “pocket” of rural land
between UGA subareas 8, 9, and 11. Amendment of the UGA boundary to include this area would
create a more logical boundary and could increase development opportunities. Current Grant
County zoning in this location is low-density residential, but rezoning to Urban Residential or
Industrial could create either additional residential or employment capacity.
▪ The City should identify portions of the unincorporated UGA where it will be difficult to extend urban
services within the planning period and consider such areas for removal from the UGA.
This memo reviews private applications to amend UGA boundaries for consistency with these UGA
resizing priorities. Additionally, potential effects on residential capacity and commercial/industrial
development opportunities. Guidelines for review should include:
▪ Applications to modify the UGA boundary should be generally consistent with the re-sizing priorities
described above.
▪ Applications to expand the UGA should not result in a net increase in UGA acreage. If the City
considers expansion in one location, it should pursue an equivalent or greater reduction in area
elsewhere.
▪ UGA amendment applications that would increase development opportunities for industrial lands
should be prioritized over additional housing in the UGA.
▪ Logical boundaries for service delivery (e.g. water and sewer) should also be considered as a
priority.
▪ Areas with existing urban densities that can be served with adequate infrastructure should be
prioritized over areas that do not have urban or partially developed patterns and that lack the
ability to be served during the planning period. (See RCW 36.70A.110(3))
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 37 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 3
Exhibit 1. Unincorporated UGA Subareas
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2020; ESRI, 2020; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 38 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 4
Exhibit 2. Amendment Request Locations
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2020; ESRI, 2020; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 39 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 5
Review Findings and Recommendations
This memorandum reviews eight amendment requests received by the City based on the criteria and
priorities described in the previous section. The recommendations included here are specific to the
Comprehensive Plan Update process; applications not recommended for inclusion in the plan update may
still be considered at a later date after additional review and analysis.
Amendment request locations are shown in Exhibit 2.
ASPI GROUP – HORIZON AT MOSES LAKE
Description of Proposal
The Horizon development area encompasses approximately 4,000 acres along the northwestern
shoreline of Moses Lake, near the mouth of Rocky Ford Creek. The property lies primarily in rural Grant
County (zoned Rural Residential 1), though approximately 350 acres lies within the Moses Lake UGA
(zoned UR2 – Low Density Residential). The applicant wishes to develop a waterfront master planned
resort community (Black Horse Canyon) and has requested expansion of the UGA to allow higher-density
zoning to be applied, which would facilitate development of the site. UGA expansions proposed by the
applicant include:
▪ Approximately 650 acres for the Black Horse Canyon site;
▪ Approximately 750 acres along the shore of Moses Lake between the Black Horse Canyon site and
the existing UGA boundary to ensure a contiguity; and
▪ Approximately 750 acres south of Rd. 5 NE (Sections 10 and 11 of Township 19, Range 27). This
area is not connected to the main Black Horse Canyon site but is proposed to facilitate other future
development projects in the Horizon area.
In total, the proposal would add approximately 2,150 acres to the northwestern UGA.
Consistency Review
The request would substantially expand the UGA into largely undeveloped rural lands on the outer edge
of the Moses Lake urban area. The application identifies numerous benefits to development of this area,
including increased housing supply, particularly working families who need affordable housing. The
provision of greater housing supply at a variety of price points is highly consistent with the goals of the
updated Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan. However, given the size of the UGA
expansion requested and the remoteness of the location, it is likely that challenges would arise in
providing the appropriate level of urban services to development in this area.
The application suggests possible solutions to utility constraints, but emergency services providers (Police
and Fire) have already noted difficulties in meeting call response time standards in the western areas of
Moses Lake, including Mae Valley, which is south of the Horizon area. Expansion of the UGA in an area
with known barriers to provision of urban services may not be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan without additional planning or mitigation, such as a dedicated planning study or
SEPA environmental process. As such, the application does not meet the criteria for evaluation and
mitigation at the programmatic level.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 40 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 6
Recommendation
It is recommended that this application not be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update at this time
and be deferred for additional review and environmental analysis.
ASPI GROUP/PIA, LLC
Description of Proposal
PIA, LLC has requested a change in land use designation and zoning for an 80-acre vacant property
fronting SR 17 between N Grape Dr and Patton Blvd NE and several adjacent properties to the north
along Loring Dr NE. Currently, the northern properties are zoned C-2 General Commercial, and the
primary 80-acre parcel to the south is zoned R3 – Multifamily Residential. The applicant has proposed
two potential zoning concepts for the site:
▪ Rezone approximately half the 80-acre parcel along SR 17 to C-2 General Commercial to allow
commercial development along a major transportation corridor; the northern portion of the property
would remain in R3 zoning, and no changes would be proposed to the Loring Dr. properties.
▪ Rezone the entire 120-acres to a mix of commercial and residential zoning to allow future
development of a mixed-use center incorporating retail, multifamily residential, and small-lot single-
family residential development.
Consistency Review
The subject property meets the locational criteria for the General Commercial land use designation, as it
is located along a major arterial roadway and is adjacent to a residential neighborhood, to which
commercial services could be provided. The location and parcel pattern of the site is also consistent with
the Master Planned Development Priority Overlay established in the updated comprehensive plan.
Proposed criteria for the overlay include the following:
▪ The area contains large parcels suitable for campus-style commercial or mixed-use development.
▪ The area exhibits a fragmented parcel pattern, necessitating extensive parcel assembly before any
large-scale development could occur.
▪ Existing development in the area is inconsistent with planned land uses, and a coordinated
development approach could facilitate the transition to a development pattern more consistent with
that envisioned by the comprehensive plan.
The application’s request for a master-planned, mixed-use development is consistent with the goals and
policies of the updated Land Use Element, specifically to encourage a greater variety of housing types
(Policy 3.3.2) and to promote economic vitality in Moses Lake’s gateway corridors, which includes SR 17
(Policy 3.4.2).
Recommendation
As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the General Commercial land use designation is being
amended to allow for mixed-use development on appropriate sites, and it is anticipated that the City’s
upcoming development code re-write will include a Mixed Use zone. As such, it is recommended that the
Comprehensive Plan update re-designate the entirety of the subject property to General Commercial
and rezone the site to Mixed Use as part of the planned development code updated in 2022.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 41 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 7
September 8, 2021 Revision: The City has received a letter from the applicant in opposition to the initial
recommendation to re-designate the subject property as General Commercial and requesting their
application be tabled pending planned revisions to the City’s development code. As such, the revised
recommendation is that no land use designation changes be made to the subject property as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
CENTRAL TERMINALS, LLC
Description of Proposal
The applicant, Central Terminals, LLC, has requested two amendments to the UGA Boundary:
▪ Expansion of the boundary west of Grant County International Airport to include approximately 170
acres of vacant rural land within the UGA to allow future development of airport-related industrial
and commercial uses.
▪ Reduction of the UGA boundary near the intersection of Road 2 NE and Road N NE to remove
approximately 165 acres of property owned by Central Terminals from the UGA. Current use of the
property to be removed is irrigated agriculture.
Combined, the two requests would result in a net increase in the size of the UGA of approximately
5 acres; Central Terminals has specifically submitted the UGA reduction request in consideration of the
requested expansion.
Consistency Review
The proposed UGA expansion near Grant County International Airport would create additional capacity
for industrial development near an established commercial and industrial center at the Port of Moses
Lake. As described in the Review Methodology section, the City has identified industrial development on
appropriate sites as a greater priority in the UGA than additional residential capacity. The
corresponding UGA reduction area is located in a portion of the UGA that is characterized by extensive
irrigated agriculture; continued use of the property in this manner is more consistent with a rural setting
than an urban area.
While the applicant’s request would result in a small net increase in the size of the UGA, the application is
otherwise consistent with the City’s goals to create a compact, serviceable UGA.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City include the proposed amendment to the UGA boundary as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update, in coordination with Grant County.
September 8, 2021 Revision: Grant County has requested that the City evaluate additional changes to
the boundary of the southeastern UGA (south of Wheeler Road) to enclose the isolate pocket of rural
land created by the existing boundary. The applicant’s proposed UGA reduction area is adjacent to this
location. As a result, the revised recommendation is to retain this area within the UGA if doing so will help
the City comply with the County’s request to draw a more logical, serviceable UGA boundary in this
location.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 42 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 8
CITY OF MOSES LAKE – MUNICIPAL AIRPORT EXPANSION
Description of Proposal
The City of Moses Lake Municipal Services Department and the Municipal Airport Commission have
agreed to expand the Moses Lake Municipal Airport to add more leasing space. The City and the
Commission plan to expand the southern end of the airport westward onto the adjacent, publicly-owned
property. A Boundary Line Adjustment has been submitted to add approximately 28 acres to the airport
property. The applicant has requested that the area subject to the boundary line adjustment be rezoned
from Public Facility to Municipal Airport.
Consistency Review
The property proposed to be added to the municipal airport as part of the boundary line adjustment is
also in public ownership. While the adjacent property is designated and zoned Parks & Open Space, the
site is not used as a park or recreational facility, and redesignation would be consistent with the planned
expansion of the airport.
Recommendation
To ensure consistency with the planned airport expansion, it is recommended that the requested change in
land use designation from Parks & Open Space to Public Facility be included in the Comprehensive Plan
update.
CONFLUENCE HEALTH – EAST HILL CAMPUS
Description of Proposal
Confluence Health has requested rezoning of their Moses Lake Clinic facility at the corner of East Hill
Avenue and South Juniper Drive (4.2 acres). The property is currently zoned R3 – Multifamily Residential,
and the clinic has operated on the site since the 1980’s under a conditional use permit. The applicant has
requested a rezone to General Commercial to facilitate future improvements to the facility – no
construction or changes to the current use of the property are currently proposed.
Consistency Review
The application does not propose any change in use for the site, and redesignation and rezoning of the
property to General Commercial would be consistent with the current use as a medical facility and its
location near a major arterial corridor (S Pioneer Way), as well as the type and scale of development
envisioned for the General Commercial designation. While the subject property is located adjacent to a
single-family neighborhood to the north and east, the site has persisted in its current use as a medical
facility since the 1980’s, and the requested redesignation and rezone would not alter the current use or
its compatibility with surrounding development.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the requested redesignation and rezone be included in the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 43 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 9
COX & COX
Description of Proposal
The subject property consists of a vacant parcel (2.8 acres) at the northwest corner of SR 17 and Nelson
Road within Moses Lake city limits. The property is adjacent to a single family residential subdivision to
the north and a group home to the west. Current zoning is R3 – Multifamily Residential. The applicant has
requested rezoning to a commercial zone to accommodate future development of the property as a
business park.
Consistency Review
The subject property meets the locational criteria for the General Commercial land use designation, as it
is located along a major arterial roadway (SR 17) and is adjacent to a residential neighborhood, to
which commercial services could be provided. Additionally, commercial development of the site would be
consistent with the scale and type of uses located at the intersection of SR 17 and E Nelson Road,
including large format retail, a fire station, and Chief Moses Middle School.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the requested redesignation and rezone be included in the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
DUNE LAKE, LLC
Description of Proposal
The subject property is an undeveloped phase of the Dune Lake Farms residential development in
unincorporated Grant County, south of Pelican Point and adjacent to the southern boundary of the Moses
Lake UGA. The site includes six parcels with a total area of 836 acres, currently in use for irrigated
agriculture. The applicant has requested inclusion of the site within the UGA and redesignation to
Residential Low Density/Urban Residential 2 to facilitate the completion of a Planned Unit Development
that was approved by Grant County before adoption of the Growth Management Act.
Consistency Review
The request would substantially expand the UGA into undeveloped rural lands currently used for
agriculture. While development of the area as described in the application would increase housing
supply, the expansion area is located on the southern edge of the UGA, and City emergency services
providers (Police and Fire) have already noted difficulties in meeting call response time standards in
areas south of I-90. Sufficient developable land exists within the existing UGA to meet future growth
needs, and a stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan Update is to create a compact, serviceable Urban
Growth Area.
Additionally, a UGA expansion of this size with known barriers to provision of urban services may not be
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan without additional planning or mitigation,
such as a dedicated planning study or SEPA environmental process. As such, the application does not
meet the criteria for evaluation and mitigation at the programmatic level to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 44 of 883
September 8, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Private Land Use Amendment Analysis 10
Recommendation
It is recommended that this application not be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update at this time
and be deferred for additional review and environmental analysis.
HANSEN, MICK
Description of Proposal
This 8.45-acre waterfront property is located northwest of the intersection of Holm Street and Marina
Drive, north of the Marina Shores subdivision. The parcel was previously owned by the City of Moses
Lake and was zoned as Public Facility (with an underlying land use designation of Parks & Open Space).
The property is now in private ownership, which is incompatible with the Parks & Open Space land use
designation and Public Facility zoning. The property owner has requested redesignation/rezoning to Light
Industrial, consistent with adjacent properties to the east. No specific development has been proposed on
the property at this time.
Consistency Review
The Comprehensive Plan Update is modifying the future land use designations in the area surrounding the
Hansen property. The industrial properties located east of the site would be redesignated to Gateway
Commercial, a new designation focused on revitalization of major commercial corridors leading into
Downtown. Designating the subject property as Industrial would therefore conflict with City-initiated
changes to the Future Land Use map. However, the applicant is correct that continued designation of the
site as Parks & Open Space would not be appropriate due to the private ownership.
Recommendation
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that the City redesignate the property as
one of the following:
▪ Gateway Commercial – Consistent with the City’s proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map
designations for properties east of the site. Due to the waterfront location, the provisions of the City’s
critical areas ordinance and Shoreline Master Program could provide mitigation and permit
conditions for future waterfront development.
▪ Low Density Residential – The site is adjacent to residential properties located off W Marina Dr.
Designation of the subject property as Low Density Residential would provide a potential use for the
site while maintaining a residential character in the area and establishing a density transition
between the residential neighborhood and the waterfront.
September 8, 2021 Revision: After additional review of the applicant’s request, it is recommended tha
the property be re-designated to Gateway Commercial, which would provide the most flexibility in terms
of allowable development and the greatest consistency with existing and planned designations on
adjacent properties. Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations would provide protection
for the shoreline environment through required mitigation measures and development standards.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 45 of 883
Reconfigured per County request to eliminate rural "pocket" and createmore logical boundary.
Removed to create more compactboundary.
Removed due to lowdevelopment potentialand agricultural use.
Area reduced due toservice provision challenges and to provide flex for increases elsewhere.
Expansion per private application and to create additional industrial development opportunities near airport.
Grant CountyIntl Airport
Moses Lake UV171
UV17
UV17
UV17
§¨90
![0 1 2½Miles
Map Date: September 2021, Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
City of Moses Lake
UGA Boundary (Current)
UGA Boundary (Proposed)
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 46 of 883
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 5, 2021
TO: Allison Williams, City Manager – City of Moses Lake
Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director – City of Moses Lake
Vivian Ramsey, Planning Manager – City of Moses Lake
FROM: Kevin Gifford, Senior Associate – BERK Consulting
Lisa Grueter, Principal – BERK Consulting
RE: City of Moses Lake Land Capacity Analysis – Methodology and Findings
To support preparation of the City of Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan Update and Housing Needs
Assessment, BERK Consulting has prepared a programmatic residential Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) to
assess the City’s supply of land available for residential development and ability to meet its adopted
population growth targets. This memorandum describes the analysis methodology, documents key
assumptions, and presents BERK’s findings regarding available capacity and long-term planning
implications.
Data Collection
BERK collaborated with City of Moses Lake GIS staff to acquire and process data for the LCA Analysis,
including the following:
▪ Grant County Assessor Records
Assessed property value (land and improvements); and
Current land use classification.
▪ City of Moses Lake Land Use Data
Property size (acreage);
City of Moses Lake zoning classification;
City/UGA location (incorporated vs. unincorporated).
▪ City of Moses Lake Environmentally Critical Areas
Wetlands and associated buffers;
Streams, waterbodies, and associated buffers;
Flood hazard areas (designated floodways);
Shoreline Master Program environment designation buffers; and
Landslide hazard areas and any associated buffers.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 47 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 2
Capacity Analysis Methodology
LAND USE AND BUILDABLE LAND CLASSIFICATION
City of Moses Lake staff combined Grant County and City land use records for all parcels within the City
and its associated UGA to establish a baseline property inventory. Based on the property records
compiled by City of Moses Lake staff, BERK classified each property in the study area as either Vacant,
Agriculture, Redevelopable, or Developed.
▪ Vacant land consists of properties assigned a land use classification code of “91- Undeveloped” by
the Grant County Assessor.
▪ Agriculture includes all properties assigned a land use classification code of “81 – Resource –
Agriculture” or “83 – Resource – Agriculture Current Use” by the Grant County Assessor. Moses Lake
and its associated UGA contain a substantial amount of land classified for agricultural use. Within
city limits, nearly all of this land is classified as “83 – Resource – Agriculture Current Use,” indicating
it is currently being taxed based its current use as agricultural land, rather than its highest and best
use. The presence of large amounts of agricultural land within the UGA represents additional
capacity for urban residential development.
▪ Redevelopable land represents properties that are currently under-utilized for development. This
category includes properties that could be further subdivided to allow additional development,
properties where the current use could be expanded without subdivision, and properties that could
be converted for development that is more intensive than the current use.
A common method to identify redevelopable properties is to examine assessed property values,
specifically the ratio of assessed improvement value to overall property value. If the improvements
on a property account for a relatively small proportion of the overall assessed value, this indicates a
higher potential for redevelopment. For purposes of this LCA, properties whose assessed
improvement value accounts for 50% or less of the total property value are classified as
Redevelopable.
▪ Properties that do not meet any of the above criteria are classified as Developed and are assumed
to have no additional development capacity.
ESTIMATION OF NET BUILDABLE AREA
To accurately assess development capacity, it is necessary to determine the net buildable area on
parcels in the study area. BERK applied a series of deductions to the gross acreage of parcels in the
baseline inventory to estimate how much land is actually available for development, including exclusion
of land constrained by environmentally critical areas, land that will be needed for roads or other public
infrastructure, and land that is unlikely to be used for housing development due to market conditions. This
LCA assumes the following infrastructure and market factor deductions.
Deduction of Environmentally Critical Areas
As described in the Data Collection section of this memorandum, City of Moses Lake staff compiled
spatial data on the location of environmentally critical areas where development would not be allowed
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 48 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 3
under local development regulations. Using GIS, City staff overlaid these locations on the baseline
property inventory for the study area and calculated the portion of each parcel affected by critical
areas. These critical areas were then deducted from the overall parcel area. This is a more precise way
of determining capacity, whereas Grant County’s 2018 comprehensive plan LCA used a flat percentage
deduction for critical areas as part of the road and infrastructure allowance (20%).
Deduction of Road and Infrastructure Allowance
After applying deductions for environmentally critical areas, the net buildable area for each parcel was
further reduced for road and infrastructure needs. A 20% assumption was included in the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan land capacity analysis (Comprehensive Plan Table 4-9) and was meant to include
roads, infrastructure, and critical areas. Often, land capacity studies account for critical areas separately
and use mapped sources. For purposes of this LCA, BERK assumed a 15% deduction for roads and
infrastructure needs since critical areas were separately deducted.
Deduction of Market Factor
After application of deductions for environmentally critical areas, roads, and infrastructure, the net
buildable area for each parcel was further reduced to account for potential market-based impediments
to development (e.g. property owner unlikely to change in planning period, difficulty in redevelopment).
This is a common approach in land capacity analyses in Washington State; the Department of
Commerce’s Urban Growth Area Guidebook (2012) recommends using a lower market factor for vacant
or undeveloped land than for redevelopable land. This analysis varied the deduction by LCA
classification, as follows:
▪ Vacant or Agricultural land: 10%; and
▪ Redevelopable land: 25%.
CALCULATION OF HOUSING CAPACITY
After application of appropriate deductions to determine net buildable area for each parcel, BERK
calculated housing and population capacity through the following steps:
▪ Summarize buildable acreage by zone;
▪ Summarize existing dwellings on redevelopable properties by zone;
▪ Apply residential density assumptions for each zone to estimate gross housing capacity;
▪ Subtract existing dwellings to determine net housing capacity; and
▪ Apply average household size to estimate net population capacity.
Development Density Assumptions
To calculate potential housing development capacity, it is necessary to set assumptions about future
housing density (housing units per acre of land). BERK compiled density assumptions based on maximum
density limits, as established in the City’s land use code. Chapter 18.20 of the Moses Lake Municipal
Code (MLMC) establishes development standards for residential zones in city limits (R-1, R-2, and R-3).
Chapter 18.30 MLMC allows multifamily residential development in commercial zones (specifically C-2)
when developed in conjunction with a commercial structure; for purposes of this analysis, residential
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 49 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 4
densities in commercial zones are assumed to be equivalent to the R-3 Multi-Family Residential zone.
Zoning regulations in the unincorporated UGA are established in Title 23 of the Grant County Code.
Residential density assumptions used in this LCA are documented in Exhibit 1, below.
Exhibit 1. Residential Density Assumptions by Zone
ZONE MAXIMUM DENSITY
(DU/AC)
PERCENT OF
MAXIMUM DENSITY
ASSUMED
ASSUMED DENSITY
(DU/AC)
City of Moses Lake Zoning
R-1 Single Family Residential 4.0 95% 3.8
R-2 Single/Two-Family Residential 8.0 75% 6.0
R-3 Multifamily Residential 15.0 75% 11.3
C-2 General Commercial Same as R-3* Same as R-3* 11.3
Grant County Zoning
Urban Reserve/Rural Residential 1 0.2 100% 0.2
Urban Residential 2 4.0 95% 3.8
Urban Residential 3 8.0 75% 6.0
Urban Residential 4 16.0 75% 12.0
* Maximum determined by height/setbacks. Since residential is not required, assumed 15 du/ac like R-3. Also assumed only 25%
of vacant/redevelopable land would have residential uses.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Grant County, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Residential Capacity
Exhibit 2 present net housing unit capacity on vacant, redevelopable, and agriculture properties in the
City and unincorporated UGA, after applying the density assumptions in Exhibit 1 to net buildable
acreage and subtracting existing units on redevelopable properties. Exhibit 2 also presents total net
population capacity, which is calculated by applying the average household size for the City of Moses
Lake to the estimated net housing unit capacity. According to the US Census 2015-2019 American
Community Survey, the average household size in Moses Lake is 2.79 persons. To avoid fractional
households or persons, calculations in Exhibit 2 round values down to the nearest whole number.
Exhibit 3 shows net housing and population capacity in each of the unincorporated UGA subareas, Exhibit
4 maps the subarea locations, and Exhibit 5 shows the locations of identified Vacant, Agriculture, and
Redevelopable lands included in the analysis.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 50 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 5
Exhibit 2. Residential Housing and Population Capacity
ZONE
NET HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY TOTAL NET
HOUSING
CAPACITY
TOTAL NET
POPULATION
CAPACITY VACANT AGRICULTURE REDEVELOPABLE
City of Moses Lake
R-1 Single Family
Residential
- 259 678 937 2,613
R-2 Single/Two-
Family Residential
72 44 921 1,037 2,891
R-3 Multifamily
Residential
205 197 1,406 1,808 5,042
C-2 General
Commercial
- 10 147 157 437
Total City 277 510 3,152 3,939 10,983
Unincorporated UGA
Urban Reserve/Rural
Residential 1
2 146 1 149 414
Urban Residential 2 1,442 5,585 1,428 8,455 23,589
Urban Residential 3 337 24 526 887 2,473
Urban Residential 4 518 87 430 1,035 2,895
Total UGA 2,299 5,842 2,384 10,525 29,369
Source: US Census Bureau, 2019; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 51 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 6
Exhibit 3. Unincorporated Residential Capacity by UGA Subarea
UGA SUBAREA NET HOUSING
CAPACITY
NET POPULATION
CAPACITY
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
POPULATION CAPACITY
1. Airport/Port 258 720 2.5%
2. Larson 95 265 0.9%
3. Airway 859 2,397 8.2%
4. Cascade Valley 2,376 6,630 22.6%
5. Mae Valley North 3,372 9,408 32.1%
6. Mae Valley 1,675 4,674 15.9%
7. South Side 557 1,554 5.3%
8. Interchange 454 1,266 4.3%
9. North of 90 0 0 0.0%
10. Wheeler East 0 0 0.0%
11. Wheeler West 348 971 3.3%
12. Longview 526 1,467 5.0%
13. East of Port 0 0 0.0%
GRAND TOTAL 10,520* 29,352* 100.0%
*Area sub-totals differ slightly from UGA-wide capacity numbers presented in Exhibit 2 due to rounding calculations.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2019; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 52 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 7
Exhibit 4. Unincorporated UGA Subareas
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2020; ESRI, 2020; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 53 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 8
Exhibit 5. Buildable Lands
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2020; ESRI, 2020; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 54 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 9
Housing Needs
As shown in Exhibit 2, Moses Lake has capacity to accommodate approximately 10,275 new residents
within city limits and capacity for an additional 24,140 residents in the unincorporated UGA. The City’s
adopted population growth target for the 2018-2038 planning period is 7,917 new residents. According
to the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM), Moses Lake experienced growth of
approximately 960 residents between 2018 and 2020, leaving a remaining growth target of 6,957
residents. BERK’s analysis shows the City has sufficient capacity to accommodate the adopted growth
target within existing City boundaries. Under GMA, the growth target is considered a floor, not a ceiling,
regarding available land capacity.
Population growth in Moses Lake has averaged 2.4% annually since 2015. If this trend continues, the
City’s population would exceed the adopted target during the planning period, growing to
approximately 35,626 residents by 2038. To keep pace with that level of population growth and
maintain the existing ratio of housing to population, housing production would need to average 253 units
per year, a net increase of 4,803 units.
Exhibit 6. Housing Units Needed by 2038
Sources: Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, 2015; BERK, 2020.
This level of growth would exceed the land capacity available within incorporated city limits under
proposed assumptions (as shown in Exhibit 2), though sufficient additional capacity is available in the
unincorporated UGA. If densities were more efficient than assumed (e.g. 95% of maximum density
instead of 75% for some of the categories) the higher housing need estimate could be met. Also, through
the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City could consider the best mix of land uses and may increase its
development capacity such as through mixed use zoning.
8,365
10,199
15,002
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Housing Actual
Housing Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 55 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 10
Industrial Land Supply
In 2019, AHBL, Inc. prepared an analysis of industrial land supply in support of a UGA boundary
amendment request by the Port of Moses Lake. This land capacity analysis identified vacant, partially-
used, and under-utilized properties in both the incorporated city and unincorporated UGA whose future
land use is anticipated to be industrial in nature. Out of a total of 10,483 acres of industrially-
designated land, the report identified approximately 1,792 acres of vacant land, 100 acres of
partially-utilized land, and 795 acres of land in interim agricultural use (2,687 acres in total), after
removing environmentally critical areas and deducting allowances for roads, public facilities, and market
factor.
The report estimates that this amount of available industrial land is equivalent to roughly half the amount
of utilized industrial land. While detailed estimates of employment capacity of these available
properties or projections of future industrial employment demand were not included in the AHBL analysis,
the report concludes that rapid residential growth is likely to drive increased demand for local
employment, including jobs in the warehousing, distribution, and manufacturing sectors; as of 2016,
manufacturing accounted for 12.5% of total employment in Grant County and 16.9% of payroll dollars.
As also described in the AHBL report, the Grant County International Airport encompasses a large portion
of the industrially-designated land outside city limits. This places a constraint on industrial development
opportunities not related to aviation. As future development consumes available industrial land within city
limits, development pressures in the UGA are likely to increase.
Findings and Recommendations
Residential Capacity
As shown in Exhibit 2, Moses Lake has capacity to accommodate approximately 10,275 new residents
within city limits and capacity for an additional 24,140 residents in the unincorporated UGA. This is more
than sufficient to accommodate the city’s remaining growth target of 6,957 residents within existing City
boundaries. Most of this capacity exists in areas zoned for multifamily residential development, but some
capacity is still available in lower-density areas zoned for single-family and low-density attached
development. Available population capacity in UGA is much larger than the County growth target.
Based on recent growth trends, residential population in Moses Lake is anticipated to increase beyond
the City’s adopted growth targets during the planning period, reaching 35,626 by 2038 (net growth of
10,819 residents). This projected residential growth slightly exceeds the available capacity within city
limits, but the unincorporated UGA also contains substantial developable lands that could potentially be
tapped in the future to meet housing needs.
One or more options include:
▪ If in-city densities were more efficient than assumed (e.g., 95% of maximum density instead of 75%
for some of the categories) the higher housing need estimate could be met (see Exhibit 7). This is
possible if code changes are incorporated per the City’s 1923 grant to address code changes
related to the City’s Commerce grant including duplex, triplex, or courtyard apartment allowances in
residential districts where there is available infrastructure.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 56 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 11
▪ Also, through the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City could consider the best mix of land uses and
may increase its development capacity, such as through mixed use zoning.
▪ The City could consider requesting that the County amend the UGA boundaries to be more
serviceable without affecting the ability to meet the assigned growth targets.
▪ The City could also request a growth target shift from the UGA to the City limits, if desired.
Exhibit 7. Incorporated Residential and Population Capacity – Increased Density Assumptions
ZONE
NET HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY TOTAL NET
HOUSING
CAPACITY
TOTAL NET
POPULATION
CAPACITY VACANT AGRICULTURE REDEVELOPABLE
City of Moses Lake
R-1 Single Family
Residential
- 259 678 937 2,613
R-2 Single/Two-
Family Residential
91 56 1,237 1,384 3,860
R-3 Multifamily
Residential
259 250 1,878 2,387 6,658
C-2 General
Commercial
- 12 194 206 574
Total City 350 577 3,987 4,914 13,705
Source: BERK, 2021.
Demand for Industrial Development
As described in the previous discussion of industrial land supply, Moses Lake is likely to experience
ongoing demand for employment, particularly industrial jobs. Most land zoned for industrial uses is
concentrated in the southeastern portion of the City/UGA (subareas 9 and 10) and in the northern UGA
near Grant County International Airport (subareas 1 and 13). The City has received a private
amendment request from Central Terminals, LLC. to amend the UGA boundary to add approximately
160 acres of land adjacent to the west side of the airport in subarea 1 and remove approximately 165
acres from the UGA in subarea 9. The UGA addition would be for the purpose of expanding industrial
development near the airport; the land to be removed in subarea 9 is zoned for industrial use by Grant
County but is currently in agricultural production.
To preserve industrial employment capacity, the City could work with the applicant and Grant County to
approve the UGA expansion in subarea 1 while also keeping the proposed removal area in subarea 9
within the UGA. As described in the following section on UGA sizing, the City should avoid any net
increase in UGA acreage, so reductions to the UGA in other areas would be recommended. Additionally,
the City could request that Grant County rezone portions of the UGA that are adjacent to industrial
areas to create additional industrial capacity:
▪ UGA subarea 11 is currently zoned for residential use but is located adjacent to incorporated areas
designated for industrial development.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 57 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 12
▪ The current shape of the southeastern UGA boundary creates an isolated “pocket” of rural land
between UGA subareas 8, 9, and 11. This pocket is almost surrounded by unincorporated UGA
lands and the city limits, as shown on Exhibit 4. To create additional employment capacity, the City
could request an expansion of the UGA in this location to regularize the boundary and rezone these
lands for industrial or commercial uses.
Urban Growth Area Sizing
As described in the Residential Capacity section above and shown in Exhibit 2, the combined population
capacity of the City and the unincorporated UGA is more than sufficient to meet adopted growth targets
and projected 2038 growth levels. As such, the City should consider working with Grant County to amend
the UGA to create more regular, logical boundaries and remove areas with limited development
capacity or other impediments to future development. For example:
▪ Interviews with stakeholders have indicated that several UGA subareas possess limited or no short-
term development potential, specifically subareas 5, 7, 9, and 10. As shown in Exhibit 3, subareas 9
and 10 also have no residential development capacity, so removal of these areas would have no
effect on the City’s ability to accommodate future population growth. Residential capacity is subarea
7 is also limited, but subarea 5 contains nearly a third of the UGA’s residential capacity, so
additional analysis should be completed before making UGA reductions in this area.
▪ As described in the discussion of Demand for Industrial Development, the current shape of the
southeastern UGA boundary creates an isolated “pocket” of rural land between UGA subareas 8, 9,
and 11. Amendment of the UGA boundary to include this area would create a more logical
boundary and could increase development opportunities. Current Grant County zoning in this location
is low-density residential, but rezoning to Urban Residential or Industrial could create either
additional residential or employment capacity.
▪ The City should identify portions of the unincorporated UGA where it will be difficult to extend urban
services within the planning period and consider such areas for removal from the UGA.
Private applications to amend UGA boundaries as part of the comprehensive plan update process should
be screened and evaluated for potential effects on residential capacity and commercial/industrial
development opportunities. Guidelines for review should include:
▪ Applications to expand the UGA should not result in a net increase in UGA acreage. If the City
considers expansion in one location, it should pursue an equivalent or greater reduction in area
elsewhere.
▪ UGA amendment applications that would increase development opportunities for industrial lands
should be prioritized over additional housing in the UGA.
▪ Logical boundaries for service delivery (e.g. water and sewer) should also be considered as a
priority.
▪ Areas with existing urban densities that can be served with adequate infrastructure should be
prioritized over areas that do not have urban or partially developed patterns and that lack the
ability to be served during the planning period. (See RCW 36.70A.110(3))
▪ Applications considered as part of the comprehensive plan update process should be those whose
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 58 of 883
March 5, 2021 City of Moses Lake | Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Capacity Analysis 13
land use and/or environmental impacts can be adequately analyzed and mitigated at a
programmatic level (e.g., Determination of Non-Significance) and would not require a dedicated
SEPA process.
▪ Proposed changes to land use should be generally compatible with surrounding land uses and have
adequate public infrastructure to serve the proposed use.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 59 of 883
IS LAND
G
O
A
T I
SL
A
N
D MARSHISLAN DLAK EVIEWISLANDPELICAN HORNP AR KE R H O RN
L
EWIS HO
RN
CREST ISLANDHERONISLAND
GOODRICH RD
MARKET ST
ME LODYLNTUTTLERD
C
ARS
WELLD
R
ROAD1.8NE
RDK.7SEPARKPLHOOPER DR
CLINKAVE
PILGRIMST LAKELANDDRSCOTTRD
RD 1.6HANSEN RDELECTRA ST
DOUMIT DRHAYDENDR DUNN STYOUNG RDTEAL RD
T
OWHEEST
YAKIMA AVE
BURRAVEWESTSHOREDRABBEYROAD
H
AMI
LTONRDREES STLAKEWAY DRCOL E RD
VA
LLEYRDGAYLORDSTCRAIGBLVD PENINSULA DRALBERT WAYWILDGOOSE
R
DV
ER
NAL
AV
E
SAGE RD
EAGLE DR
PENNIVY ST
BLACK BIRDLPFAIRWAYDRBOND RDBENJAMINWAYPARTRIDGEDR FIG ST
BOYLEST
TEDYAO
WAYHAW TH ORNE DRTHRUSH ST
SCENIC DRROADHJAMESAVE
SHELBYST
EASTLAKE DRLYNN RD NEEGELANDDR
BALSAM STEASY STBURKE DR IRONW OOD DR
COLONIALAV EPELI CANDRHAWKST WENATCHEEDRLAKESIDEDRLARKAVE
COMMERCE
WAY
E
LGI
NRDBOYLSONSTVIEWMONTDR STHELENSDRLAURELHURSTDR
LINDEN AVE DIVISIONSTLOFGREN DRA STORLP DOOLITTLE DR
GR AND DRAIR
WAY D
R
FAIRBAN KSDRBEAUMONTDREDGEW ATERLN
ALLEN CT
ALDERW
OODDRCOCH RANRDSHAWSTJAVELINST
K
ARLRD
GLENMO OR DR
BLUE GOOSE ST KEVINWAY
CHERRYAVE
JUNCOST
LORING DR
OWLST STADERD
MCCONIHE RD
NA
PEL
SST
LOOP DR
R
D
1.7DILLEY CT
HOPE CT
SR-17
B ROADW AY AVEWRENST
SAGUARO CT
DAVIS RD
COVEWESTDR
DOROTHY STCIRCLEPL
LEEST
SKYLINEDRHARBORVIEW ST DAVIDST
SHARON AVE
CRAWFORD LANE
BASELINE.1 RD
KITTELSONRD
ORCHARD BAY ST
N
orthFrontageRd
BONNEVILLE ST
PI
ONEERWAYHILL AVE
POLK CT
DEBORAH ST
P
AT
TONBL
VDD
ALEYDRBASELINE.6
DANDERO ST TRUMANDR
R RC LQUINN DRHERMIT RD COLUMBIAAVECLOVER DRPHOENIX DR
MILLER ST
LAGUN
A
DR
RD I.6OLIVE AVE
HANNAH CT
IDAHO RDDAHLIADRKESTRELDRPAXSON DRGOLD CUP CT
PINE
DR
CHAR LOTTESTMCLAUGHLIN RD NESOUTH FRONTAGE RD E
TRILLIUMWAY
ROYAL PALM DR
RD 5.6 NE
MURIEL LN
MEADOW VIEW DR
YOST CIR
LEANNE AVEDRIGGSDRVIKINGRDHILL PLTANGLEWOODDR
HOLM ST
BURRESS AVE
A ST
JONESAVE
JUDYRD
N
EBEMISSTBUELL DRMOS
ES
S
T
FLORENCE AVE CREST
VIE
WDRA
DAIR D
R
HUSKY DRJUNE DRRANDOLPHRD
BELAIR PL EVERGREEN
DR
C
EDAR ST
MEGAN DR
AS
H ST
CARLILELN
GRAPE DRTYLER CTLAKESHORE CTBALL CT
B ST
FI FTH AV EBLUFFWESTDR
DUNELAKELOOP
GIBBY RD
TANAGERST EIGHTH AVE
INTERSTATE90QUAIL DRJUNIPER DRTAFTST
WESTOV ERBLVD
S NOWGOOSERDROAD 4
GARDENDRMARINA DRC ST
SCHNEIRLA AVE
COU
GAR
DR
GRAND PL
VUE ST
BOBBIDRSTANLEYDR
VIST ADRPERCHAVEEWING PL
VIRGINIA ST
LEGEND LNNORTHFRONTAGERDE
SYCAMORE LN
SAGEBAY DROTTMAR RDRIDGE RD
MEADOWLARK LN
ARLINGTON DRDANIEL STTRAVISDR
MARY STWALLST22ND AVERD J.4RD 5.8
R
D J.2
LEE DRMONTE VISTA LN Monroe STK NOLL S VISTADR
MILWAUKEEAVE
M
cCONNE LLD R
THIRD AV EHUNTER PL
SAND DUNES RDCRE STDRROAD 3
BA SIN STAPPLECUPDRNELSON RD
CH ERA PLCHESTNUT ST
A
RN
OLD
DR
JE
NNIFER LN 32NDAVEROAD 6.7
EDWARDSDRLARSON BLVDTURNAGIN CTGRANT STNORTHW ESTLNHYLAND PL
LAKEPORT LNLAKESHORE DRROAD2.4
DREAM STBRUNCH RD Longview StreetFERNDRMONTANA STMonarch STMA
RC
HAVEWILLIAMAVEPETERSON PLFALCON BELAIRDR
S IX TH A VE
DILLEY AVECENTRALDR
BASELINE.2 RD SE
BASELINE.1 RD SE30th Ave NEMERIDIANAVE
OKLAHOMA STVANDENBERG AV EELDER ST
BLO
CK ST
D ST
CLAREMONT CTAPPLE RD
RAINBOWD
RBROWN AVE
NELLIS ST
BOLLING ST
ROAD 4.2
ELSIE RDRD5.7
BIGG SDR
MACKIN LN
M attsonDROFFUT DRGRACE LN
WI NDR OSE DR
GRANDVIEWDR
ROSE AVEASHLEY WYMERLIN ST
TERRACE AVE
SEVENTH AVE
PIRATELN
WILDCAT LN
RD E.9CHAP
ARRALDRDAL E RD
BARON PLS ARCHER ST
MORGAN RD STRATFORD RDWESTERN
AVE
WA PATO DRMICHAEL AVE CASCADEAVEFARRERWAY
NINTH AVE
ROSEMONT PLCHANUTE ST
ROAD 3.3 RAY RDIVY AVESUNBURST CTDU NERDSTATE AVESCHILLINGDR
PANORAMA DR
LAKE AVE
BASELINE RDS BUCHANAN STALDER STEVELYNDRMELBYWAY
JUDITH STROAD 4.7
KINDER RD
SANDPIPER CIR
TAMARACK LN
RO ADK.1JOEY RDPENNSYLVANIA STMCDOUGALAVE
HOLLY ST
GUMWOOD ST
ELM ST
BEECH STOWEN RDPENN ST
ROAD 4.3
LO
W
RY D
RF OUR TH AVE
STACY DRDICK RD
APACHE ST
DEBONAIR ST
LASCO
LN
FIR ST
BAKER STNOR THSH OREDRRIVIERA AVE
HUMMINGBIRDCR
YONEZAWA BLVD
TEXAS STLOCUST LN
MIZZOUCT
MARIGOLD ST
MART RD
WISER LNINGLEWOODD RBIRCHST
BING RD
DOUGHERTY RD NE
CR
ANE
LN ROAD KCOX ST ROAD I26THAVE
DAHL RD
ASH LEYWAYARROW PLWOODBERRY ST
ERNSTPL
RD 5.9
OASIS CIR
SCHOONERCT
SYBEL LN
G
LA
DY
S LN
MAPLE DR
WASHINGTON STPARK DR
ROAD FMARLO AVE
WILD GOOSE LN
DYNAS TYDRROADF.2
ROAD 4.4
CRESTMONTDRPARKER DR
BROADST
BELL RDMALAGAST
POPLAR ST19TH AVEATLANTIC ST
BRUCE ST
FRANKLIN ST
EARL R DSHORECREST DRPERSHING RDSUNKISTDRMARGARET ST
WANAPUMDR
LENAE LN
MONROE STEVANS LNINTERLAKE RD28th Ave NEHIGHLAND DR
SHIPMASTER
CT
SPRUCE STTYNDALL RD
ROAD K.8POTATO HILL RDWARBLERST
ARIZONA20TH AVEROAD 1.9
SUNNY DR
WHEELER RD
BONANZA ST
KONISHI RD
MANZANITABOW STBASELINE.3
CONCORD AVE
GEM AVEPETTIGREW LN
BERTRAM WAY
BAYSIDE ST
ASPI BLVD
ROAD 5
Rd G.6 NERd I.6 NEPACIFIC ST
AVALON RD
THOMPSON PL K.5CATALPA STWINONA STMELVALN CLARK RDWALLACEST
MCBETH LN
BAILEY AVEROBINSON RDCENTURYST24TH AVE NEORCHARD DROREGON ST FERGUSON RDFAIRCHILDLP
BOARDW
ALKAVEBADGERST
BLUEHERONLN
SANDAL
WOODPL FAIRVIEW PLBOBWHITE DR
SPACE ST
CROUSE ST
WI LLOW STHILLCREST DR
1.1
LYBBERT DR
CO MMERCIALST
SAMARITANRDMURRAYWAY
SUPERIOR CT COOLIDGESTRAINIER DR COVEY LNJOANN DRSTAR DRSUN DRLINCOLN DRLANDON ST
BRECKEN DR
NEN DR
WINESAP RD CRYSTA LS P RIN GS DRDENTONR
DTERMINAL ST
CRAW LN
STEWART LNCHRIS DR
FLORIDA DRSR-17OFF-RAMP
ROAD MINDUSTRIAL ST
MITCHELL AVE
ROAD 4.8
ARROW STBONG
LOOPTINKERLOOP
CRYSTALSPRIN GSPLI-90OFF-RAMP ROAD LDOGWOODSTWESTLAKERD
ARLENE LN
CHARLES PL
VINCE DR
JEAN LN
FARMERDR ROAD L.9SUNSETDRROAD10
ROADN.9BRENT RDBEACON RD
ROAD 3.7
MALAGA DRRAMM RDLUTA ST
ROAD 9.7
CALVERT RDGROVE RD CITATION RDFIROUZI DRHEDMANCTASTRO LNCOLLEGEPARKWAY
MAE VALLEY RD
JONATHAN RD
ANDREWS ST
ROAD 7
KELLY PLT
UR
NK
EY R
DI-90 ON-R AMP
FORBES RD
ROAD M.2LUP INEDRMAIE
RSRD
KOPP LN
NEWELL ST
HERITAGE LN
W ENATCHEE RDBRAD STREDMOND RD
HARRIS RD
CAMAS
PLRD J.6MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RDTURNERRD
MUNICIPAL HANGAR RDCAST
LEDR
BLUFF DRSTONE RD
ROAD NADMIRAL RDROAD H.4ROAD H.6ROAD H.8ROAD H.1S FRONTAGE RD N FRONTAGE RD
ROAD 1
ROAD 2ALMA RDKORY LN
DIA MONDPOINT
CIR
Document Path: \\gis-server\gis\Masters\Portal Map Products\ETUA.mxd
0 1,900 3,800 5,700 7,600950Feet
LEGEND
Streets
Railroad
Shoreline
Moses Lake
City Limits
EXTRA TERRITORIAL UTILITY AGREEMENT
ANNEXED
NO
YES
CITY OF MOSES LAKE | EXTRA TERRITORIAL UTILITY AGREEMENT
Date: 11/4/2020
´
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE FOR VISUAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE ACCURACY OF ALL INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED WITH CITY STAFF.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 60 of 883
MOSES LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF September 16, 2021
Commissioners Present : Nathan Nofziger (Chair), Charles Hepburn (Vice Chair), Gary Mann, Eric Skaug, Anne Henning
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: City Manager Allison Williams, Community Development Director Melissa
Bethel, Planning Manager Vivian Ramsey, Planning Permit Technician Michelene
Torrey
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Motion to approve August 26 and September 2, 2021 minutes by Commissioner Mann
and seconded by Commissioner Hepburn.
Item # 1- Public Hearing-
Kevin Gifford with Berk Consulting presented the Updated Draft Comprehensive Plan to
the Commission. The presentation included the comprehensive plan update and a
review of the UGA boundary changes.
Public Comments:
Kim Foster spoke regarding Area 5 “North Mae Valley” deletion from the UGA.
Mark Fancher spoke regarding UGA boundaries doing business within the City of
Moses Lake.
Gil Alvarado spoke regarding UGA boundaries and the deletion of Central
Terminals/Wheeler East (Area 10)
Jim Warjone spoke regarding North Mae Valley deletion and future bridge crossing.
Lexi Smith spoke in favor of the comprehensive plan update and the new zoning
districts.
Houston Aho spoke regarding the removal of the South Side (Area 7) from the UGA.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 61 of 883
Deliberation centered around UGA Boundary changes and deletion of Urban growth
areas notated within the appendix of Updated Comprehensive Plan as well as
recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety.
Motion: Vice Chair Hepburn motioned, and Commissioner Skaug seconded a motion to
continue the public hearing to September 23, 2021 at 6:00PM. Unanimous vote by
Commission.
Planning Commission Questions and Comments:
Commission requested larger maps of the UGA Boundary Areas to be seen at the next
meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 8:32 PM by Chair Nofziger.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 62 of 883
MOSES LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF September 23, 2021
Continuation of September 16, 2021 Meeting
Commissioners Present : Nathan Nofziger (Chair), Charles Hepburn (Vice Chair), Gary
Mann, Eric Skaug, Anne Henning
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Allison Williams, Community Development Director Melissa
Bethel, Planning Manager Vivian Ramsey, Planning Permit Technician Michelene
Torrey
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Item # 1- Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing-
Kevin Gifford with Berk Consulting presented the Updated Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan to the Commission. The presentation included the updates to the
Capital Facilities Element as well as the Land Use Element. The changes were nominal
to the original elements provided to the commission.
Public Comments:
Mark Fancher –Spoke regarding infill development within the City.
Gil Alvarado –Spoke regarding Comprehensive Plan Procedures and Downtown Zone
questions.
Jim Warjone- Spoke regarding utilities within UGA
Rick Pennhallurick –Spoke regarding New Zoning and how the new Overlays would
affect his businesses.
Judy Madewell –Spoke regarding development within our Downtown/Retail and Traffic
Issues
Houston Aho –Spoke regarding Dune Lakes Master Plan UGA Denial
Debra Cromer – Spoke in favor of the UGA boundary amendments siting lack of
resources in the UGA areas.
Keith Stoddarhouse- Spoke regarding growth and history of the City.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 63 of 883
Dustin Schwartz- Comments regarding Current Population within City of Moses Lake
being taken care of before UGA
Commission deliberated over the Urban Growth Area Boundary changes. Area 5 and 7
were focal points of the conversation as well as the “donut” within the city boundaries.
The “donut” being Area 11 within the UGA Boundary Amendments Appendix.
Motion: Commission Hepburn moved and Commissioner Mann second for
recommendation of approval on the overall comprehensive plan as presented by staff
except maintaining UGA Boundary Area 5 (North Mae Valley) and not including “donut
area” listed as Area 11 (Wheeler West).
Motion approved unanimously.
Planning Commission Questions and Comments:
Meeting adjourned at 9:51PM PM by Chair Nofziger.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 64 of 883
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1011 Plum Street SE PO Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 (360) 725-4000
www.commerce.wa.gov
October 8, 2021
Melissa Bethel
Community Development Director
City of Moses Lake
401 S. Balsam
PO Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Sent Via Electronic Mail
RE: Periodic Update of the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
Dear Ms. Bethel,
Thank you for sending Growth Management Services the proposed amendments to the City of Moses
Lake’s Comprehensive Plan. We received the materials you submitted on August 24, 2021. We processed
them with Submittal ID 2021-S-3049.
We appreciate your coordination with our agency as you work to achieve the community’s vision
consistent with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). We recognize that the
City has made a significant shift in the approach to long-range planning. We are writing to support the
City’s effort to update the Comprehensive Plan, adopt a Housing Action Plan, and amend the Urban
Growth Area (UGA). Commerce commends your staff, community, and elected officials for developing
long-term strategies to address housing, development, and infrastructure investments through proactive
land use planning.
Moses Lake Housing Action Plan:
We commend the City on your Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) and the Housing Action Plan (HAP).
We appreciate your detailed analysis of community and housing characteristics. You clearly identified
barriers to increasing housing supply and affordability in Moses Lake, and developed the following
strategies to address those barriers as you implement your HAP and Comprehensive Plan:
Reduce minimum lot sizes in residential zones.
Increase allowed housing types in existing zones
Streamline permitting processes.
Integrate added flexibility for planned or clustered subdivisions into the zoning code.
Encourage income-restricted affordable housing development.
Facilitate production of accessory dwelling units.
Strategic infrastructure investments.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 65 of 883
Your analysis served as a foundation for a more holistic review of other policies and elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. Commerce wants to continue supporting this important work. We encourage you to
apply for funding to implement your HAP and follow-through on the code changes and strategies identified
in your implementation plan.
Moses Lake Urban Growth Area:
In previous years Commerce expressed concerns over various UGA expansions proposed by the City. Our
concerns primarily centered on the lack of a land capacity analysis to support the proposal, as well as a lack
of analysis regarding the costs to provide capital facilities and urban services to support proposed
expansions. We are pleased to see the City engage in a more rigorous evaluation of the existing UGA as
part of the periodic update process. We are also encouraged by the collaboration we have observed with
Grant County Development Services on potential UGA amendments.
We understand that elected and appointed officials are grappling with challenging decisions about whose
property should be included in the Moses Lake UGA. As appointed and elected officials consider the
proposed alternatives, we encourage Grant County and the City of Moses Lake to recognize that decisions
about where and how growth occur should be based on the overriding public interest. Your decisions on
how to accommodate new growth will have long-lasting impacts on local budgets, infrastructure,
transportation facilities, the natural environment, and quality-of-life. Assessing the relationship between
land use patterns, density, infrastructure, and public services is critical because the community is not only
committing to the upfront capital costs, but to the operation, maintenance and eventual replacement of
those facilities.
We are confident the work completed on the periodic update will yield positive, long-lasting results for the
community. The City and County now have much better information regarding the cost of public facilities
and services that are required to support new growth and development. We agree with the assertion that
“The City should identify portions of the unincorporated UGA where it will be difficult to extend urban
services within the planning period and consider such areas for removal from the UGA.”1 The County
cannot approve a UGA proposal unless there is a realistic, financially-constrained plan to provide urban
services and facilities to the proposed UGA.2
Growth Rates and Population Allocation:
We understand the community has raised concerns during the public process about growth rates and the
amount of population allocated to the Moses Lake UGA. The primary purpose of establishing a twenty-
year population projection is to determine UGA boundaries and make reasonable assumptions about
infrastructure investments and the provision of urban services. Overly optimistic forecasts can result in
long-term infrastructure commitments that run the risk of undermining other local priorities.
Grant County went through a process of selecting a countywide growth target and allocating growth to
urban centers four years ago. The County selected the medium growth forecast from the Office of Financial
Management, which is consistent with our agency’s recommendations. It is also the most likely countywide
projection and reviewed thoroughly by state demographers.3 The County allocated the majority of new
1 City of Moses Lake Land Capacity Analysis (Updated September 23, 2021)
2 WAC 365-196-320 and 365-196-415
3 RCW 43.62.035
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 66 of 883
urban growth to Moses Lake based on past trends, and the recognition that Moses Lake is a major
employment center.4
Based on our review of the City’s land capacity analysis, there is more than enough capacity in the Moses
Lake UGA to accommodate twenty years of growth. In fact, it appears that with minor revisions to the
development code recommended in the City’s HAP, the City could accommodate all of the projected
population within the City limits.
The City should feel confident with the good work completed by Grant County. We remind the community
that although this is a twenty-year plan, City staff will be monitoring growth and have an opportunity to
revisit growth rates prior to the 2027 periodic update. We recommend cities and counties collaborate on
growth projections at least two years before a periodic update cycle, which means that the City and County
should begin reassessing the existing projections in less than four years.
Capital Facilities and Costs:
We appreciate the City’s updates to the Utilities, Transportation, and Capital Facilities Elements. A clear
understanding of revenue sources combined with capital and long term operation and maintenance costs for
providing urban services in the Moses Lake UGA is critical to achieving the goals and policies in your
Comprehensive Plan. One of the best ways to make a future land use plan come true is to use investments
in public facilities to reinforce the plan.
These elements generally recognize the costs associated with major projects. We encourage you to
consider better identifying specific revenue sources associated with these projects. This may include
sources such as general taxes, user fees, impact fees, debt, capital reserves, and grants. It may be helpful to
break down costs for the first six years to inform the Capital Improvement Program and Transportation
Improvement Program, as well as costs for the rest of the planning period – years 7-20. The Commerce
Capital Facilities Guidebook offers extensive details and examples for your consideration.
We encourage you to continue working closely with the Washington State Department of Transportation as
you prepare an application for Grant County to amend the UGA boundaries. The City should ensure that
assumptions about commercial and industrial development correlate with your projected population
growth, consider historical absorption rates, and are grounded in market-based constraints. Based on the
materials we reviewed, some of the assumed development patterns could cause failures for the state or local
transportation systems. Removing undeveloped, vacant portions of the UGA or decreasing the overall size
of the UGA may mitigate these failures and relieve congestion on state and local systems.
Development Standards in the Unincorporated UGA:
The introduction includes a section on implementation, and Exhibit 1-1 identifies specific steps for the City
to take in upcoming years. We appreciate the City’s intent to focus on development regulations in the
unincorporated UGA. As the City and County move forward with the UGA review and adoption, one of
our core recommendations is to commit to adopting policies, agreements, and regulations on how
development occurs in the unincorporated UGA.
Development phasing is a critical tool to prevent a pattern of sprawling low-density development from
occurring or vesting in areas prior to the ability to support urban densities. Development phasing can delay
4 Grant County Comprehensive Plan – Table 4-8
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 67 of 883
the need for new infrastructure, allowing the community to accommodate growth and development at a
lower cost. Once a low-density pattern occurs, it is more difficult to serve with urban services, is less likely
to achieve urban densities5, and limits potential tax revenue which could ultimately create a financial
liability for the County. Our administrative rule, WAC 365-196-330, provides guidance on phasing
development in the unincorporated UGA.
Strong policies, regulations and standards for development in the unincorporated Moses Lake UGA will
benefit both the City of Moses Lake and Grant County. We are happy to work with staff as you consider
changes to strengthen the development standards.
Development Regulations and Critical Areas Ordinance:
The City is required to review, and if necessary, revise the Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations, including critical areas regulations, as part of the periodic update.6 Commerce tracks
completion of the periodic update requirement through three milestones – the comprehensive plan, the
development regulations, and the critical areas ordinance. Based on our discussions, we understand the City
is prioritizing a review and update of the development regulations and critical areas ordinance in the next
year. Failure to complete all milestones of the periodic update will impact eligibility and ratings for certain
grant and loan programs. Please feel free to contact us, and other state agencies, if you need assistance on
this work.
We extend our continued support to Moses Lake in achieving the goals of the Growth Management Act and
the vision of your community. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions or
would like technical assistance, please feel free to contact me at william.simpson@commerce.wa.gov or
509-280-3602.
Sincerely,
William Simpson, AICP
Senior Planner
Growth Management Services
Washington State Department of Commerce
WS:lw
cc:
Dave Andersen, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services
Ben Serr, AICP Eastern Regional Manager, Growth Management Services
Vivian Ramsey, Planning Manager, City of Moses Lake
Allison Williams, City Manager, City of Moses Lake
Damien Hooper, Development Services Director, Grant County
Tyler Lawrence, Deputy Director, Grant County
Eric Pentico, Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
5 WAC 365-196-330(3)
6 RCW 36.70A.130
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 68 of 883
Laura Hodgson, Associate Planner, Growth Management Services
George Mazur, Regional Transportation Planner, WA Department of Transportation
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 69 of 883
1
Michelene Torrey
From:Michelene Torrey
Sent:Thursday, September 16, 2021 8:33 AM
To:Michelene Torrey
Subject:FW: Commerce Review - Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Update
From: Simpson, William (COM) <william.simpson@commerce.wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 10:01 AM
To: Melissa Bethel <mbethel@cityofml.com>
Cc: Vivian Ramsey <vramsey@cityofml.com>; Serr, Benjamin (COM) <benjamin.serr@commerce.wa.gov>
Subject: Commerce Review ‐ Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Update
This sender is trusted.
sophospsmartbannerend
Melissa,
Thank you for your inquiry into our agency’s review of your Comprehensive Plan. Commerce is still conducting the
review, and may provide formal comments for the City’s consideration prior to the City Council’s public hearing.
We appreciate the extensive work and comprehensive nature of your update. We also appreciate the City’s ongoing
collaboration with Grant County staff in regards to Urban Growth Area (UGA) amendments and development in the
unincorporated UGA. We anticipate this collaboration will result in a stronger application to Grant County as they
consider your proposed UGA changes.
We look forward to talking to you in more detail about your submittal in the next few weeks.
Respectfully,
William Simpson, AICP | SENIOR PLANNER
Growth Management Services | Washington State Department of Commerce
10 N. Post Suite 445
Spokane, WA 99201
Cell: 509-280-3602
www.commerce.wa.gov | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Subscribe
Email communications with state employees are public records and may be subject to disclosure, pursuant to Ch. 42.56
RCW.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 70 of 883
GAJ LLC
GAJ PLANNING * PO BOX 260 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 * gajplanning@gmail.com
September 16, 2021
Vivian Ramsey
Planning Manager
401 S. Balsam
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Dear Vivian
Please see the following comments for the record on the City of Moses Lake Draft Comprehensive Plan,
Urban Growth Area Boundary Revision map as provide on the City of Moses Lake website.
Land Use Element:
1. Population Exhibit 3-1: The data provided is derived from the Office of Financial Management
(OFM) population used for the allocation of selected State revenues. Exhibit 3-1 should be
revised to reflect the 2020 and 2021 Population Estimates that are currently in place. The Average
Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) is almost identical to the 2015-2019 AAGR.
2. Page 3-12: Critical Areas should be clarified with regard to the “approximately 610 acres”
figure of freshwater wetlands. This figure was derived from the National Wetland Inventory maps
which were not actual on-site wetland delineations. A disclaimer statement should be included.
In conjunction, Exhibit 3-9 Existing Land Use Map also needs clarification. Central Terminals LLC
property ownership shows “wetlands” in areas that are not. . See “Known Wetlands Locations”
insert, Page 3-12. I have previously conveyed this fact. For example, two large, manufactured
water detention ponds are shown as wetlands.
3. Policy 3.3.2: Comprehensive look at housing types and densities which is needed. Traditional
Neighborhood Design (TND) would a wonderful addition to the development regulation scheme
for the City of Moses Lake. What is the point of a 2-acre qualifier for the use of TND?
4. Policy 3.3.4: States walkable residential neighborhoods, “provide for usable…parkland within
walking distance (1/2 mile) of all new residences. This does not provide for any flexibility in terms
of site selection and function of such parkland. This approach is simply a one-size fits all approach.
Policy 3.3.8: What is the intent of the “new design standards” in terms of implementation? The
language in this Policy suggests a design review approach to new multi-family development.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 71 of 883
GAJ LLC
GAJ PLANNING * PO BOX 260 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 * gajplanning@gmail.com
Policy 3.4.1: Is there any fiscal analysis in place to support the bullet point “continue to enhance
and expand the Paver District”? Under the current financing scheme, the City of Moses Lake pays
the majority share of such improvements. While a great finance tool for the private property
owner, can the City of Moses Lake afford to expand this program?
Policy 3.4.2: What is meant by “special standards and guidelines for large site development”?
What is considered a large site? This statement is too vague and should be clarified.
Goal 3.5: There is no mention of coordinating continued long-term planning efforts with property
owners and ownership groups. This Goal should include some private sector coordination.
Policy 3.7.11: This Policy does not distinguish the type of existing development other than the
“incentive to residents and businesses” statement. As written this Policy would cover Industrial
development as well. Can we confirm this?
Policy 3.8.1: How will this apply given projects within the Urban Growth Area are under the
authority of Grant County. Is this a necessary Policy given the jurisdictional control?
Goal 3.9.1: This lends itself to possible private and public efforts and or partnerships language to
be included into this Goal.
Page 3-37 Master Planned Development Priority Overlay: The Future Land Use Map shows a
Master Planned Development Preferred designation. Are these one in the same? They entitled
differently. If they are, some of the characteristics listed do not fit some of the existing parcels.
Urban Growth Area Map Revisions:
We would like to withdraw the Central Terminals LLC UGA Amendment Application for the
removal of 160 acres from the Moses Lake UGA. Based on the August 20, 2021, and March 5,
2021, Memorandums, and current site-selector trends for the subject site is better served to
remain in the Moses Lake UGA.
If you have any questions, or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 509-770-1638
or gil.huskyfan@gmail.com.
Very Truly
Gil Alvarado
GAJ Planning LLC
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 72 of 883
GAJ LLC
GAJ PLANNING * PO BOX 260 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 * gajplanning@gmail.com
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 73 of 883
GAJ LLC
GAJ PLANNING * PO BOX 260 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 * gajplanning@gmail.com
September 23, 2021
Vivian Ramsey
Planning Manager
401 S. Balsam
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Dear Vivian
On behalf of Maiers Enterprises LLC, please see the following comments for the record on the City of
Moses Lake Draft Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map entitled DRAFT – September 2021. For
reference I have attached a vicinity map with Maiers Enterprises LLC properties and also the adjacent Rick
Penhallurick property.
Land Use Element:
1. Page 3-34: The draft Gateway Commercial District is proposed for properties owned by Maiers
Enterprises LLC. While the Locational Criteria could be interpreted to apply to these parcels, is
this an appropriate District for this area?
2. Page 3–34: The aforementioned properties have existing land uses. Many of which are newer
construction and have yet to amortize the investment. The Principal Uses and Density, include
uses that would create some incompatible land uses.
3. Page 3–34: The Implementing Zones, would equate to a Rezone upon adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. Once the Plan is in place, the City of Moses Lake would implement the
Gateway Commercial District by way of a Rezone. How will Non-Conforming Uses be handled
with future Rezoning if adopted?
4. Page 3–37: The language in the heading Overlay Districts reference a “set of design principles”.
Does Staff have a concept or idea of these design principles may include?
5. Page 3-37: The Overlay Districts states “These overlay districts establish a common set of
design principles and development priorities, regardless of the underlying land use designations”.
How will this be applied? In our case would the Gateway Commercial District be the controlling
instrument or would the Overlay District control such as the Master Planned Development
Preferred in our case.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 74 of 883
GAJ LLC
GAJ PLANNING * PO BOX 260 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 * gajplanning@gmail.com
Lastly, I am supplementing my September 16, 2021, written testimony with regard to our
objection to Exhibit 3-9 and also the “Known Wetlands Locations” insert 3-12 with an Eastern
Washington Growth Hearings Board decision. See attached summary. The Board ruled in CFFC v
Ferry County that existing maps were not adequate for designating wetlands and that a process
in addition to the maps was necessary. The point being that NWI maps were used to develop
Known Wetland Locations which is not accurate and it misleading.
If you have any questions, or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 509-770-1638
or gil.huskyfan@gmail.com.
Very Truly
Gil Alvarado
GAJ Planning LLC
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 75 of 883
September 16, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Planning Commission
PO Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
SUBJECT: Public Comment – Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update – City of Moses Lake Public
Hearing Comment
To Whom It May Concern,
I am submitting a written comment in regard to the proposed adoption of the updates to the City of Moses
Lake Comprehensive Plan. I am not able to attend in person due to my prior commitment of coaching
soccer through ML Parks and Recreation.
In general, it was my understanding, through prior regular attendance of planning commission and city
council meetings, from March of 2021 on that “the plan was coming” and would be adopted in pieces.
When asked when information would be provided for review, the consistent response was that “it was
forthcoming, but not ready.” Then the end of August rolls around and all elements were dropped in the
planning commissions lap with a push to adopt the entire policy without adequate review or consideration
made. I do not feel that the planning commission has had adequate time or information, despite their
requests, to provide meaningful input and recommendation to the Council and that Department of
Commerce input must be factored at the planning commission level of plan implementation.
I have read other public comments that have been made and am floored that the ASPI Group, as a major
economic contributor, was not consulted. I have major concerns with issues that were brought up in that
letter. Does anyone remember that Broadway already has a revitalization corridor? Are we abandoning
that plan for the new location?
I would also like to reiterate my earlier comment(s) that were previously submitted as a public comment
at a previous planning commission meeting. Firstly, the mapping exhibits illustrating the UGA boundary
is consistently inaccurate within all sections of the comprehensive plan amendment. In particular, the
Port of Moses Lake, parcel no. 17-0983-000, is not depicted within the exhibits. I question if there are
other areas of the existing UGA that were left out of the exhibits? I would encourage that all of the
mapping exhibits be amended prior to the public hearing to accurately depict the existing UGA boundary
and utilities within these “forgotten” areas.
Secondly, I would also like to encourage the City to utilize its planning commission in the way that it was
intended. The planning commission is uniquely qualified to review development regulations/municipal
code and comprehensive plans and to provide recommendations to the City Council for proposed changes
that would align development regulations with the adopted comprehensive plan. It should not be staff
that is reviewing and updating municipal code as described in the Exhibit 1-1 Plan Implementation Action
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 76 of 883
within the proposed comprehensive plan. In general, the implementation plan lacks the needed
involvement of the Cities planning commission. Staff should be implementing the changes, not dictating
them.
Additionally, I believe that a year timeframe for updating development regulation is too long a timeframe.
These sweeping “wholesale” changes to the comprehensive plan need to have a framework for
consistency. Land use actions are already unpredictable, drawn out and indecisive. Spending another
year having incompatible development regulations will only perpetuate the confusion and slow permitting
processes that are continually highlighted as a barrier within the proposed comprehensive plan and
housing action plan. A more demanding timeline should be applied to ensure that the plan is actionable.
I thank you for your time and consideration on these topics. I feel sorry for our commission who has been
placed with a massive undue burden this evening that could have been avoided with open discussion,
incremental review and early owner input.
Respectfully Submitted,
Danielle Escamilla
Concerned Resident
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 77 of 883
September 10, 2021
City of Moses Lake Planning Commission
PO Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
RE: Dune Lakes Urban Growth Area Expansion
Introduction:
To the City of Moses Lake Planning Commission:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the current proposed update to the City’s
Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. On behalf of Dune Lakes, LLC, Aho Construction is requesting
that the following Grant County tax parcels be included in the Urban Growth Area as part of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan update: 170071000, 170071001, 170072000, 170081000, 170082002, 170083000,
170086000, 170073001.
These parcels are currently vested under a development agreement with Grant County as Dune
Lakes, a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The development will include a mix of over 1150 single family
and multifamily residential units as well as commercial components. Dune Lakes is envisioned to be a
distinctive livable community with access to recreation areas and open spaces.
Dune Lakes borders the UGA Boundary on its North and West property lines. Municipal services for
water and sewer are near the property. The development is served by the Pelican Point Water Company
service area (see Water Service Area Utility Element UE-2). Additionally, the development has domestic
water rights in excess of 2,350 acre feet per year.
A City sewer line is located at the intersection of Baseline Rd and Potato Hill Rd, near the development’s
NE boundary (see Wastewater System Utility Element UE-1). Being located outside of the UGA prohibits
the Dune Lakes project from connecting to the City’s sewer system. However, Dune Lakes can be served
by individual septic systems, large on-site septic (LOSS) or membrane group systems, without inclusion
in the UGA.
The property is located just over one mile from Yonezawa Boulevard. Grant County Fire District #5’s
station 12 is located at 23 Potato Hill Rd NE which is across the street from Dune Lakes’ NE Corner. The
Moses Lake Police Department is located 3.2 miles from the site and the Moses Lake Fire Department is
3.5 miles. In comparison the Sagecrest subdivision (currently within the City limits) is located about 4.5
miles away from both MLPD and MLFD.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 78 of 883
BERK Consulting’s Memorandum dated August 20, 2021, has recommend denial of Dune Lake UGA
application. BERK’s recommendation is not justified as the project is located near municipal utilities,
already has a vested development approval, and is located no further than properties already in the
UGA.
Dune Lakes is not dependent upon City utility services to move forward with the project. However, given
its proximity to City sewer and the relative size of the development, we would prefer to be included in
the UGA and connect to City sewer. It would be an overlook in planning if the City failed to recognize
that the project is vested in Grant County for 1150 units & commercial components and is not reliant on
City utilities. Additionally, the development will provide a variety of housing options, additional outdoor
recreational and open spaces that will meet the needs of the growing Moses Lake community,
consistent with its Comprehensive Plan.
Expansion of the UGA to include the Dune Lakes project is consistent with the City’s previously stated
growth objectives and has even received prior approval by this body. On December 12, 2019, the City of
Moses Lake Planning Commission recommended approval of the of the Dune Lakes UGA Expansion with
a 6-0 vote, under Comp Plan Update Ordinance 2934. Unfortunately, ordinance 2934 was repealed by
ordinance 2952 on procedural grounds and not on the merits of the expansion, thus we are again asking
that the Planning Commission reaffirm its prior approval for this project to be included in the UGA.
Turning to the consultant’s recommendations that the existing UGA can accommodate all the City’s
population growth over the 20-year planning horizon, we take issue with several findings and assertions
contained in the Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment, the Draft Moses Lake Housing Action Plan and
the Draft Creating Our Future documents prepared by Berk Consulting.
With respect to Housing Capacity, Berk’s data in Exhibit 4-12 of the Draft Creating Our Future document
is impossible to interpret. The first column for Net Housing Capacity (Vacant and Ag Land) is expressed
in acres. The second column for Net Housing Capacity (Redevelopable Land) is expressed in housing
units. These two measurements are then combined in the third column for Total Net Housing Capacity.
Some calculations appear to be consistent with the 2.61 people per household as stated in the plan.
Others though appear to be using a 2.78 people per household calculation. Due to the inconsistency in
these numbers, it is impossible to determine the mathematical process used to generate the fourth
column for Total Net Population Capacity.
In any event we would like to make the following observations regarding the consultant’s conclusions:
•80% of the proposed housing capacity in Moses Lake is being planned to come from
Redevelopable Lands.
o Infill properties are inherently timelier and more expensive to develop
o The risk profile for infill and redevelopment property is higher due to limited
economies of scale
o Infill properties are not often well-suited for large scale development due to
parcelization of the properties and uncertain time frames for redevelopment.
o Planning for open space, trails and parks is difficult
o Infill properties are often unavailable for sale or development when there may be a
ready buyer.
o Infill and redevelopment of properties are more common in high-population
jurisdictions that have limited land supply, geographic constraints, and/or overuse of
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 79 of 883
existing resources such as Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett. In these jurisdictions,
densification and vertical expansion (high-rises) are the only options.
•Homeownership rates
o Based on current Census data, the homeownership rate is only at 53% in Moses Lake,
compared to the National average of over 65%
o As the focus for Moses Lake’s future development turns to infill and high-density,
multifamily development, homeownership rates will likely decline further
o High density projects are often rentals, i.e., apartments
o Infill development will lead to higher housing costs which price customers out of the
market. BERK has stated that Moses Lake is already a price conscious market.
o An increase in housing pricing could result in people seeking homeownership to move to
other nearby communities such as Ephrata, Othello, or Quincy.
o Dependence upon infill and redevelopment projects will slow unit production and place
further limits on housing supply.
•Several the properties inside the urban growth have limited development availability
o Due to lack of municipal services i.e., sewer, water
o Some are due to site conditions like high ground water, habitat buffers, wetlands,
topography, etc.
o These conditions effect the number of potential units, the cost of housing supply and
likelihood that they develop.
o The City has not produced a Vacant Buildable Lands Model which would reveal site-
specific constraints on those properties deemed “underutilized” or redevelopable.
•Housing Mismatch
o The one and two person households with three-bedroom homes may be less of a
mismatch and more of a lifestyle choice.
o Even before COVID people had dedicated additional bedrooms to home offices, workout
rooms, guest rooms and other recreational spaces.
o With the increase in remote working this has only become more popular and created
living working environments in single-family residential homes.
o The plan has largely over-looked “moderate income” segment of the population which
in many markets could achieve homeownership.
o RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)(i) specially requires a Comprehensive Plan to provide for
moderate-income households.
o The plan in its current state will force this market segment into housing that otherwise
does not fit its needs
•Jobs
o If the push for housing in downtown is being led by exhibit 16 of the Housing Needs
Assessment, it should be noted that Education Services is the number two job sector in
the city. The bulk of the schools are also overlaid in the center of the City. The high job
concentration is likely heavily influence by this one employer.
o Family wage employers locating in smaller regional markets will want to tout the
opportunities for homeownership to attract and retain high quality employees. Over
reliance on density and multi-family housing projects will likely have an adverse impact
on family wage employment in Moses Lake.
Aho Construction has a long history of residential development in Grant County and Moses Lake. We
have developed attractive, functional neighborhoods that add to the area’s quality of life. Aho believes
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 80 of 883
that projects such as Dune Lake create housing and recreational opportunities for the entire community.
With proper collaboration between the developer and the municipality, these projects can improve and
enhance existing infrastructure, while providing high-wage construction-related employment. Through
economies of scale, we can provide single-family housing at a far more affordable rate than “infill” and
small-lot projects.
Aho encourages the Planning Commission to carefully consider the ramifications of placing so much
housing capacity into high-density and redevelopment projects as advocated by Berk. We believe the
American Dream is best served by creating opportunities for advancement in both the workplace and in
housing. These are not mutually exclusive. We encourage the Planning Commission to recommend
inclusion of the Dune Lake project into the Moses Lake UGA to become an amenity for the current
population and an attraction for future employers.
Sincerely,
Houston Aho
Acquisitions & Development
Aho Construction I, Inc
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 81 of 883
³ä ³ä
³ä ³ä³ä³ä
³ä³ä ³ä
³ä
³ä ³ä³ä
³ä ³ä³ä
³ä
³ä ³ä
³ä³ä ³ä
³ä ³ä³ä
³ä
³ä ³ä
PI
ONEERWAYCLOVER DRSR-17 RANDOLPHRDROAD 4
ROAD 3
KITTELSON RDDIVISIONSTBROADWAYAVENELSON RD
YONEZAWA BLVD
VALLEY RD
WHEELER RD
ROAD 5STRATFORD RDROAD LROAD KHANSENRDMAE VALLEY RD
ROAD 7
ROAD 2GRAPE DRSR
1
7
ROAD 1
SANDDUNESRDINTERSTATE 90 THIRD AVEROAD FP
A
T
T
O
N
BLVDROAD ICENTRALD
R
ROAD NROAD MLEGEND
CITY LIMITSUGA BOUNDARYMOSES LAKESEWER STRUCTURES
³ä LIFT STATION
SEWER LINESTYPE6 IN SS8 IN SS10 IN SS12 IN SS15 IN SS18 IN SSFORCE MAINPRIVATEUNK SS
Document Path: \\Gis-server\gis\Map Requests\COMPREHENSIVE PLAN\UTILITIES ELEMENT\MAJOR SEWER LINES UE1.mxd
WASTEWATER SYSTEM | UTILITY ELEMENT | UE-1
0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,0002,000 Feet
Date: 8/26/2014
´
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACCURACY OF ALL INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED WITH CITY STAFF.Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 82 of 883
"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)"M)"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)
"M)
UT
UT
UTUT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
Skyline Water System
Basin Water Inc.
Grove Terrace
Lakeview Mobile Terrace Basin WaterBasin WaterPonderosa MHP
Hillcrest WaterCascade Village MHP
Cascade Valley Water Dist
Westshore Water Company
Quail Run MHP
Diamond Point
Country Club Estates
Moses Lake Golf and CC
Silver Sands Condo
Pelican Point PI
ONEERWA
Y
CLOVER DRSR-
1
7 RANDOLPHRDROAD 4
ROAD 3
KITTELSON RDDIVISION STBROADWAYAVENELSON RD
YONEZAWABLVD
MAE VALLEY RD
WHEELER RD
ROAD 5
ROAD 2STRATFORD RDROAD OROAD LROAD KROAD10
ROAD 7
INTE RSTAT E 90
SR
1
7
ROAD 1
S A N D D U N E S R DVALLEY RDTHIRD AVEROAD FROAD IROAD EROAD NROAD DROAD MLEGEND
WATER SERVICE AREAMOSES LAKEPRIVATE WATER SYSTEMS
UT WATER STORAGE
"M)ACTIVE WELL
WATER LINESZONECENTRALKNOLLS VISTALAKEVIEWLARSONMONTLAKEWHEELER
Document Path: \\Gis-server\gis\Map Requests\COMPREHENSIVE PLAN\UTILITIES ELEMENT\WATER SYSTEM UE2.mxd
WATER SERVICE AREA | UTILITY ELEMENT | UE-2
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,0002,500 Feet
Date: 8/26/2014
´
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACCURACY OF ALL INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED WITH CITY STAFF.Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 83 of 883
Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2019
MOSES LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting on December 12, 2019 Commissioners Present: Chair Nathan Nofziger, Vice-Chair Charles Hepburn, Commissioners, Gary Mann, Roderick Davis and David Eck, Commissioner Don Schmig.
Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Avila P E C P E P P C E P E E C C P A C P C E E
Davis P P C P P P E C P P P P C C E P C E C P E P
Eck P P C P P P E C E P P P C C P P C P C P E P
Hepburn P P C P P P P C P P E E C C P P C P C P P P
Lengenfelder P P C P P A P C E P P P C C A E C P C A P
Mann P E C P P E P C P E P P C C E E C P C P P P
Nofziger P P C P P P E C P P P E C C P P C P C P P P
Penhallurick P P C E A P P C P P E A C C A E C P C E P
Schmig P P C P P P P C E P P P C C P P C P C P P A
P = Present E = Excused A = Absent C = Canceled Staff Present: Community Development Director Kris Robbins; Associate Planners, Amy Harris and Vivian Ramsey. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chair Nofziger called roll. Everyone was present. Consent Agenda:
A. No minutes for November 21.
2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Public Hearing Motion to take comprehensive plan off the table. Moved and seconded.
Presentation by Proponent: Community Development Director Robbins mentioned she has additional information and had performed research in regards to comprehensive plan and proposed acreage and zoning. They are doing their due diligence. She clarified that the Hansen request cannot
be spot zoned and anything in that area is still subject to the shoreline master plan.
Chair Nofiziger opened the public hearing. PIA Zone Change Request from High-Density Residential to General Commercial: Pete T. (Owens Rd): presented concerns about impact on local neighborhoods and
impact on Moses Lake as a whole. He stated this will lead to a very negative impact. The continuous neighborhood will be split and have a different use right next to the housing. Is this good for Grant County? No. High density residential area to a commercial use is not the best use for this area. From 2010-2018 population has gone up almost 17% which
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 84 of 883
Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2019
means there was a demand for residential area. There is little to no demand for commercial property at this time.
Kim Foster (PIA Attorney)- In support the application for the 80 acres to go into
commercial zone. All current ASPI buildings are 100% leased. There is a demand. Can’t control what land owners sell their properties at. There were inaccurate remarks and confusion with a sign of the proposed apartment complex and he is addressing that with the developer.
This piece of property has not had much interest due to its location. It not attracting single family home developers. Commercial use generates a lot of revenue to the city. Without the commercial zoning it’s impossible to attract anyone. Any kind of proposed
development such as Costco, Target, whatever may come will not like limited access, but
would like access from the Loring side. It is a prime commercial site and the most logical
use is commercial zone. There is no current project planned. Opportunities for Moses Lake comes in waves. There is a tremendous wave (Boeing) I perceive this as a time where Moses Lake is seeing a wave. Moses Lake has the opportunity to really take the next step and I encourage everyone to embrace this. Boeing brought a worldwide
awareness so you have to do what is best for your own community. Pete T.: We all know, let’s be real- that there won’t be Costco or a Target in that area. It won’t be attractive for the community. All surrounding property is residential. The city
needs to think long terms. Yes, the waves come and go, they do so in the whole country.
Slicing and patchwork quilting residential and commercial is not appropriate. This is not
attractive to a home owner, I agree. Apartment complexes, condos are what will be benefited. These jobs are bringing in people who need homes. We need more residential. We need to keep it.
Don Temple (Harris Rd): There is only one way into this property and that is Harris. Loring does not even come into play. Has been here for 22 years, every once in a while there is a jet over us. It is nothing new. I Road does not exist. It may be platted but it is not there. The two Harris roads do not meet. There is no access to this property and right across
the street from me is a well for our water.
Kim F: Clarified for accuracy, there are three corridors in to the property, obviously none are construction until development occurs. There are three access ways that are already platted.
Cox Zone Change Request from High-Density Residential to General Commercial: No public comments. Hansen Zone Change Request from Public to Light Industrial:
Janice (1300 W Marina Dr 18): We had put together letters and statements at the meeting
last month and stated our concerns. At that time, I didn’t understand that the property has
to change. Ms. Robbins explained this to me but I don’t understand the zoning change.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 85 of 883
Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2019
This part of the plot and land is unique in its location. Mick stated he had no intention of putting anything in our backyard. We are counting on your decision to make this work for
us.
Mick Hansen: Had a chance to speak with the 14 residents who would be impacted by this. Once again, has no intentions of building anything past the first house coming from the North. From the line that runs at the back of the house straight to the lake- I am not building anything there. That will be the extent of the limits. Perhaps a marina, maybe an
RV park. But not trying to tie down anything at this point. Central Terminals Request to Annex into the City of Moses Lake UGA: No Comment
Dune Lakes Request to Annex into the City of Moses Lake UGA: No Comment
It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Motion passes. Action: PIA Zoning Request: Commissioners discussed approving the request to change the
zoning from High-Density Residential to General Commercial. It was moved and seconded to table the matter until staff can provide a map showing the location of access roads to the property. Motion passes.
Cox Zoning Request: Commissioners discussed the zone change request from High-
Density Residential to General Commercial on Nelson Rd. It was moved and seconded
to approve the request. Motion passed 3-2. Hansen Zoning Request: It was moved and seconded to accept to change the Public zoning designation on the parcel to Light-Industrial zoning noting that the shoreline
master program designation still needs to be addressed. Motion passed. Central Terminal UGA Expansion: It was moved and seconded to accept annexation into to the City of Moses Lake UGA. Motion passed.
Dune Lakes UGA Expansion: It was moved and seconded to accept annexation into to
the City of Moses Lake UGA. Motion passed. Administrative Report: Community Development Director Kris Robbins talked about the current construction
levels and two more developments occurring in the city. Planning Commission Questions and Comment Commissioners and Community Development Director Kris Robbins discuss the growth
of Moses Lake due to the Port. It takes five years from conception to construction. From
2012-2018 there have been 1300 employees that the Port and EDC has brought to Moses
Lake. In the next year, they are projecting another 1300 employees.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 86 of 883
Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2019
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM
____________________________________
Chair, Nathan Nofziger
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 87 of 883
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL -SPECIAL MEETING
December 19, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor
Liebrecht in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 401 S. Balsam St., Moses Lake,
Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Liebrecht; Deputy Mayor Curnel; Council Members Jackson, Myers, Leonard,
and Riggs. Absent: Council Member Hankins.
Action taken: Council Member Riggs moved to excuse Council Member Hankins, second by
Council Member Jackson. The motion carried 6 -0.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Beatrice Haw, Council Member Leonard's mom, led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
OATHS OF OFFICE
Grant County Superior Court Judge David Estudillo administered the oaths of office to Council
Members Myers and Eck.
SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
Council Member Recognition
Mayor Liebrecht presented a plaque to Council Member Ryann Leonard in appreciation
of her term as Council Member from 2016 through 2019.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Port of Moses Lake Staff
Port Commissioner Darrin Jackson introduced their new Executive Director Don Cursey.
Mr. Cursey provided a brief work history and expressed his joy for this opportunity.
Fire Staff Presentations
Chief Brett Bastian presented Firefighter Jason Fife with a Fire Investigator Certification
which will improve the City's survey and rating deficiency points. He also introduced
two Assistant Fire Chiefs, Derek Beach and Todd Schanze, who were promoted to
increase the number of command officers and also improve the survey and rating
deficiency points.
City Manager Contract
City Attorney Katherine Kenison reviewed four options of language in the 'for cause'
statement. Consensus of the Council was to draft the contract with option one.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 88 of 883
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES--December 19. 2019
Surplus Property
The Parks Commission met to discuss surplus of Vista 1 and Power Point Parks. They
recommend Council authorize to surplus Vista 1 Park and keep the other park for
potential use in the trails program. Council requested staff to bring back a surplus
resolution as well as authorization to process a purchase and sale agreement.
CONSENT AGENDA
#1 a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
City Council meeting minutes dated December I 0, 2019
Claim Checks 146220 through 146309 in the amount of $1,113,138.00; Payroll
checks 63252 through 63264 in the amount of $8,968.30; and Electronic
Payments dated December 13, 2019 in the amount of$396,249.30
Award Stratford Road Booster Pump Project
Authorize Cityworks Software Contracts
Authorize Keller Associates Hydraulic Modeling Contract
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Cumel moved to approve the Consent Agenda, second by Council
Member Leonard. The motion carried 6-0.
OLD BUSINESS
#2 Municipal Airport Lease Revisions
City Attorney Katherine Kenison, Interim City Manager Kevin Fuhr, Council Member
Jackson, and Municipal Airport Advisory Board Member Richard Pearce met and drafted
a new lease agreement with a few sections pending input from Council. Following
detailed explanations from the subcommittee members and fielding Council questions,
staff were provided direction of final content to be presented for approval at the next
Council meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
#3 Ladder Truck Contracts
The purchase of the new trucks were approved during the budgeting process for 2020.
By signing contracts now, the city will receive the 2019 pricing which is about 4% less
than 2020 pricing, a savings of over $80k after sales tax.
Action taken: Council Member Leonard moved to accept the proposals, second by Council
Member Jackson. The motion carried 6 -0.
#4 Comp Plan Update Ordinance 2934
Staff distributed a corrected agenda bill and ordinance to Council at the meeting. The
Planning Commission recommends Council accept four of the five changes requested to
zoning or UGA boundaries and possibly the fifth at a later date once more information
has been provided.
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Cumel moved to adopt Ordinance 2934, second by Council
Member Myers. The motion carried 6-0.
pg.2
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 89 of 883
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-December 19, 2019
#5 Parks Donation Resolution 3788
The Columbia Family Foundation wishes to donate $10,000 to be utilized by the City in
the Paths and Trails budget to support the development, maintenance, and operations of
the community's paths and trails.
Action taken: Council Member Leonard moved to adopt Resolution 3788, second by Council
Member Riggs. The motion carried 6 -0.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
City Manager Kevin Fuhr shared that the annual Tip a Cop and Shop with a Cop events were
successful. They raised over $5k. took eight families shopping for the holidays, and still had
funds left over to give to families unable to attend the shopping event.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Council Member Jackson noted he has really enjoyed working with the current Council.
Council Member Myers invited everyone to attend the Grant Transit Authority budget meeting to
be held on December 30 at 6:30 p.m. at the Transit Center.
Council Member Leonard expressed regrets for leaving the community after 15 years and
thanked the Council for all of their wonderful support to make the City a great place to live.
Deputy Mayor Curnel, along with Mayor Liebrecht, and Council Members Jackson and Riggs,
attended the employee breakfast this morning. He found interacting with staff on a social level
to be very pleasant.
Council Member Riggs was invited to a recent meeting of the Moses Lake Downtown
Association and announced that the Brews and Tunes will be held on February 29 next year. He
also attended the Watershed Council meeting where they discussed lake algae issues.
Mayor Liebrecht shared her observation of the dedication of employees at the breakfast event
today. She also thanked the City Clerk, Director's, and Council for their support during her term
as Mayor.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Liebrecht called an Executive Session at 8:27 p.m. to be held for 10 minutes pursuant to
RCW 42.30.1 10(1 )(i) to discuss litigation and there will be no further business.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
pg.3
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 90 of 883
Cl 1·y ('(){JNCIL M fNUT ES -December 19. 2019
CJ!!±---David Curncl, Mayor
ATTEST __ ~~=~~==-,:::::>--:::::0!....:._,..____ __ L..._u._.._--==._
Debbie Burke, City Clerk
pg.4
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 91 of 883
STAFF REPORT
To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
From: Kris Robbins, Community Development Director
Date: December 13, 2019
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: December 19, 2018
• Second Presentation:
• Action: Motion
Staff Report Summary
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that most cities and counties
adopt and maintain a Comprehensive Plan which addresses certain mandated elements as
prescribed by the Act. The Plan may be amended no more than once per year. The City of
Moses Lake adopted a GMA-compliant Comprehensive Plan in 2001 and has amended it
periodically, attached are the proposed amendments for 2019, consisting of four site-specific
land use designation changes requested by property owners.
On November 21, 2019, and December 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted an
open record public hearing and unanimously approved the proposed 2019 Comprehensive
Plan amendments with a recommendation to the City Council for adoption.
Background
A. Hansen request: Change 8.45 Acres from Public Zone to Light Industrial Zone.
B. PIA, LLC request: Change 80.57 Acres from High Density Residential to General Commercial.
C. Central Terminals request: Request for 170 Acres be included in the Urban Growth Area.
(Industrial)
D. Dune Lake, LLC request: Request for 833 Acres be Included in the Urban Growth Area (R1).
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 136 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 92 of 883
ORDINANCE NO. 2934 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Recitals:
1. The City of Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted on September 11, 2001, in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
2. The Comprehensive Plan includes five (5) of the seven (7) mandatory elements required by GMA, except that GMA declares that the requirements for an Economic Development Element and a Park and Recreation Element are null and void until funds sufficient to cover applicable local government costs are appropriated and distributed by
the state at least two (2) years before the city must update its Comprehensive Plan as
required by RCW 36.70A.130. 3. The Washington State Growth Management Act requires the city to establish procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revision of the
Comprehensive Plan may be considered.
4. RCW 36.70A.130 requires cities and counties fully planning under the Growth Management Act to review and evaluate their comprehensive plans at least every eight years and update them if needed.
5. The City began a major update of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan in 2012 and continued it with updates of portions of the Comprehensive Plan in 2013 and 2014, to complete the required periodic update in 2014 per the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130. Minor updates and amendments were adopted in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
6. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and zone change were submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on November 5, 2019, for a 60-day review and comment period as required by GMA. Comments were received on November 20, 2019.
7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone changes December 12, 2019. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and notices were posted on bulletin boards in the Civic Center and Annex and the City’s website.
8. On December 19, 2019, the City Council took legislative action to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE,
WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein as findings of fact.
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 138 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 93 of 883
Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: A. Hansen request: Change 8.45 Acres from Public Zone to Light Industrial Zone. B. PIA, LLC request: Change 80.57 Acres from High Density Residential to General
Commercial. C. Central Terminals request: Request for 170 Acres be included in the Urban Growth Area. (Industrial) D. Dune Lake, LLC request: Request for 833 Acres be Included in the Urban Growth Area (R1). Section 3. 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 and signed by its Mayor on December 19, 2019.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Karen Liebrecht, Mayor
_______________________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM
_______________________________________ Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
Vote: Riggs Liebrecht Myers Jackson Curnel Leonard Hankins
Aye
Nay
Abstain
Absent Date Published: December 24, 2019 Date Effective: December 29, 2019
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 139 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 94 of 883
December 12, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Staff continues to support the information submitted by the applicants for their request for
the amendments to the comprehensive plan for zoning amendments and expanded
Urban Growth Boundary. The letter from the Department of Commerce is supporting our
needs to update our comprehensive plan, however we should not neglect the ability of
the applicant to pursue their requests with the county. Staff recommends to work with the
applicants and supply information to them as we move forward with our comp plan update
as they prepare submittal to the county.
The City comp
The areas for the inside city limits are changing the area of property of 84 acres from the
multi-family to commercial use. This could provide an additional 1200 residential units of
availability to our inventory. This in turn assists with the expanded UGA as the area can
be supported by the population density supported in the city and county comprehensive
plans.
The zoning revision on the shoreline is supported by on the proposed use, however there
is an issue with the change in shoreline designation and compatibility. We recommend
that the zoning amendment be contingent upon the modification of the shoreline
designation and approval through dept of ecology
Summary: The proposed amendments requested by the property owners is as follows:
Applicant APN/Location Request % of
impact*
Total
Acres*
A. Cox & Cox Parcel: 314034000 2.82 Acres from
High Density
Residential to
General
Commercial
.2% 802
B. Hansen Parcel: 110475080 8.45 Acres from
Public Zone to
Light Industrial
Zone
10% 85
C. PIA, LLC. Parcel: 110475037 80.57 Acres from
High Density
Residential to
General
Commercial
10.25% 882
D. Central
Terminals
Parcels: 170980000 &
170981000
Request for 170
Acres be
27.7% 613
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 140 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 95 of 883
Included in the
Urban Growth
Area (Industrial)
E. Dunes
Lake, LLC.
Parcels:
170073001,170072000,
170071001,170081000
& 170083000
Request for 833
Acres be Included
in the Urban
Growth Area (R1)
38.5% 2,164
* - Based on vacant lands information
Action: The Planning Commission should consider each proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment, and make a recommendation to the City Council on each proposed
amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Robbins
Community Development Department Director
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 141 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 96 of 883
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 142 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 97 of 883
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 143 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 98 of 883
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 144 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 99 of 883
Moses Lake Council Packet 12-19-19, Page 145 of 147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 100 of 883
CALL TO ORDER
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL
June 9, 2020
The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor
Cumel via audio only online meeting access. Special notices for attendance and citizen comment
were posted on the meeting agenda as well as a special News Flash on the City's website.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Cumel, Deputy Mayor Jackson; Council Members Eck, Riggs, Liebrecht, Myers,
and Hankins.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Myers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
Peaceful Protest March and Vigil
Mayor Cumel expressed gratitude to the Law Enforcement agencies who were organized
to participate in the local protest and awareness on the national Black Lives Matter
protests, as well as attendance of Council Members Liebrecht, Hankins, and Eck with
him at the local event.
Planning Commission Vacancy
Applications are being accepted for an opening on the Planning Commission due to a
recent resignation. Only a few applications have been received and the due date to apply
is posted for Wednesday, June 17.
Shorelines Violation Meeting
Council Member Liebrecht provided an update of a conference call she attended with
Department of Ecology, Deputy Mayor Jackson, and City staff. They discussed the
period of compliance once a warning is issued before a citation will be issued.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Peaceful Protest March and Vigil
City Manager Allison Williams stated her appreciation to the Police Chief in getting
everyone prepared for the protest, as well as the Mayor and Council for their attendance.
Change Order for Stratford Rd Water Lines
Council received the staff report for this request in an email prior to the meeting.
Action taken: Council Member Hankins moved to add the item to the Consent Agenda, second
by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 7 -0.
CARES Act Priorities
The City has received an allocation in the amount of$726k. These funds must be
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 101 of 883
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -.lune 9. 2020
invoiced by October 31 and projects complete by December 31. Staff is working on
identifying needs and the distribution of related expenses that were not budgeted. Staff is
also obtaining a quote to upgrade the existing A/V system in the Chambers and
Auditorium. Deputy Mayor Jackson and Council Member Liebrecht expressed a desire to
allocate funding to the small businesses through the Chamber of Commerce as a priority
over A/V upgrades.
HopeSource Update
The contract for services with Hope Source is under final review by the City Attorney.
They plan to provide some suggested homeless camp locations for Council and staff to
evaluate within the next few weeks.
CONSENT AGENDA
#1 a. City Council meeting minutes dated May 20 and 26, 2020
b. Claim Checks 148054 through 148204 in the amount of$1,526,741.33; Payroll
Checks 63407 through 63416 in the amount of$11,795.90; and Electronic
Payments dated May 29, 2020. in the amount of $440,437.78
c. Franchise Application -Fee Schedule Amendment Resolution 3807
d. Build on Unplatted Samaritan / GC Hospital District Resolution 3803
e. Build on Unplatted Community Services Resolution 3808
f. Sydney Development Preliminary Plat Approval
g. ILA ML School District Joint Facility Use
h. Summer Day Camp Opening Policy
1. Change Order for Stratford Rd Water Lines (added at meeting)
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Jackson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, second
by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 7 -0.
NEW BUSINESS
#2 Six-Year Street Plan Resolution -First Presentation
Staff has scheduled a Public Hearing for June 23 and the Planning Commission will
review the 12 identified projects later this week. Council inquired about Project #3 Burr
Ave and requested more information from staff on Project #2 Yonezawa Blvd for the new
elementary school.
#3 Rescind Ordinance 2934 Comp Plan Update, Ordinance 2952
Ordinance 2934 was adopted on December 19. 2019. Staff is requesting the ordinance be
rescinded because the required SEP A review process was not completed.
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Jackson moved to adopt Ordinance 2952, second by Council
Member Riggs. The motion carried 7 -0.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Finance Director Cindy Jensen advised that the Governor's Proclamation to prohibit water shut
off has been extended to July 28. She is working with her staff to update the policies to keep
pg.2
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 102 of 883
CITY COUNC Ii . MINUTl~S -.l u11c.: lJ. 2020
vulnerable persons connected to essential services before the by July IO due date.
Police Chief Kevin Fu hr announced that they have been av,1ardcd a $250k Department of Justice
grant to partiall y fund two new po si tions in the Stree t Crimes Unit over the nex t three years.
Ci ty Manager Allison Williams noted that the A WC Annual Conference is I 00% virtu al thi s
year. The Mayor has assigned himself, Deputy Mayor .Jackson. and Cou ncil Member Ri ggs to
be the voting delegates during the business meeting. She has bee n invited to be on a pre-
recorded panel related to Economic Impacts on Local Governments for thi s conference.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Council Member Hankins wished to repeat prior comments on the Peaceful Protest March.
Council Member Myers requested that the park restrooms be open for longer periods of time to
accommodate patrons and eliminate un lawful acts duri ng daylight hours.
Council Member Riggs shared in formation received by the Watershed Council on hi storical
algae research th at has been combined with new research data related to phosphorous issues and
potential solutions.
Mayor Curnel requested an upd ate on construction of the Lovc·s Travel Stop. City Manager
Allison Williams explained that their consultants are working through requirements from the
City and State for site development. City. State. and developer cost allocations wi ll then be
determined.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Curnel cal led an Executive Session at 7:49 p.m. to be held for 45 minutes to consider the
minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale and to disc uss litigation pursuant to
RCW 42.30. 11 0( 1) subsections ( c) and (i). and there will be no further business.
ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
A TTEST _ ___!_~~-'-~~½~=:::......:.~£:::::::::'.:=__:'-:::::=~o=~✓
Debbie Burke. City Clerk
pg.J
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 103 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
October 8, 2021
City of Moses Lake
City Council
401 S Balsam
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Retention of UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley
Procedural Deficiencies – Lack of Notice to Property Owners – Deficient Notice of Public
Meeting and Defective SEPA DNS
Substantive Comments
Dear Mayor Curnel and Councilmembers:
PREAMBLE:
I want to be clear that the overall and primary intent of our company is to encourage the
Council to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission, specifically retaining
UGA Area 5 referred to in the ‘consultant’s report’ as ‘North Mae Valley’ in the
Comprehensive Plan.
I would like to preface our substantive comments with our concerns over how this process has
been implemented. These are extremely important decisions that you are making. I have been an
attorney focusing on land use issues for more than 40 years and involved in economic and real
estate development in your community for the past 30 years. It appears to me that these
consequential recommendations from the city’s consultant are being rushed through at all costs.
This is, in my opinion, a ‘railroad job’. Our company is at risk of losing millions of dollars of
value to our holdings from these recommendations. More importantly, to the community, these
decisions will likely have a devastating effect on our continued ability to attract large aerospace
and industrial employers to the area because you won’t be able to respond to the housing needs
in a timely and cost-effective manner.
It is our position that retention of UGA Area 5 is critical to our efforts to recruit and retain industrial
and aerospace employers at the Grant County International Airport employment center. North Mae
Valley, centered around the Moses Point golf course, represents an ideal ‘surge’ environment to
quickly accommodate workforce housing for any new large industrial employer. The suggestion
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 104 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
of the City Manager and the consultant that accommodating thousands of new employees could
occur in the urban core alone is untenable.
ASPI, with its affiliate entities, is the largest private aerospace-industrial landowner in the city.
ASPI is continuously engaged with the Washington State Department of Commerce, Grant County
Economic Development Council, and Port of Moses Lake to recruit new aerospace and industrial
employers to the community. These efforts have resulted in thousands of great family wage jobs
including Genie, Boeing, SGL/BMW Carbon Fiber, Fuji Chemical/AstaReal, US KDK,
Mitsubishi Aerospace, and others.
Based on the ‘multiplier effect’, these direct industrial jobs get multiplied on about a 3.5:1 basis
to create indirect and induced jobs resulting in other ASPI successes like recruiting Marshalls,
Sportsman’s Warehouse, WinCo, Ulta, and other retailers to the community that not only enhance
the quality of life in the community but return millions of dollars in additional tax revenues to the
city - supporting police, fire, and parks budgets. Our friends at Central Terminals/Maiers
Development have a similar story to tell with regard to the Wheeler industrial corridor.
The bottom line is that unless we can demonstrate to large prospect aerospace industrial employers
that we can quickly respond to their employee housing needs with new affordable master planned
environments, they will go elsewhere. We simply cannot supply hundreds of new homes on
multiple disjointed ‘urban core infill parcels’ in a timely or cost-effective manner. We must have
UGA Area 5 as an area we can point out to these employers where we can meet their demand.
It should be noted that our ‘competition’ for these employers are Arizona, Texas, Alabama,
Florida, and South Carolina. These competing locations offer spectacular master planned
communities that put Moses Lake far ‘behind the curve’ for residential housing options and,
therefore, at a competitive disadvantage for these jobs. Without the new jobs, the retail and
restaurant growth and revenues to the city will also stagnate and contract. The consultant’s
suggestion, supported by the City Manager, that residential growth can be accommodated in the
urban core infill scenario, in our opinion, shows a shocking level of naivete on how industrial
recruitment occurs.
We have encouraged the consultant and city staff to visit several competing communities to
understand their success with master planned communities supporting industrial growth, but our
suggestions have fallen on deaf ears. We have also supplied economic impact reports showing
massive revenue enhancements to the city from master planned residential environments. These
reports have been shunned because they belie the false assertion that maintaining UGA areas is a
‘cost’ that the city cannot ‘afford’. See below for those reports.
We also want to be clear that we fully support any efforts to revitalize the downtown core and
waterfront exposure. ASPI was the catalyst to the retail resurgence when we bought the derelict
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 105 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
K-Mart building and redeveloped that area into the Moses Lake Town Center. What we don’t
understand is why any effort to revitalize downtown and the entrance gateways has to come at the
expense of master planned residential environments in the North Mae Valley UGA Area 5.
With that as a preamble, I would now like to turn to specific topics that we believe expose
deficiencies in the consultant’s report and critical errors in the city’s management of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process, compliance with public notice requirements, and
compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). I would also incorporate by
reference the following submissions that we made at the Planning Commission stage:
1. Letter to Planning Commission, August 25, 2021
2. Letter to Planning Commission, September 7, 2021
3. Letter to Planning Commission, September 20, 2021
PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS:
Issues with Published Notice:
It is our position that the notice of public meeting to start the process at the Planning Commission
level was flawed. The City Manager admitted to the Planning Commission that the notice was
flawed, and an attempt was made to ‘repair’ the flawed notice by continuing the Planning
Commission hearing. However, no new regulatory complaint notice was published so the
continuation only served to continue an already legally deficient meeting. That is a critical flaw
that will continue to taint the entire process.
MLC 20.07.020 has strict requirements for notice of public meetings:
1. Publication at least fifteen (15) days before the date of a public meeting, hearing, or
pending action in the City’s official newspaper of general circulation; and
2. Mailing at least fifteen (15) days before the date of a public hearing, or pending action to
all property owners as shown on the records of the County Assessor and to all street
addresses of properties within five hundred (500) feet, not including street rights-of-way, of
the boundaries of the property which is the subject of the meeting or pending action.
Addressed, pre-stamped envelopes shall be provided by the applicant.
The required legal notice – see copy attached – was published in the Columbia Basin Herald on
September 3, 2021, for a September 16 Planning Commission meeting. Even forgetting that you
don’t count the day of publication, the notice is openly deficient as it only provides 12 days-notice.
Note that it also isn’t separated by any kind of heading making it appear to be part of a preceding
legal notice which is arguably deficient as well.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 106 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
When this glaring mistake was pointed out to the Planning Commission at the September 16
meeting, the City Manager confirmed the mistake and the commission sought to ‘correct’ it by
simply continuing the meeting to September 23. The problem is that once the meeting was legally
deficient, you can’t make it ‘legal’ by a simple continuance – a new publication was warranted
and that did not occur.
No Notice to Individually Affected Property Owners:
Planning Commissioner Henning (and Commissioner Mann at the September 2nd workshop)
objected to the failure to give mailed notice to affected property owners on parcels where the
proposed amendments would have specific adverse impacts to their property. These would include
landowners whose properties would be devalued by deletion from UGAs and property owners
whose properties would be impacted by new zoning designations. No notice was or has been given
to these property owners to let them know they are being ‘blindsided’ by these actions. That is a
violation of state law.
The City Manager opined that she didn’t feel she was required to give any property-specific notice
because she describes the proposed amendments as ‘legislative’ in nature. I can understand an
argument that proposed changes to the overall vision, goals, and objectives of the plan that affect
the direction of the city in ‘general’ terms could be deemed ‘legislative’, but when parcel-specific
changes like deletion from a UGA (huge impact on property value), change in zone designation,
or subjecting a parcel to an overlay restriction, those parcels owners should be receiving actual
written notice in compliance with the regulation so they can present their case. The city, is
essentially, acting as a proponent to re-classify property that doesn’t belong to it - and they are
proposing to do it without actual notice to the owner.
Disguising those site-specific changes under the cloak of Comprehensive Plan ‘updates’ should
not relieve the City Manager of providing legally sufficient notice and process that would be
required if they were stand-alone applications. This begs the question on why the City Manager
would be trying to avoid making sure that impacted property owners understand what the city is
about to do to them. It should be ‘telling’ that only the most sophisticated landowners showed up
at the Planning Commission meetings.
RCW 36.70A 035 recites requirements for compliance with public participation and notice for
Comprehensive Plan amendments. It provides as follows:
Public participation—Notice provisions.
(1) The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include notice procedures
that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners…[emphasis
added]
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 107 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Examples of reasonable notice provisions include:
(a) Posting the property for site-specific proposals; [This was not done.]
(b) Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or
general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal;
[The public notice was time deficient, was general in nature, and did not give
reasonable notice that properties within an existing UGA area were to be
deleted.]
(c) Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or
in the type of proposal being considered; [Despite ASPI’s “known interest” in
350 acres of existing UGA Area 5, ongoing discussion on how the property
could be developed and including a secondary lake crossing, and being one of
the largest land owners in the city, we received no notice from the city that
ASPI properties were being deleted until reviewing the recommendations of
the city’s consultant and City Manager when they were made public on the
city’s website just before the Planning Commission meeting. If I had been out
of town that week, or not diligently reviewing staff reports, these massive
changes would have flown by un-noticed.]
Given the above, it is our opinion that legally sufficient notice to specific-affected landowners
has not been provided and that the lack of said notice makes any action taken by the Council or
City Manager to be legally ineffective and/or unenforceable.
Procedural Deficiencies in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process:
SEPA Review Objections:
City staff issued a State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-Significance on
September 1, 2021, concluding that the proposed changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan and
including the elimination of UGA Area 5 North Mae Valley posed no significant environmental
impacts. We disagree. The proposed changes present sweeping impacts to the city. It should be
noted that the consultant’s recommendations were only made public in late August. This would
provide insufficient time for the city to adequately ascertain the environmental impacts of such
sweeping changes.
The city-issued Determination of Non-signficance (copy attached) states:
“The City of Moses Lake has determined that this proposal will not have a probable adverse
impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under
RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).”
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 108 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
There is nothing in the cited RCW that says the city is not required to perform an Environmental
Impact Statement. In fact, there is no subsection (2)(c) in the statute. In fact, given the sweeping
nature of these changes, the statute demands just the opposite
RCW 43.21C is the controlling statute for SEPA review. RCW 43.21C.030 states:
Guidelines for state agencies, local governments—Statements—Reports—Advice—
Information.
The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies,
regulations, and laws of the state of Washington shall be interpreted and administered in
accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all branches of government of this
state, including state agencies, municipal and public corporations, and counties shall:
(a) Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of
the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision
making which may have an impact on the environment;
(b) Identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the department of
ecology and the ecological commission, which will insure that presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making
along with economic and technical considerations;
(c) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other
major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement by the
responsible official on:
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action;
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented;
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; [emphasis added]
(d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall consult with and
obtain the comments of any public agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and
views of the appropriate federal, province, state, and local agencies, which are authorized to
develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the governor, the
department of ecology, the ecological commission, and the public, and shall accompany the
proposal through the existing agency review processes;
(e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of
action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources;
(f) Recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and,
where consistent with state policy, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and
programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a
decline in the quality of the world environment;
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 109 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
(g) Make available to the federal government, other states, provinces of Canada,
municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring,
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment;
(h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of natural
resource-oriented projects.
WAC 365-196-620 is the governing regulation integrating the State Environmental Policy Act
with the Growth Management Act and, specifically, amendments to Comprehensive Plans. It
provides as follows:
Integration of State Environmental Policy Act process with creation and adoption of
comprehensive plans and development regulations.
(1) Adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations are "actions" as
defined under State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Counties and cities must comply with
SEPA when adopting new or amended comprehensive plans and development regulations.
[emphasis added]
(3) (g) When conducting the SEPA analysis of a comprehensive plan amendment,
counties and cities should analyze the impacts of fundamental land use planning choices.
Because these choices cannot be revisited during project review, the impacts of these
decisions must be evaluated when adopting comprehensive plan amendments. This analysis
can serve as the foundation for project review. RCW 36.70B.030 identifies the following as
fundamental land use planning choices:
(i) The types of land use;
(ii) The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;
(iii) Infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the
development; and
(iv) The characteristics of the development, such as development standards.
(h) SEPA compliance for development regulations should concentrate on the
difference among alternative means of successfully implementing the goals and policies of
the comprehensive plan.
This process requires an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of these sweeping
changes. Note that none of the details of these proposed changes have even been formulated. The
City Manager disclosed to the Planning Commission that additional consultants have been hired
to rewrite the city’s Development Code to include development standards for the new zone
designations and overlay areas they are proposing. They have not been completed or made public.
The City Manager is claiming that these new code provisions will include ‘incentives’ to realize
the consultant recommendations of urban core infill as the 20-year growth solution for Moses
Lake. There are no descriptions of what those ‘incentives’ might be or if they will come at the
expense of other properties not in the preferred ‘zones’. This begs the question, as outlined below,
and in our previous submissions, on how there can be any meaningful consideration of these
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 110 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
recommendations until the implementing details have emerged and evaluated for SEPA
compliance. They can’t.
To avoid the required in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts, the city describes the
proposed amendments as being “non-project”. But this, again, is in direct contravention to what
the law requires.
The Washington State Department of Ecology provides guidance and describes the criteria
required to satisfy the Act as follows:
“When a nonproject action involves a comprehensive plan or similar proposal governing
future project development, the probable environmental impacts that would be allowed for
the future development need to be considered. For example, environmental analysis of a zone
designation should analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone.
SEPA review for nonproject actions requires agencies to consider the “big picture” by:
• Conducting comprehensive analysis
• Addressing cumulative impacts
• Considering possible alternatives
• Outlining successful mitigation measures”
The proposed Comprehensive Plan changes are significant. It is not credible to issue a
Determination of Non-Significance when the proposed changes, on their face, will do the
following:
1. Result in a traffic Level of Service “F” – the worst – for downtown Moses Lake.
2. Result in hundreds of acres being summarily deleted from the Urban Growth Area.
3. Will result in millions of dollars of lost property values and tax revenues.
4. Will result in fewer choices for housing.
5. Will negatively impact industrial employment growth.
6. Will put the water quality in the lake at risk from septic systems leaching into the
lake by allowing the Cascade Valley UGA to remain as potential high-density
development but remain undeveloped because of the lack of economical sewer and
water services.
7. The impact of urban core in-fill will be most profound on the lowest income
demographics in Moses Lake and likely cause them to be displaced.
8. Urban core infill impacts will adversely impact single family home ownership.
9. Accelerated demolition and redevelopment of 90% of the existing buildings along
Broadway will dislocate existing businesses and make commercial rents much
more expensive.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 111 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
10. The creation of as yet undefined ‘overlay areas” will likely subject property owners
to additional restrictions and the possibility of becoming non-conforming in the
future.
11. The lack of any analysis of the economic viability of the urban core infill vision
and the lack of the budget for the capital investment and needed incentives to make
redevelopment attractive to investors makes it impossible to understand the impacts
of the proposed plan.
12. The lack of any analysis on the effect of limiting growth has on potential passenger
air service serving Grant County International Airport is another real data gap that
needs to be filled.
13. The lack of any economic analysis of the impacts to revenues and operations at the
Moses Point golf course from potentially adding hundreds of new homes in close
proximity is critical to the viability of the City’s current investment in the new well
and sewer extensions already in UGA 5.
14. The lack of economic analysis of the revenue growth potential from master planned
developments in the UGA areas that are proposed to be eliminated is a real
disservice to you the decision makers.
15. The City and their consultants have assumed that there is no solution to the LOSF
traffic which will cause increased air pollution in the proposed infill area of
downtown and this is misleading at best and untrue in fact.
16. The Plan proposed assumes that precious capital dollars will have to be invested in
areas of the City where it will be least productive like the Cascade Valley and in
the upgrades of the I-90 interchanges which will still be a LOSF after the planned
investments.
17. The above two items are apparently the result of the consultant being instructed to
ignore the previously City-approved I-90 Connector project connecting the
Hiawatha Road interchange in the County with the City’s existing industrial area.
which could relieve the LOSF situation and improve the public safety in the core
by diverting the heavy truck traffic that the plan assumes will still have to go
through the core to reach I-90.
18. Provides no economic analysis of revenue growth/lost revenue to the city amd
school district from master planned developments in the UGA areas that are
proposed to be eliminated.
None of the required analysis has occurred – or could occur – because the accompanying changes
to the Development Code have not been completed or analyzed. This is clearly the ‘cart before the
horse’.
The proposed changes demand an Environmental Impact Statement. The alleged
mismanagement of this process has placed the city and the proposed amendments in jeopardy of
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 112 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
expensive and time-consuming legal challenges that will put development within the city in a legal
limbo pending resolution of these issues.
It should further be noted that the Notice of Determination of Non-Significance is deficient on its
face because of references to the September 16 Planning Commission meeting; the published
notice of which has now been found and admitted by the city as deficient. The Determination of
Non-Significance contains the wrong dates. At the very least it must be republished as well.
SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS:
Alleged Deficiencies in the Analysis:
The most glaring substantive issue is the data assumptions used to justify the consultant’s
recommendations. It is, again, ASPI’s contention that the process for determining growth and
where it should occur has been flawed and the process required by the state regulatory framework
largely disregarded to reach the desired conclusion. The City Manager has made it clear that she
wants the next twenty years of residential growth in Moses Lake to occur in the urban core and
not in the UGA areas. The way to justify that is to influence and control the data used in the
residential land supply equation. It is a simple supply and demand analysis.
The first data input is demand – in this case projected population growth. The smaller the number
you use, the less room you need to allocate for residential growth. If the number is too large,
expansion is required. To support a vision of ‘urban core in-fill’ you need a small population
number. The consultant’s recommendations assume only about 7,000 new residents over the next
20 years. If they can find ‘room’ for 7,000 new residents in the urban core, they can then
recommend elimination of UGAs.
ASPI, Mark Fancher (as a real estate professional and representing Central Terminals), Hayden
Homes and Houston Aho have all provided testimony that the population growth number used in
the analysis is far too low. As the largest industrial landowners in the city, ASPI and Central
Terminals are heavily involved in recruiting large industrial employers. We work with the Port of
Moses Lake, Grant County EDC, and most importantly, the Washington State Department of
Commerce to entice large industrial employers to the community. I am aware of about 2,500
potential jobs currently in play in the Wheeler Corridor and proposals out for another 3-5000
aerospace and industrial jobs in the airport industrial area which includes the ASPI Technology
Park, ASPI Airpark, and the Port’s new westside industrial area. The Port, EDC, ASPI and
Commerce have dozens of proposals out to prospect employers.
We also do not believe the consultant’s forecast included a projected 2500-3500 new residents
associated with the LDS temple under construction. We would, again, encourage the consultant to
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 113 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
look at the housing and population impacts of the LDS temples in Meridian, Idaho, and the Tri-
cities as examples.
Based on data from our econometric consultants and data from Commerce, each direct job creates
between three and four indirect and induced jobs. Most will come from out of the area. If these
recruiting efforts result in a single large employer – like Genie, as an example – you would get an
instant influx of up to 5,000 new residents. That simply cannot be accommodated with urban core
infill.
WAC 365-196-325 RCW 36.70A.115 requires counties and cities to ensure that, taken
collectively, comprehensive plans and development regulations provide sufficient capacity of
land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated
housing and employment growth. [emphasis added]
WAC 365-196-310 requires that the population forecast include a county-wide employment
forecast. The regulation requires that “economic trends and forecasts produced by outside
agencies or private sources” be considered in the process.”
No one from the consultant ever contacted ASPI, and to the best of my knowledge, Central
Terminals, the Port of Moses Lake, or EDC for input on projected industrial employment that
could critically impact housing demand going forward. Mitsubishi Aerospace and Boeing are
recent examples how these large employer projects instantly affect housing demand. You had
Mitsubishi employees sharing housing and Boeing employees living as far away as Wenatchee or
commuting from the Puget Sound and living long term in hotels! If the City Manager had asked
the consultant to reach out to us, we could have provided some insight on this.
ASPI’s consultant, Jim Warjone, one of the states recognized experts in development of master
planned communities and marketing of industrial opportunities, testified at the Planning
Commission that when he attempted to contact the consultant with additional information, he was
told that there would be no response – that the window to collect data was closed.
WAC 365-196-310 provides a lot of flexibility so that cities can take into effect their unique
circumstances.
Moses Lake is blessed with a massive international airport, the lowest electric power rates in the
nation, a foreign trade zone, U.S. Opportunity Zone designation, and readily developable heavy
industrial lands. Moses Lake is a huge target for industrial growth. The Department of Commerce
(and past four governors’ administrations) are pushing industrial and aerospace growth
opportunities to Moses Lake. There is no mention of this, as we have seen, in the consultant’s
report. The population forecasts appear to completely miss that.
Now let’s look at the supply side of the equation.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 114 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
To justify hyper-development of the urban core, and discourage development in the UGA, the
consultant must show adequate supply of available lands in the urban core to accommodate the
population number they used. They do this by taking an inventory of available vacant residential
lands and properties that they deem suitable for “redevelopment”. To accommodate the urban core
infill vision, the available lands number – the SUPPLY in the urban core – has to be made as large
as possible.
WAC 365-196-310 provides as follows: The land capacity analysis may also include a
reasonable land market supply factor, also referred to as the "market factor." The purpose
of the market factor is to account for the estimated percentage of developable acres contained
within an urban growth area that, due to fluctuating market forces, is likely to remain
undeveloped over the course of the twenty-year planning period. The market factor
recognizes that not all developable land will be put to its maximum use because of owner
preference, cost, stability, quality, and location.
The Market Factor deduction from available land supply accounts for sellers that may not want to
sell for a myriad of reasons, but also properties that may be odd-sized or configuration, in
undesirable or unkempt neighborhoods, next to undesirable or incompatible uses, high crime areas,
or sites that are too costly to develop. The term “MARKET FACTOR” means properties that the
‘market’ won’t likely attract a developer willing to risk their capital on – or that residents have no
interest in living on.
To maintain a robust supply number, the consultant only used a 10% Market Factor deduction on
vacant properties within the urban core. In other words, they assume that ninety percent of all
available properties will attract developers, capital, and buyers.
To further meet the supply requirement, the consultant assumes that seventy-five percent of re-
developable existing buildings in the urban core will be redeveloped into new housing.
The testimony from ASPI, Houston Aho (has built 11,000 homes), and Mark Fancher was that
these assumptions are untenable. The consistent testimony from the development community and
brokerage community is that in-fill development in the urban core is very slow and very expensive
as opposed to new development in the UGAs that provide fast response, economies of scale and
more affordable product. Note that neither the City Manager, nor the consultant, has identified a
single entity willing to invest millions of dollars into fee-ownership residential product in the urban
core.
That brings us, we would suggest, to the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one seems to want to talk
about. Everyone, including several Planning Commissioners, keep asking the City Manager, “Why
are you trying to knock out the UGAs? They aren’t costing the city anything.” This question was
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 115 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
asked of the City Manager several times at the September 16 Planning Commission meeting. Why
can’t the City Manager pursue her vision of urban core infill while ASPI and others continue to
pursue master planned community developers for UGA Area 5? After a lot of colloquy in her
response, the City Manager finally admitted she could point to no negative impacts from leaving
the existing UGAs alone.
The answer on why they want to eliminate the UGAs, of course, is simple. The UGAs, with their
lower cost structure, economies of scale, affordability, lower crime rates, master planned
environments, and amenities like being next to a premier golf course, represent a competitive threat
to the vision of in-fill urban core development. For the urban core infill vision to occur, the
competitive threat of single-family homes in new, amenity-laden UGA master planned
communities must be eliminated or made cost prohibitive. They need to be out of the equation for
the urban core infill numbers to work.
Notice how this occurs. While the City Manager describes how she intends to implement new
‘incentives’ for the infill urban core model, including applying new tax incentives, allowing hyper
densities, allowing mixed uses, and special overlay districts, the city requires UGA developers to
pay their own way. Make it as tough on them as possible. Notice how not much attention is given
to the Cascade Valley UGA because they know it is already cost prohibitive to develop and,
therefore, poses no competitive pressure to the urban core. By leaving it in the UGA it creates a
false dichotomy that ‘not all UGAs need to eliminated’.
The urban core infill vision all falls apart when, despite attempts to influence and control the input
data, industrial employees still don’t want to live in or raise their families in the urban core. Crime
continues, traffic continues, and because you can’t quickly respond to what the industrial
employers and their employees want, you lose jobs. The city’s consultant and City Manager
concede that their vision of urban core infill will result in a traffic Level of Service F for downtown
Moses Lake – essentially gridlock. Querie, who wants to live in a Level of Service F environment?
The UGAs represent huge potential advantages to the city. They enable the city to respond to
sudden surges in industrial employment but also in significant revenue growth as illustrated in the
Wickenburg economic report which we supplied to the city and consultant showing how a similar
master planned community returned $100 million in revenue to the city of Wickenburg, Arizona.
They provide elasticity rather than rigidity to allow Moses Lake to continue to compete for these
important industrial employers.
There is another ironic and insidious aspect of this. At the September 2nd Planning Commission
workshop, the City Manager made an out-of-context comment that she was “struck by the poverty”
in Moses Lake.” I would direct your attention to Exhibit 9 of the Housing Needs Assessment (Page
13) which shows the distribution of household income demographics. You will note that the urban
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 116 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
core area – the area where the consultant and City Manager advocate expensive, high density in-
fill development, represents the LOWEST income demographic area of the city.
Those least able to afford housing in Moses Lake are the target of the urban core infill that will
increase housing costs in those neighborhoods and drive the low-income people out. As noted in
the September 16 meeting, only about 50% of residents in Moses Lake are homeowners. Urban
core infill will only exacerbate the problem as most urban core infill projects will be apartments.
It should also be noted that the consultant forecasts traffic impacts at Level of Service “F” for the
urban core if the infill model is implemented. Again, where are they advocating making traffic
unbearable? For the low-income people and their families.
UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley – Should Remain in the UGA:
We rely on the North Mae Valley UGA area for immediate potential master planned housing so
that we can also have residential developers and builders pre-programmed to respond to a major
employer opportunity. I am able to represent to the prospect employers that we have regional and
national developers and homebuilders standing ready to meet their housing needs with new master
planned residential projects similar to what our competitors guarantee them in Arizona, Texas, and
Florida. I simply cannot do that on an ‘in-fill’ basis. Having the Moses Point golf course in the
middle of North Mae Valley and miles of waterfront access are huge amenities that give us
credibility with both the employers and the development community. Why, on earth, would anyone
want to just throw that away?
The consultant’s report focuses on the availability of, and cost of servicing, the area with city
utilities. The consultant’s report falsely suggests that there are no viable utility solutions for the
area as a justification to delete the area from the UGA. Planning Commissioners questioned why,
if that is true, was there no long-term planning identified in the recommendations for increasing
utilities and services in the Mae Valley area. They specifically asked if it was simply a lack of
planning or “intentional”. (See 9/2 recording at 25:08)
City Manager, Allison Williams, responded to the Planning Commission’s question as follows
(See 9/2 recording at 25:12):
“… there were some ‘place holders’ left in the, in the plan, so, um, when we, um, launched
into this process, um, we realized that, um, the city was deficient on much of the, uh, long
range planning particularly in our utility planning so we immediately, um, worked with one
of the, one of the firms that was working with our team, it’s Perteet (sp?), uh, to do a sub
area for transportation needs for Mae Valley, um, but then, uh, you will read in the plan that
the plan, uh, identifies that we have updates to do [laughs] and so once we get our land use
and our urban growth area established this is also setting out a whole course of work for the
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 117 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
city to get those associated utility plans up to date as well so we’ll know what we are bound
to serve and we’ve got to figure out a way to get those plans updated”.
This statement by the City Manager raises significant questions both in the deficiencies of process
and substantively, as it relates to the UGA Area 5.
The first critical question it raises is why it took an outside consultant to inform the City Manager
that the transportation plan and utility plans required updating? She discloses that they have left
‘place holders’ in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to insert key transportation and
utility elements sometime in the future. How can you approve amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan with huge holes still waiting analysis as admitted by the City Manager?
I note that the consultant never contacted me to discuss projected major new employment growth,
the I-90 Connector project as affecting Mae Valley, or the ability of Horizon to supply large water
resources and areas for new sewer treatment facilities. The City Manager is aware of these
activities. Why didn’t she instruct the consultant to contact us for critical information regarding
UGA Area 5?
The assertion that utilities are not available in UGA 5 is false. When Moses Point was developed,
city water and sewer services were extended to the golf course. A city water well is located in the
middle of UGA Area 5 on Road F. We have had discussions with both the city and the owners of
the golf course about participating in upgrades to the water system and sewer facilities including
construction of new storage tanks and variable speed fire flow pumps. Additional housing in the
area will provide these upgrades and also provide great benefit to the economic viability of the
golf course. To not disclose that as part of the process was disingenuous, at best.
Attached is the city utility map showing water and sewer utilities at the Moses Point golf
course, as well as the location of the city’s water well on Road F and approximately Road
4.8. Also attached is a map showing the massive Horizon water well in the UGA owned by
CFML LLC. This is a 1600-acre foot water right capable of supplying domestic water for
approximately 5,000 homes. ASPI has proposed the use of a state-of-the-art Membrane Bio
Reactor system for onsite sewage treatment. Any and all of the utility solutions come at the
sole cost of the developer and at no cost to the city. Why are these resources, existing utilities,
and discussions with the city not identified in the consultant report? The assertion that
utilities in the UGA Area 5 are not available is simply false.
ASPI is currently working with development entities to begin planning and development of a
master planned community on the subject 350 acres of Horizon currently in the UGA Area 5. The
City Manager is aware of these efforts and has seen preliminary configurations and site planning.
Why were these discussions not disclosed to the consultant or made part of the report?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 118 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
As part of these discussions, ASPI and the Port of Moses Lake have also proposed a secondary
lake crossing that would link the Mae Valley residential areas directly to the Grant County
International Airport aerospace industrial employment cluster. The project, named the I-90
Connector, would extend Hiawatha Road north from I-90 and across the lake to Highway 17. The
project would allow employees living in the Mae Valley area to commute to work without having
to circumvent through downtown Moses Lake. It would also allow truck traffic bound for the
airport industrial center to avoid downtown Moses Lake. These advantages would keep downtown
from achieving the devastating Level of Service F – gridlock – if the consultant’s
recommendations for urban infill growth are accepted. A TRANSPO study showing the I-90
connector route is also attached.
The I-90 Connector project involves the city, county, and Port of Moses Lake under an inter-
agency agreement where the county will take the lead because the project is largely in the county.
The inter-agency agreement is in circulation between the three public entities and will designate
the county as the lead agency. The inter-agency agreement will allow the parties to seek grant
funding and other sources for planning purposes and next steps. This effort will also allow WSDOT
to identify the I-90 Connector on its long-range plans. It should be noted that ASPI, as part of the
process, has agreed to provide almost all of the dedicated right of way that will be required for the
project as part of the Horizon master planned community.
This, again, begs the question why none of this is included in the consultant’s report when
addressing UGA Area 5 in North Mae Valley? Certainly, the City Manager is aware of these
inter-agency discussions and agreements. Did she not inform the consultant?
Once Lost, UGA Area 5 Cannot Be Easily Reinstated:
I wanted to address a comment repeatedly made by Melissa Bethel where she opines that deleting
the North Mae Valley UGA Area was ‘no big deal’ because it could be ‘reinstated at any time’
during the annual round of county Comprehensive Plan amendments. Again, in my opinion, this
is either terribly naïve and/or intentionally misleading.
Once a UGA is deleted, we would have to apply to the county for another comp plan amendment
to reinstate it. Melissa fails to acknowledge that the county applications are due March 31 of any
year - Comp Plan amendments only occur once each year. So, if a need for additional UGA arises
to accommodate a sudden employment surge in April, we have to wait a whole year just to make
the application with the county, then wait another year for the application to be processed. Then
find a developer willing to wait, hoping for a positive result. Then it takes another year, or more,
for the city to process land use applications and building permits. All while staff has made it clear
that they would not support a return of a UGA area because they are demanding urban core ‘in-
fill’.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 119 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
It is extremely naïve to think a prospect employer is going to wait three or four years on the outside
chance additional UGA would be approved. That employer and the economic benefits to the
community will be gone. Note I am currently working with a major new prospect employer that
wants their facility operational in 10 months – not three years.
I should also point out that the staff’s recommendation to terminate the North Mae Valley UGA
will, itself, put the whole North Mae Valley UGA Area into more than a year of ‘limbo’ because
deletion of the UGA would still have to be approved by the county next year. What am I supposed
to tell the developer/builders we are currently working with in the interim? That they may not want
to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars in planning and engineering because the city is about
to jerk the rug out from under them? That puts us in an impossible predicament and, essentially,
results in a ‘taking’.
Conclusion:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I know these responses have been lengthy. I hope you
can appreciate that the proposals represent millions of dollars of potential damage to our property
values. They also serve to thwart millions of dollars and decades of our efforts to attract new
industrial employers to the community – employers that pay great family wages, and through
multiplier effects, support local retail, restaurant, and service businesses and their employees as
well.
We have grave concerns in how the process was managed and/or influenced to promote the urban
core infill solution to the exclusion of the UGAs. Given our company’s thirty-plus year
involvement in trying to bring jobs and retail growth to Moses Lake, we are troubled at how the
process has proceeded and continues to proceed. We, along with the stalwarts in the development
and brokerage communities promoting Moses Lake, tried to participate in the process. We have
decades of experience and knowledge, and we were shunned. Even after the recommendations
surfaced, we tried to reach out to correct the record and were rebuffed. That should be troubling to
the Council. Each one of our properties with proposed changes should have been given a
comprehensive opportunity to respond and make our case in public. It is unfortunate that our
participation has been relegated to lengthy written submissions at the late stages of review –
essentially ‘after the train has left the station’. More troubling was the attempt to even limit our
participation in public hearings to only three minutes. We thought we had more value to the
community than that. We wonder why the process was managed the way it was.
We support any efforts to enhance the urban core and entrance gateways to Moses Lake. But why
does it have to come at the expense of all the investment and effort that ASPI and others are doing
to recruit employers to Moses Lake? Why does it have to come at the sacrifice of great master
planned community options in the UGA? Why does it have to come at the expense of maintaining
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 120 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
flexibility to accommodate surges to population if a large aerospace or industrial employer wants
to locate in Moses Lake?
We ask that you accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and maintain UGA
Area 5 – North Mae Valley – in the UGA.
Sincerely yours,
Kim Foster
Corporate Counsel
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 121 of 883
FROM COLUMBIA BASIN HERALD Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 122 of 883
City of Moses Lake
Determination of Non- Significance
Notice of Availability of Draft Documents:
Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, Housing Action Plan,
And Notice of Public Hearings
September 1, 2021
Lead Agency: City of Moses Lake
Agency Contact: Vivian Ramsey, vramsey@cityofml.com, 509.764.3749
Determination of Non-Significance: The City of Moses Lake has determined that this proposal will not
have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(ELS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). We have reviewed the attached Environmental
Checklist and Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions, and draft documents: Comprehensive Plan,
Future Land Use Map, and Housing Planned Action. This information is available at: www.cityofml.com.
This determination is based on the following findings and conclusions:
1. This is a non-project action setting goals and policies for the city.
2. ProtectionsoftheenvironmentisinherentlyagoalofthedraftComprehensivePlan.
3. The City will adopt development regulations at a later date. These regulations are intended to
provide further protections for the environment and critical areas.
Description of Proposal: The proposal, an update to the City"s Comprehensive Plan is a non-project
action that brings the city into compliance with the Growth Management Act. The Plan establishes the
Vision for the community based on a variety of public outreach activities. The Comprehensive Plan
addresses each element Land Use, Housing, Utilities, Capital Facilities, Transportation. The community
Vision is proposed to be implemented through the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that
includes an analysis of existing conditions of each of the elements.
The updates include:
1. Revise City Comprehensive Plan Elements to address growth during the 2021-2038 planning
period, land use plan and zoning changes to accommodate growth targets for population,
housing and employment, transportation and capital facilities plans, and housekeeping and
consistency amendments. This also includes updates to the City"s Transportation Plan and
Capital Facilities Plan.
2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning Map with individual locations or redesignation
and/or rezoning.
3. Inclusion of new land use designations: Gateway Commercial, Downtown, and Residential
Redevelopment Area.
4. Amendments and updates to comprehensive plan elements to ensure consistency with the
City's review of its plans in light of state and regional plans, GMA requirements as well as
community vision and needs.
5. Proposed overlays include Master Planned Resort (Preferred), Downtown Creative District,
Broadway Revitalization Corridor, EPA Groundwater Institutional Control Boundary.
6. Proposed changes to the Urban Growth Area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 123 of 883
7. Updated Capital Facilities Plan.
Proponent: City of Moses Lake
Location: The study area consists of the Moses Lake city limits and the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area
portion of the Grant County Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary.
Comment and Review: The City of Moses Lake is requesting comments from citizens, agencies, tribes,
and all interested parties on the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) until September 16, 2021, by
5:00 p.m. All written comments should be directed to:
Vivian Ramsey, Planning Manager
City of Moses Lake
Community Development Department
509.764.37 49
321 S. Balsam St.
Moses Lake WA 98837
Email: planning@cityofml.com
Public Hearings: The City of Moses Lake will also hold the following public hearings during which
comment will be taken on the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Draft Future Land Use Map, Draft Housing
Action Plan. Written comments may be submitted by 5:00 the day of the hearings (at the above
addresses.)
Planning Commission: September 16, 2021 6:00 p.m.
City Council: October 26, 2021, 7:00 pm
Each meeting will be held at City Hall in the Council Chambers, 421 S. Balsam St.
Remote access is available for both hearings, please check the Moses Lake city website for contact
www.cityofml.com.
Document Availability: The Draft Comprehensive Plan, Draft Future Land Use Map, Draft Housing Action
Plan are available for review at Moses Lake City Civic Center Annex: 321 S Balsam St, Moses Lake, WA
98837. The Draft documents are posted on the City of Moses Lake's website at www.cityofml.com.
SEPA Responsible Official:
Responsible Official: Vivian Ramsey
Position/Title: Planning Manager, Department of Community Development
See "Comment and Review Above" for contact person and method to provide comments.
Signature: //J;9'ld/TM'[7 Date: September 1, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 124 of 883
!!!!!!Æ"Ch
&É&É
!!2 !!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2 !!2 !!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2 ³ä±³ä±"M)ROAD E.9ROAD FHEDMAN CTROAD 4.3
ROAD 4.7
MURRAY WAY
ROAD 4.4
ROAD 4QUINN DRWESTSHORE DRFARRER WAY
EDWARDS DREDWARDS DRMURRA
Y
W
A
Y
ROAD 4 WESTSHORE DRROAD FROAD FROAD FROAD 4
ROAD FROAD FWESTSHORE DR8", Polyvinyl Chloride 10", Po
lyv
iny
l Ch
lor
ide12, Polyvinyl Chloride8, Polyvinyl Chloride10, Polyvinyl Chloride12, Polyvinyl Chloride12, Polyvinyl Chloride12, Polyvinyl Chloride12,
P
o
l
y
v
i
n
y
l
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
City of Moses Lake This map was produced by the City of Moses Lake for informational purposes only. The accuracy of all information should be confirmed with City staff.
9/21/2021
Sewer Gravity Line
Active Flag, Managed By
Moses Lake
Proposed/Abandoned
Private
Sewer Pressure Line!Moses Lake FM!Private!Siphon
Abandoned
³ä ±Sewer Lift Station
Sewer Manhole
Enabled,Managed By
!!2 Standard
!!2 Private
!!2 Proposed/Abandoned
Water Main
Managed By,Class
Main
Service
Private
Port
Abandoned
Water Well
"M)Active
E¬Ó InactiveyAbandoned
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 125 of 883
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
EXISTING WELL
ASPI HORIZON EXISTING WELLS
1600 ACRE FEET AT 2500 GPM
ENOUGH TO SERVE 5000 +/-HOMES
PER CURRENT DOE/DOH REGULATIONS
EXISTING WELLS IN UGA AREA 5
NORTH MAE VALLEY
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 126 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 127 of 883
Prepared By:
Transpo Group
11730 118thAvenue NE, Suite 600
Kirkland, WA98034-7120
(425) 821-3665
August 2009
Grant County
Moses Lake Crossing Study
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 128 of 883
August 2009
1
Executive Summary
Moses Lake has seen steady growth in the past decade thereby resulting in urban-type of congestion
issues. In addition regional transportation infrastructure has been built out resulting in additional highway
capacity along SR-17. However, key bottlenecks remain in the transportation system due to a singular
lake crossing and connection between SR-17 and I-90. In order for the region and surrounding areas to
continue strong economic growth, it is critical that a sufficient transportation infrastructure be provided
that would reduce the amount of “circuitous and out of the way” travel that results in additional costs to
motorists, freight haulers, and the public in general. This document summarizes a study conducted to
assess the feasibility and necessity of a second lake crossing.
Although near-term needs in and of themselves do not justify the construction of a second lake crossing,
the benefits of having a second bridge crossing to the north of Moses Lake sometime in the next 15 to 40
years are numerous. Time savings for freight and commuters to the current economic growth areas to
the north of the city would greatly benefit from the added access. Residents and emergency personnel
wound no longer be limited to only one available bridge crossing. Tourist would have greater access to
surrounding area activities and have a better perception of the central business district due to decreased
freight movement thru the area. Businesses would capitalize on the added route options surrounding the
added west side access and opened areas. Eastside residents would gain traffic relief along SR-17 thru
town and city maintenance costs would drop due to the reduction of heavy vehicles on local roads.
Although a demonstrated “need” cannot be quantified in the very near term, it is important for the area
representatives, residents, and businesses to continue to move forward toward the design and
implementation of a second bridge crossing. The next steps towards the goal of a new bridge crossing
include the development of an Environment Impact Statement, public and private outreach for route
development and support, and the continued identification and mediation of project obstacles that may
delay this essential area improvement.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 129 of 883
August 2009
2
What is the Purpose of this Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route
Feasibility Study?
The Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route Feasibility Study has been conducted in response to
regional business concerns about access to the west side of Moses Lake and I-90. Local representatives
and residents have observed increased congestion and safety issues associated with the current single
connection between the east and west sides of Moses Lake.
This planning level study evaluates the why, what, where, and potential benefits in the long-term (20 to 50
years) of a potential second lake crossing location. The study identifies alternative locations and the
feasibility of those lake crossings. Local stakeholders involved in this study provided input and direction
in development of alternatives intended to provide connectivity and circulation in and around Moses Lake,
SR 17, and I-90 and identification of issues.
The purpose of an additional lake crossing is to improve the movement of people and goods
across Moses Lake between the northern area of the city and I-90 on the west side of the lake. A
potential new connection would eliminate the added travel distance, time, and cost associated with the
current routing of vehicle south on SR-17 to I-90.
Is a Second Lake Bridge Crossing Needed?
In the context of near term funding and infrastructure needs, a second lake crossing does not have high
likelihood and need. However, this study is intended to lay the groundwork such that corridors can begin
to be preserved and locations identified for a long-term bridge crossing location and its associated
improvements. The City of Moses Lake and the surrounding areas have continued to grow and pressure
the existing transportation infrastructure. Growth in the area has resulted in congestion and economic
costs for the area which will only continue to grow without additional transportation infrastructure. As the
area continues to develop it also becomes more difficult to preserve a corridor for any potential future
transportation infrastructure.
Without additional circulation
alternatives in the future,
existing intersections along SR
17 will become increasingly
congested while attempting to
serve a mix of local, through
and freight traffic. Delays
currently identified on SR-17
thru Moses Lake are a result of:
• At Grade Rail Crossings
• Seven Traffic Signals
• Reduced Speeds in the
Urban Area
• Future Congestion
Pinch Points Due to
Lack of Viable North
Bypass
Existing and Future Delays for SR 17 to 1-90.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 130 of 883
August 2009
3
In addition to delays, as a result of a singular lake crossing several other negative impacts on area
activities exist including:
• Increased City road maintenance costs
• Limited future economic development opportunities on the east side due to congestion
• Decreased tourist appeal for Central Business District due to limited connectivity throughout town
• Lack of emergency access redundancy
This feasibility study outlines the benefits, challenges, and path forward to a new lake crossing which
would minimize and reduce the costly delays, congestion, safety concerns, and missed economic
opportunities that exist with a singular lake crossing.
Several key economic area leaders were contacted to receive input on the potential for a second lake
crossing. The following is a summary of those leaders comments regarding the issue.
Areas that would benefit from the Moses Lake bridge crossing.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 131 of 883
August 2009
4
Perspectives on Why a Second Lake Bridge Crossing is Needed from
Regional Economic Leaders?
“The Port of Moses Lake believes that a future outer bridge crossing of the Lake is extremely
important for purposes of freight mobility and economic development, and recommends that a
corridor be preserved for routing of this crossing. Currently all freight coming into and out of the
Port industrial properties has to come through downtown Moses Lake, with no alternate bypass.
This crossing would allow for freight to be moved from I-90 to SR 17 via a more direct route,
eliminating the truck traffic on city streets. This would also enhance economic development, as
three items are important to prospective businesses: air service, rail service and highway
access.”
Craig L. Baldwin
Executive Manager
Port of Moses Lake
“The proposed north lake crossing and lake loop road is a much needed component of the
greater Moses Lake area transportation infrastructure. The project has the potential to produce
tremendous economic and social benefits for this region of Grant County for the remainder of
the 21st Century.”
Terry L. Brewer, CEcD
Executive Director
Grant County Economic Development Council
“As a Port Manager, there is absolutely no way to “sell” manufacturing growth in this area
without both a current strong logistics path in and out of the Ephrata/Moses Lake area as well
as a long term plan for sustaining that path. This project must establish the intended corridor so
that it may be preserved for our future growth, safety and economic development.”
Michael Wren
Manager
Port of Ephrata
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 132 of 883
August 2009
5
Where Could a New Bridge be Located?
Preliminary planning for a new bridge
crossing location has centered on the
northern area of Moses Lake. Focus
has been given on a connection that
would allow southbound vehicles and
freight on SR-17 to gain access to I-90
without the costly delays associated
with travel through the city center and
surrounding developed areas.
Existing roadway infrastructure and
right-of-way on the west side allows
for several crossing alternatives that
would reduce overall project costs.
Direct access to the Port of Moses
Lake is desirable due to the current
amount of economic growth in the
area that would benefit from the
added access.
What are the Other
Possible Roadway
Connection
Improvements Associated with a New Lake Crossing?
Several options are available for potential arterial connections to a possible new bridge sites. The west
side of Moses Lake has several existing roadway facilities that either currently, or with minor upgrades,
would be able to connect to the various possible bridge crossing locations. Each possible arterial
improvement would benefit a variety of important stakeholders and as such a key step in the bridge
crossing location would be to link arterial improvement/right-of-way/corridor preservation with the bridge
crossing. Potential north/south connecting arterial routes on the west side include:
• Hiawatha Road
• West Shore Drive
• Road E NE
It is recommended that any of the designated arterial connections be designed to a more urban standard
and sufficient right-of-way be set aside to accommodate all modes of travel including bikes and peds. It is
anticipated that no more than one travel lane would be required in each direction to accommodate future
travel demands. However, to facilitate efficient traffic flow, it is recommended that turn lanes be provided
at each key intersection.
Several locations have been identified, including alternatives
to reduce overall project costs.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 133 of 883
August 2009
6
What Land Use Changes Could Result From a New Crossing?
Improved connectivity and access to the west side of Moses Lake would make the area more desirable
for residential and commercial activities. Businesses wishing to capitalize on the future growth of the
west side and the availability of better access around the city will want to take advantage of the
connectivity that a new bridge would provide. Due to improved connectivity, it is likely that the urban
growth area would change and the land uses surrounding such an improvement project would intensify
due to the added access provided by a new bridge crossing.
The development of the opened areas to the west would result in future utilization of the new bridge. Trip
generation projections developed for the future economic development area would add to the utilization of
the new bridge and give added justification for the bridge crossing. Future long –term (30+ years from
2009) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) projections for the new bridge amount to 11,500 total vehicle trips.
This volume is typically supported by a two lane structure presented in this study report with potential for
Each possible bridge route would provide benefits for the variety of stakeholders.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 134 of 883
August 2009
7
a third lane for passing with grade issues given the anticipated freight activity on the bridge. This
projected volume was developed using surrounding area growth estimates and reasonable long term
planning assumptions to develop a high level planning bases for trip generation figures. It is important to
note that without the commitment to future development of the west side of Moses Lake that the feasibility
of a new bridge crossing to the north would be difficult to justify.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 135 of 883
August 2009
8
What Would a New Bridge Potentially Look Like?
How the new bridge crossing Moses Lake may ultimately look and function will be influenced by several
factors including:
• Lake crossing location
• Number of lanes
• Pedestrian and bicycle amenities
• Steepness of grade
• Height above the water
• Bridge approach conditions
• Type of construction materials
• Number of bridge piers/columns
• Lake and shoreline uses
• Environmental factors
• Aesthetics
• Budget
Lake Crossing Location
Location of the new bridge will be greatest single factor ultimately affecting how the bridge looks. Bridge
location influences other variables such as height, approach conditions, grade, material type, adjacent
uses, aesthetics, and environmental impacts. The most influential factors affecting bridge location are
quite often length, width, height, cost, and economic benefit. For a new bridge constructed at Randolph
Road / SR 17, the estimated bridge length would be approximately 3,100 feet.
A new crossing would accommodate traffic, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 136 of 883
August 2009
8
Number of Lanes
Although no formal travel demand modeling has been completed, a review of forecast traffic volumes
suggests that the required capacity for a new bridge crossing would most likely be two 12-foot lanes –
one in each direction. It is possible for alternate bridge locations to generate more or less traffic based on
adjacent land use and connecting destinations; however in any event it is likely that one lane in each
direction would provide sufficient capacity. Other factors influencing the number of lanes may include
steepness of grade; with any steep grade a second through lane in the uphill direction would facilitate
improved operations especially in light of the fact that freight would be a key user of a new bridge.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
The type, number, and width of pedestrian and bicycle amenities across the new bridge significantly
influences bridge width/cost, and may also significantly affect the perceived benefit of the bridge to the
surrounding community and businesses. Pedestrian sidewalks located on both sides of the bridge are
normally a minimum of 6 feet in width, and are not intended to support bicycle traffic. Bicycle lanes on
each side of the bridge are normally at least 5 feet in width and are constructed at-grade with adjacent
vehicle traffic – separated by the fog line. As an option to separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
each side of the bridge, a multi-use path a minimum of 12 feet wide may be considered on one side only
– separated from vehicle traffic by a solid barrier. It would be very important to provide for pedestrian and
bicycle amenities as these would help improve the overall connectivity of the trail, bicycle, and pedestrian
systems.
Grade Issues
Long steep upward grades at locations where significant heavy truck traffic is anticipated may require an
additional outside lane for trucks to climb in; allowing lighter vehicles to travel past them at normal
speeds. This would likely be the case for a new bridge constructed at Randolph Road / SR 17 where the
northern bluff overlooking Moses Lake is approximately 140 feet higher than the southern Lake shore,
causing sustained upward grades of 5% to 6%. In general, steep grades are less favorable to traffic
conditions, causing vehicles to slow down going up hill; and are more difficult to travel and maintain
during cold periods of snow and ice.
Height Above Water
Bridge height above water significantly affects the length and cost of vertical bridge columns/piers on
which the bridge superstructure rests. The height, type, diameter, geometry, and spacing of piers
significantly influence bridge cost and aesthetics. Height above water is most directly affected by
connecting elevations from one side of the Lake to the other. Other factors influencing bridge height may
include requirements to pass vehicles below the bridge at one or both Lake shores, or minimum vertical
clearances needed for boats to pass under the bridge. For bridges with very low clearance to the water, it
may be possible to extend a road base partially across the Lake, which causes the length of the bridge to
be shorter. This approach was used for the existing I-90 Bridge crossing Moses Lake.
Bridge Approach Conditions
Bridge approach conditions refer to the roadway and topographic conditions approaching each end of the
new bridge. For instances where one end of the bridge is raised significantly above the Lake shore (for
whatever reason), the bridge approach is built up on a roadway fill slope which is sometimes 20 to 30 feet
high. Construction of significant bridge approach slopes costs significantly more, relative to bridge ends
which touch down close to existing elevations on both ends. For conditions where intersections are
located very close to one or both ends of the bridge, it may also ne necessary to widen the end of the
bridge to add left or right turn lanes approaching the intersection.
Type of Construction Materials
Construction material types can significantly affect the bridge geometry, bridge cost, and aesthetics. The
two most common basic materials which are compared in bridge construction are concrete and steel. For
steel bridge structures, concrete is often still used in the construction of bridge piers/columns and bridge
deck. The most noticeable difference in concrete and steel bridge construction is the maximum
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 137 of 883
August 2009
9
length/span of bridge superstructure occurring between bridge piers/columns. For concrete bridge
structures, the normal span length between columns is in the range of 150 feet to 200 feet. For steel
bridge structures, the normal span length increases to the range of 250 feet to 300 feet. One potential
advantage to using a steel bridge superstructure crossing Moses Lake is a reduction in the number of
costly bridge piers/columns which must be constructed within the lake. Concrete bridge superstructures,
on the other hand, may be constructed at less cost (not factoring in pier construction), and require less
maintenance/painting over time.
Number of Bridge Piers / Columns
Total number and location of bridge piers placed within the Lake significantly affects environmental
impacts and associated mitigation measures/costs. The necessity to place more or less piers is highly
affected by the selection of bridge superstructure material type (discussed above). A reduction in the
number of piers may significantly reduce environmental impacts and potential impacts to Lake recreation
associated with the new bridge crossing.
Lake and Shoreline Uses
Existing and planned lake and shoreline uses may most directly affect factors including bridge location,
bridge height, pier spacing, and aesthetic requirements. Shoreline uses may cause one or both ends of
the bridge to be elevated above grade to allow continuous access to the shoreline. This may be the case
if a trail is established along the Lake shore. Significant on-water use (fishing and boating) at some
locations may require bridge piers to be placed higher or further apart to facilitate such uses in a safe
manner. If a bridge is established at a location where significant residential and/or business use exists
close to the bridge, where the bridge becomes more visible, then aesthetics may become more of a
consideration.
Environmental Factors
There are several environmental factors which may ultimately affect the location and geometry of the
proposed bridge crossing Moses Lake. Several factors may include impacts to wetlands and waters of
the US (falling under jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers), fish and wildlife considerations,
cultural/archaeological resources which may exist, air quality considerations, noise generated from traffic,
lake and shoreline uses, and many other potential factors.
Aesthetics
Bridge architecture/aesthetics may be built into any bridge type, in many different ways, at any location.
The extent of bridge aesthetics is most influenced by the perceived desire/need for aesthetics in
combination with available project budget. For bridges located at locations where they are less visible,
aesthetics may be less important. For bridges located in highly visible areas closer to downtown where
they may be seen as more of a “gateway”, aesthetics may be assigned a high level of importance.
What would be the overall cost of a new lake crossing?
Ultimate project cost/budget is affected by each of the factors discussed above. Each of these factors will
need to be defined, weighed against one another (trade-offs), and considered in the context of
community/regional benefit in determining the appropriate bridge/project cost. A planning level cost
estimate developed for this study revealed a total estimated planning level 2010 project cost of
$215,000,000, with a future 2030 estimated cost of $390,000,000. These estimates were based off a
bridge crossing location at Randolph Road and direct connecting new roadway to the existing Hiawatha
Road.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 138 of 883
August 2009
10
What Are The Potential Lake Crossing Benefits?
Based on review of transportation data, interviews with stakeholders, and review of forecast travel
demands, several potential regional benefits are associated with the addition of a second lake crossing:
Freight Mobility
Freight mobility would benefit from the connection, particularly those bound to/from the west.
Westbound truck routes to/from the Port of Moses Lake would be shortened by approximately 8
miles, and would no longer be required to travel along SR 17 through Moses Lake where delays may
be encountered. This becomes even more important with the expectation of “just-in-time” delivery for
some of the Port industries to maintain competitiveness.
Travel From SR-17 (Randolph Rd.) to I-90 (Hiawatha Rd.)
Existing Route 24.5 min/trip
Estimated New Bridge Route 12.5 min/trip
Potential Time Savings New Route 12 min/trip
The Port of Moses Lake Access
Industrial areas provide jobs to many residents of the Cities of Moses Lake and Ephrata. The Port of
Moses Lake area is continuing to grow, and the new transportation corridor will help facilitate future
economic growth within this area. Prospective businesses will see the port as a viable development
alternative with its air service, rail service, and enhanced highway access.
Access Redundancy
SR 17 through Moses Lake would no longer serve as the only transportation route to the north side of
the City, Port of Moses Lake, and Big Bend Community College, and would likely experience some
future traffic relief from the alternate western route. Based on Transpo’s 2002 Moses Lake city-wide
circulation study, the eastbound and westbound SR 17/I-90 ramps are anticipated to fail (LOS F) by
year 2022 without future capacity improvements.
Transportation Redundancy and Security
Security and reliability would be enhanced by the redundancy afforded by the new route. If an
incident occurs on I-90, or if the I-90 bridge crossing of Moses Lake is unavailable, then an alternate
transportation route from I-90 would exist across/around Moses Lake to serve the Port of Moses
Lake, the City of Moses Lake, and I-90 through traffic.
Future Urban Growth:
Anticipated growth occurring within the City and County west/south of Moses Lake would benefit from
the new road alignment and bridge connection directly to the City/Port of Moses Lake. The new
corridor would most likely facilitate economic development within this area.
Commuter Access
With anticipated expansion of Big Bend Community College, the new connection will provide benefit
and convenience to staff and students. Many students commute from Quincy and George along I-90.
Emergency Access
Emergency access from the west of the City of Moses lake is now limited to one bridge structure.
With a second bridge crossing the City of Moses Lake would have a second emergency access
option. With future development to the south and west of the city this additional emergency access
route would allow for faster response times and route options which may save lives.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 139 of 883
August 2009
11
City Road Maintenance Cost
Road maintenance would be decreased from the re-routing of heavy vehicles around the cities
existing infrastructure. In simple terms, one fully loaded 80,000 pound truck causes the same
pavement wear and damage as 10,000 automobiles. By eliminating a good share of the heavy
vehicle traffic, existing roadway structures will last much longer and require significantly less funds to
maintain.
Enhanced Tourism Opportunities
Additional access to the tourist activities surrounding Moses Lake would bring increased revenues to
the city and area businesses. The added connections would also reduce the amount of freight
activity around the central business district and make the eastside more inviting to tourist activities.
Added Resident Access and Circulation
Area residents would have additional circulation options to access recreational and business areas
through the new connection. Additional access to the airport, community college, north lake parks,
and other activities would no longer need to purely navigate through the only current corridor
available (Stratford).
Corridor Preservation
Existing urban arterials and collectors would gain relief from congestion due to only one lake crossing
and allow for the new corridor to be preemptively protected before future interested access
stakeholders become entrenched in developing areas to the west. This corridor preservation would
allow for sustained future industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural growth throughout the
surrounding area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 140 of 883
August 2009
12
What Are The Next Steps?
Development of and Environmental Impact Statement
One of the first steps towards permitting the bridge would be the development of an environmental impact
document that would meet requisite permitting and funding requirements. The EIS could potentially
evaluate the alternatives identified in this study with the purpose of identifying a “preferred” alternative.
Public Outreach
In order for any of the possible bridge locations and route options to be accepted and funded they will
need the support of local officials and residents. In order to develop the support of these essential
stakeholders, efforts should be made to include their input in the selection and future development of
crossing alternatives. The following are ways to promote and advertise the potential benefits and
possibilities of a Moses Lake crossing:
• Project Web Site
• Project Newsletter (see attached example)
• Public Open Houses/Workshops
• Solicitation for Letters of Support from business, residents, and other local stakeholders
• Route Alternative input and consensus.
Overcoming Obstacles to Project Implementation
Some potential important obstacles which need to be addressed include the following:
• Addressing west side residents concerns
• Identifying funding sources and opportunities
• Addressing impacts to City activities
o Boat Races
o Recreation on the lake
Attached Figures:
• Existing Issues Map
• Economic Growth Areas Map
• Bridge Crossing Locations Map
• Routing Option 1 Map
• Routing Option 2 Map
• Routing Option 3 Map
• Sample Mailer/Newsletter
• Planning Level Cost Estimate
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 141 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
16
,
0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
(4
%
)16,00015,000(<1%)20,000
17,000
9,000(3%)
90
17 L NE7 NE
3 NE171 17
NJ NE4 NE
F NEK NEEAST NEI NE2 NE
5 NE
1 NEWESTSHORE DR NE
CHEROKEE RD E
WHEELER RD NE
E5 NE67 NE
CANAL
STRATFORD RD NEN FRONTAGE RD E
N FRONTAGE RD W
MAE VALLEY RD NE
MCCONIHE RD NE
56 NE
65 NE
WILSON RD W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLV
D NE
BASELINE RD E
S FRONTAGE RD EW PENINSULA DR W BROADWAY AVE OLD FRONTAGE RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
MAPLE DR NE
R
D
MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD HARRIS RD NE
S PI
ONEER WAY VALLEY RD NED5 NEP
A
T
TON
B
LVD
M NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR NORTH NE22ND AVE NES CLOVER DR 37 NE
W 3RD AVE DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FAIR W AY DR N ERANDOLPH RD N E
E HILL AVE
NELSON RD NE
KITTLESON RD NE L9 NEBOLLING ST NE
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NES GRAND DR HANSEN RD SA
ND DUNES RD S
EW LAKESHORE DR CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE17
S
ATWOOD RD
S
JUNI
PER DR 21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR BRAD ST NEE
L
G
IN RD NE
E NELSON RD
BROAD ST NE
E BROADWAY AVE
ANDREWS ST NE
POTATO HILL RD NEVIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE DUNN ST NE
S ALDER ST GRAPE DR NEW IVY AVE W WAPATO DR NE
P
P
E
L
R
D
N
E
DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR GO ODRICH RD SE
N CRESTVI
EW DR
K
A
R
L RD NE
SHARON AVE E
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
D NEE 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NEE LARK AVE
SCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE
E WHEELER RD ALMA RD NEF5 NEBELL RD NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD 6 NE
WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD PAXSON DR W LEE ST
42 NE
S WANAPUM DR I5 NENE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
K5 NEORCHARD DR NEM SEYOUNG RD NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
54 NE
K SEN
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
TEAL RD NE
A R LINGT O N D R CALVERT RD NEWENATCHEE DR NECOX ST 19TH AVE
NEDALEY DR
BROADWAY NEW LAKESIDE DR JOEY RD NEBLUFF RD NEW BASIN ST BACON LN NERAY RD NEADMIRAL RD NEC R E STVIEW DR K7
SEMCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E CRAIG ST
DOOLITTLE
D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1 L NE RD N BLOCK S
T LO
W
RY ST
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEFIVE NE
S SKYLINE DR L2 NEE AGLE D R NEGRACE LN NE
FERGUSON RD NED
OG
WOOD S
T HERITAGE LN SEW KNOLLS VISTA DR K7 NEBLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD N
E N BUELL DR ASTRO LN NES
CHI
LLING DR F4 NEW C
R
AIG S
T
JU
D
Y
R
D
N
E
S BATT
E
R
Y
R
D
M
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEE HAYDEN DR W GEM AVE N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NENORTH SEPETTIGREW RD NE
K8 NEW
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BASELINE2 RD SE
GROVE RD NE
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN MA
R
C
H
S
T
CRAW LN
E OLIVE AVE
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
E
CITATION RD NENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NES HERMIT RD CAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR RAMM RD NEN DANIEL ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD S JEFFERSON AVE E PL
U
M
S
T
DUSTY ST 24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWA
T
E
R
L
N STEWART RD NES C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
KUTTLESON RD
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
ROBIN LN NES PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
WISER LN NE
PARK DR
S POMMER ST
FORRESTA
L
L
N W TOEVS AVE CIND
I
E
L
N
N
E M NE3 NE
N FRONTAGE RD EK NEF NEEAST NE1 NE1 NE
6 NE
WESTSHORE DR NENORTH NEM NEL9 NE5 NE5 NE NORTH NE5 NE
4 NE M NEI NE
NORTH NEWESTSHORE DR NE37 NE
65 NE
VALLEY RD NE2 NE
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Existing Issues
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Growth_Areas.mxd
FIGUREX
Legend
Signals
Key Bottleneck Locations
2007 Average Daily Traffic
Traffic Growth (Annual Rate over 5 years)
Estimated Year 2025 Volumes
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
XXX(X%)XXX
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 142 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
FutureEconomicGrowthArea(Ind, Ret, Res)
EconomicGrowthAreaAdded Freight Mobility/Resident Access
Traffic ReliefArea
90
17 J NE4 NE
L NE3 NE
10 NE
7 NE NORTH NE17
N
8 NE M NEF NEK NE9 NE
N FRONTAGE RD WB NEA NENEPP
E
L
R
D
N
E
N FRONTAGE RD E EAST NE5 NE STRATFORD RD NED NEI NE2 NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
DIVISION RD N78 NE
9
N
W
OLD M
O
S
E
S
L
A
K
E
H
W
Y
HIAWATHA RD NEMOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD WHEELER RD NE
1 NEWESTSHORE DR NED5 NEWHITE TRAIL RD
17
S
CHEROKEE RD E
CANAL
1 SEE5 NETHREE NE
67 NE
C NE65 NE
RAND
OLPH R
D NE
S FRONTAGE RD E
3 NW
2 NW
4 NW
5 NW
H8 NE
MCCONIHE RD NE K7 NE
OLD FRONTAGE RD
56 NE
W PENINSULA DR WILSON RD
P
AT
T
ON BL
VD N
E
BASELINE RD E
K SEA SEM SECANAL 20 W6 NE
R
D
K4
N
E
HARRIS RD NE K5 NEH NEBASELINE 5 RD SE
S
AND DU
NES R
D SEC SE RD 22ND AVE NE14 NE N2 NE37 NE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FAIRW AY DR NE
NORTH SELAKE VISTA DR NE
L9 NEDICK RD NE
W LAKESHORE DR WALKER RD HANSEN RD H ONE TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
G O OD R ICH RD SE N9 NE21ST AVE NEN4 NENE ROAD POTATO HILL RD NEVIKING RD NEARN
O
LD D
R N
E
KAR
L RD NE M3 NEKONISHI RD NE
BELL RD NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE H FOUR POTATO HILL RD SEI5 NENE D EIGHT DIVISION RD SYOUNG RD NENE H SIX 97 NE
54 NE
DAHL RD NE
85 NE
S
T
O
N
E
C
RE
ST RD N
E
32ND AVE NEARLINGT
O
N D
R C4 NECOX ST DALEY DR
SCENIC DR SEBACON LN NEK7
SENE M TWO STONERIDGE RD NEA NW
D O O L IT TLE DR L NE RD FIVE NE
GRACE LN NE
FERGUSON RD NEHERITAGE LN SE
BLUE GOOSE ST NED2 NEASTRO LN NESCHILLING DR F4 NEW CRAIG ST JU
D
Y
R
D
N
E
F
8
N
E
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE
UNION RD IDANO RD NEDUSTY ST
18 NEHIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NEB NECANAL 20 WK NENORTH NEC NEL NE10 NE
4 NE
7 NE
6 NEK5 NENORTH NEHARRIS RD NE
F NE1 NE
5 NE 5 NED NE5 NE
NORTH NEA NE65 NEEAST NEEAST NE2 NE M NE3 NE
D NEM NEK
5
N
E
9 NE 9 NE
N FRONTAGE RD E
10 NE
2 NE
I NE
N FRONTAGE RD W B
NEDIVISION RD NA NE5 NE
M NEC NELegend
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 1 20.5
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Growth Areas
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Growth_Areas.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 143 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LA
KE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNOLLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F
8
N
E
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWA
T
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Possible Crossing Locations
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Bridges.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 144 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway
Existing Roadway
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 1 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option1.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 145 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway/ROW
Existing Roadway/ROW
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 2 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option2.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 146 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway/ROW
Existing Roadway/ROW
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 3 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option3.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 147 of 883
Need AddressGrant County
Moses Lake Bridge Crossing
and Route FeasibilityStudy
Developing area excitement and ownership thru a
Public/Private Outreach initiative
In order for any of the possible bridge locations and route options to be accepted and funded they will need the
support of local officials and residents. In order to develop the support of these essential stakeholders, efforts
should be made to include their input in the selection and future development of crossing alternatives. The
following are ways to promote and advertise the potential benefits and possibilities of a Moses Lake crossing:
• Project Web Site
• Project Newsletter
• Public Open Houses/Workshops
• Solicitation for Letters of Support from business, residents, and other local stakeholders
• Route Alternative input and consensus
The Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route Feasibility Study was conducted in response to local resident and
business concerns about access to the west side of Moses Lake and I-90. Local representatives and residents
have for a long time noted the mounting transportation issues associated with the current single connection
between the east and west sides of Moses Lake.
This study is intended to evaluate bridge crossing alternative and the feasibility of those crossings around
Moses Lake. Local stakeholders involved in this study provided input and direction in order to develop viable
alternatives to mounting transportation issues in the area.
The Purpose of the project is to improve the movement of people and goods across Moses Lake between
the northern area of the city and I-90 on the west side of the lake. This connection would eliminate the added
travel distance, time, and cost associated with the current routing of vehicle south on SR-17 to I-90.
The City of Moses Lake and the surrounding urban
growth area has developed and out grown its existing
transportation infrastructure. Time and money have
been sacrificed due to a lack of effective connections
between trip producing areas around the city and
county. These increases and deficiencies have
caused congestion and economic losses for the area
which will only continue to mount unless a viable
infrastructure improvement is implemented. The
economic future of the area requires a preserved
corridor around the city to the north to allow for
enhanced freight and resident mobility. Without a
preserved corridor, existing facilities along SR 17
will become significantly saturated with a mix of
residential and freight vehicles.
What is the
Moses Lake Bridge Crossing
and Route Feasibility Study?
Why is a Second Bridge Crossing Needed?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 148 of 883
Where Will the New Bridge be Located and
What are the Possible Routes Associated with
a New Bridge Crossing?
What are the Potential Bridge Crossing Benefits?
Based on our conversations with local stakeholders, Transpo understands that study partners have been
reviewing this route together for roughly two years, and foresee several potential regional benefits:
• Freight Hauling Mobility
• The Port of Moses Lake Access
• Access Redundancy
• Transportation and Freight Security
• Future urban growth
• Commuter Access
• Emergency Access
• City road maintenance cost
• Enhanced tourism opportunities
• Added resident access
• Corridor preservation
• East Side Development Corridor Traffic Relief
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 149 of 883
Bridge CrossingBridge Length3,000.00 FTBridge Width65.00 FTTotal Deck Area195,000.00 SQ. FTUnit Cost$250.00 Per SQ. FTTotal$48,750,000.00IntersectionsMajor Intersections$500,000.00 EachNumber of Major Intersections4Minor Intersections$200,000.00 EachNumber of Minor Intersections5Total$3,000,000.00RoadwayCross Section:Width 40 FTROW Width 80 FTLength 50160 FTErosion Control/Soil Stabilization$40.00 Per LN FTPlanning Level Lake Crossing Estimate(Randolph Road to Hiawatha Road Bridge and Route)Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 150 of 883
Clearing and Grubbing$10.00 Per LN FTPavement:Depth 1 FTCost $300.00 Per LN FTSubgrade Preparation$20.00 Per LN FTGravel Base:Depth 2 FTCost $120.00 Per LN FTGrading$90.00 Per LN FTStrom Drainage:Collection/Culverts/Catch Basins $90.00 Per LN FTDrainage treatment/Detention $60.00 Per LN FTMajor Drainage Crossings $30.00 Per LN FTMinor Drainage Crossings $10.00 Per LN FTGuard Rail (50% of Length)$40.00 Per LN FTRetaining Walls$50.00 Per LN FTSub-Total Major Roadway Items$880.00 Per FTSub-Total Minor Roadway Items$260.00 Per FTTotal Basic Roadway Construction Cost $1,140.00 Per FT $57,182,400.00Right-Of-WayNew Alignment $200.00 Per LN FTMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 151 of 883
Existing Alignment Adjustment$120.00 Per LN FTTotal Right-Of-Way$8,342,400.00Project Cost SummaryBasic Bridge$48,750,000.00Basic Roadway$57,182,400.00Intersections $3,000,000.00Sub-Total $108,932,400.00Design/Construction Contingency (35%) $38,126,340.00Environmental Mitigation (10%) $10,893,240.00Sub-Total $157,951,980.00Project Development Costs (30%) $47,385,594.00Sub-Total $205,337,574.00Right of Way $8,342,400.00Total Estimated 2010 Project Cost$213,679,974.00Total Estimated 2030 Project Cost (3% annual Growth) $385,929,801.67Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 152 of 883
Fiscal and Economic Impact Study for Wi k b R h M tPl dWickenburg Ranch, a Master-Planned Community in Wickenburg, ArizonaPrepared by Taylor Mammen, Principal, RCLCO | March 17, 2014Robert Charles Lesser & Co. Real Estate Advisors | rclco.comMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 153 of 883
KEY FACTS ABOUT RCLCO•Founded in 1967 in Los Angeles, California•RCLCO is the leading knowledge solutions provider to the real estate industry•RCLCO provides real estate economics, strategic planning, management consulting andimplementation services to real estate investors, developers, financial institutions, publicagencies, and anchor institutions•Headquartered in the Washington, D.C. area, with offices in California, Florida, and TexasWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20142Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 154 of 883
RCLCO ADVISORY GROUPSCommunity and Resort Advisory• Master-Planned CommunitiesSi lFilT hPublic Strategies• Local, State, and Federal GovernmentRi lPl i O iti•Single-Family, Townhomes• Active Adult Communities• Independent, Assisted Living, CCRC• Second Home Communities•Regional Planning Organizations• Redevelopment Authorities• Transit Agencies• Chambers of Commerce• Conservation Communities• Beach, Mountain, Lake Resorts• Casino, Marina• Economic Development Organizations• Business Improvement DistrictsUrban Real Estate AdvisoryStrategic Planning• Capital Formation Strategies• Corporate, Business Unit, Portfolio, or Asset Level Strategies• Apartments, Condominiums•Office• Retail• R&D/Industrialg• Performance Audit• Litigation Support ServicesInstitutional Advisory• Mixed-Use • Lifestyle/Entertainment Centers• University/Medical CampusInstitutional Advisory• Asset Portfolio Strategy• Sector Strategy• Manager SelectionManagement & MonitoringWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 2014•Management & Monitoring3Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 155 of 883
CONSULTING TO THE PUBLIC SECTORFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedThDl tCt tiFiscal Impact Analysis and SupportingMktAlifMltiSelected Engagements (2013)• RCLCO has unsurpassed experience withfiscalandeconomicimpactstudiesforTownhomeDevelopment;CatoctinCircle, Leesburg, VA (Loudoun County)Revenue and Economic Analysis forHampton Inn and Suites; CarolinaBeach, SCMarketAnalysisfor aMultiuseDevelopment; Loudoun County, VAFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis ofCity Place Mall RepositioningFiscalImpactAnalysisforMarketSquarefiscalandeconomicimpactstudiesforlocal governments, school districts, privatedevelopers, etc.• Local governments are often interested inFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis fora Mixed-Use Development; Falls Church,VAFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedRehabilitation Hospital; Chesapeake, VAFiscalImpactAnalysisforMarketSquareat Potomac Station; Leesburg, VAFiscal Impact Analyses for BraddockSouth Village, Wildwood Active AdultCommunity, and Lexington 7 TownhomeDevelopment; Loudoun County, VAthe potential future fiscal impact of thegrowth coming to their area and theeconomic impacts generated.FiscalImpactStudies:EstimaterevenuesDirect and Indirect Economic andRevenue Analysis of Planned JBGDevelopment Activity; Fairfax County, VAEconomic and Fiscal Impact Analysis ofJBGDevelopmentActivityinSelectedFiscal Impact Analysis Whole FoodsAnchored 132,000 Square FootShopping Center; Huntsville, ALFiscal Impact and Proffers Analysis ofWaltonwoodAshburnContinuingCare•FiscalImpactStudies:Estimaterevenuesand expenditures to be generated by thegrowth and development. The projectednet fiscal impact is calculated to determineJBGDevelopmentActivityinSelectedWashington Metropolitan Area Sub-MarketsSupplementary Direct and IndirectEconomic and Revenue Analysis ofPlanned Fort Totten SouthWaltonwoodAshburnContinuingCareFacility; Ashburn, VAFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedMultiuse Development; Leesburg, VA(Loudoun County)cost-benefit to the jurisdiction.•Economic Impact Studies: Utilize marketanalysis data and projections for individuallandsecategoriestoestimateeconomicDevelopment; Washington, D.C.Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis ofNuckols-Rhodes Tract; Henrico County,VAFi lItAlifPl dFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis ofRedevelopment of the Old Post Office;Washington, D.C.landusecategoriestoestimateeconomicimpact in terms of direct, indirect, andinduced effects on the economy.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 2014FiscalImpactAnalysisfor aPlannedOutlet Center4Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 156 of 883
PROJECT OVERVIEW•Wickenburg Ranch is a master-plannedcommunityjustnorthoftheTownofcommunityjustnorthoftheTownofWickenburg.•The community would contain 3,125residential units:o~1,800 age-restricted homeso~1,300 primary homeso24 rental casitas to be marketed as“Stay and Play” units•Non-Residential Uses:oGolfCourseoGolfCourseoClubhouseoRestaurantoFitness CenterSoSpao120-room resortWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20145Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 157 of 883
PROJECT OVERVIEW (CONT.)()•Home would be sold over the course of 10 years – approximately 310 homes per yearo180age-restrictedhomesperyearo180agerestrictedhomesperyearo130 primary homes per year•This sales pace should be achievable given the following development characteristics:oVarietyofproduct segments rangingfrom conventional homes to large lots in both age-ypgggggrestricted and primary home settingsoFull amenity program – golf course, club house, spa, fitness, activities, etc.oPartnership with and sales to well-respected and recognized regional and national homebuildersparticularlyfortheagerestrictedhomesbuilders,particularlyfortheage-restrictedhomes400 450 500 es150200 250 300 350 nnual Home SalePrimaryAge-Resticted-50 100 150 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10AnWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20146Source: Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 158 of 883
OBJECTIVESThe objective of RCLCO’s fiscal and economic impact study is to project the revenues and costs totheTownofWickenburgasaresultofthedevelopmentofWickenburgRanchundertwotheTownofWickenburgasaresultofthedevelopmentofWickenburgRanchundertwoscenarios: 1) Wickenburg Ranch is annexed into the Town and 2) Wickenburg Ranch remains inunincorporated Yavapai County. This process included the following analyses:•Determine the net fiscal impact that theproposed WickenburgRanch development wouldpppgpprovide to the Town of Wickenburg (revenues minus expenditures):oEstimate the future revenues to be generated by Wickenburg Ranch for the Town ofWickenburg’s general fund, including sales tax, property tax, building permits, andmiscellaneous sources of revenue. In addition, estimate projected revenues for theWickenburg # 9 School District.oProject the future expenses to be incurred bythe Town of Wickenburg and the Wickenburg#9 School District as a result of the development of Wickenburg Ranch.•Assess the change in total economic activity (direct, indirect, and induced) in the Town ofWickenburg and in broader Maricopa County generated by the development and operation ofWi k bRhWickenburgRanch.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 159 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT – METHODOLOGYDetermine Fiscal Impact CategoriesReview Wickenburg Ranch DevelopmentReview Wickenburg Ranch Development Plans and Pro FormaReview Fund BudgetsCalculateRevenuesCalculateRevenuesGeneral Fund• Property Tax• Sales Tax/TPTSchool District• Property Tax•Impact Fees• Building Permit Fees• Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public ServicespCalculate ExpendituresGeneral FundSchool DistrictDetermine Net Fiscal Impact (Revenues Minus Expenditures)WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20148Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 160 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)TYPES OF IMPACTSTYPES OF IMPACTSWICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXEDCOSTSNEUTRALREVENUES●Town Services●Utilities●General Fund Property Tax●School District Services●Sales Tax/TPT●Building Permit Fees●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public Services●School District Property Tax●School District Impact FeesWICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXEDCOSTSNEUTRALREVENUES●Town Services●Fire District Property Tax●School District Services●Sales Tax/TPT●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public ServicesServices●School District Property Tax●School District Impact FeesWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20149Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg #9 School District; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 161 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTSSUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS$6,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $, ,RevenuesExpenditures$3,000,000$3,500,000 $0$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 Net Impact$0 •Duringtheconstructionperiod(2014-2025)WickenburgRanchwouldgenerateageneralfund•Duringtheconstructionperiod(2014-2025),WickenburgRanchwouldgenerateageneralfundsurplus: $16 million or average $1.4 million per year.• After build-out, the net fiscal impact is less clear: the Town states its intention to manageexpendituresaccordingtonewincrementalrevenuesofapproximately$6million/yearWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201410expendituresaccordingtonewincrementalrevenuesofapproximately$6million/year.Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 162 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)WICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXEDWICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXED•Miscellaneous Revenues ($45 million):GtdftiflGeneral Fund Revenue CategoriesFY 2014–FY 2033oGeneratedas afunction ofalargerpopulation and employment base.oIncludes administrative charges, fees, useofpublicfacilities(library)etcProperty TaxFY 2014 –FY 2033ofpublicfacilities(library),etc.•Sales Tax/TPT ($24.1 million): Resultingfrom increased spending in Wickenburg.Building Permit Fees$14,500,000 Property Tax$9,000,000 •Contracting Tax and Building Permit Fees($36.7 million): Generated by construction ofhomes and community facilities.PtT($9illi )RbdMiscellaneous Revenues$45,000,000 Contracting Tax$12,200,000 •PropertyTax($9million):Revenuesbasedon the value of the homes and communityfacilities.Note:doesnotincludeproposeddeveloperSales Tax/TPT$ , 00,000•Note:doesnotincludeproposeddeveloper-financed and subsidized water andwastewater treatment facilities.Tax/TPT$24,100,000 Total Revenues - $104,800,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201411Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 163 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)WICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXEDWICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXED•$61.4 million less than if Wickenburg Ranchisannexed.General Fund RevenuesFY 2014–FY 2033isannexed.•Sales Tax/TPT ($15.8 million): Generated bynew household and visitor spending in theTown.Miscellaneous Revenues$2,500,000 FY 2014 –FY 2033•Fire District Tax ($25.1 million): Secondaryproperty tax to fund fire services for thecommunity (Wickenburg Ranch is located inthe Wickenburg Rural Fire District).•Miscellaneous Revenues ($2.5 million):Revenues generated by increased activityFire District Retail Sales Tax$15,805,000 from the population living in WickenburgRanch.Tax$25,100,000 Total Revenues - $43,405,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201412Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 164 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)ANNEXATION COMPARISONANNEXATION COMPARISON$8,000,000 Estimated Comparison of Wickenburg General Fund Revenues by Type, with and without $6,000,000 $7,000,000 yyAnnexation, FY 2014 – FY 2033WITH ANNEXATIONWITHOUT ANNEXATIONSales Tax Revenues$4,000,000 $5,000,000 Retail Sales Tax$16,900,000 $15,800,000Hotel/Motel Tax$3,600,000 $5,000Real Estate Rental Tax $2,400,000-Telecommunications Tax $1,200,000-Contracting Tax$12,200,000-$2,000,000 $3,000,000 gSub-Total$36,300,000 $15,805,000Property Tax Revenues$9,000,000-Fire District Tax$0 $1,000,000 456789023456789023Fire District Tax Revenues- $25,100,000Building Permit Revenues$14,500,000 -FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020FY 2021FY 2022FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028FY 2029FY 2030FY 2031FY 2032FY 2033Revenues (with Annexation)Revenues (without Annexation)Miscellaneous Revenues$45,000,000 $2,500,000Total Wickenburg General Fund Revenues$104,800,000 $43,405,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201413Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOGeneral Fund RevenuesMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 165 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)SCHOOL DISTRICTSCHOOL DISTRICT$14,000,000$16,000,000 $18,000,000 $2 000 000$4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 RevenuesExpenditures$0 $2,000,000 •Wickenburg Ranch is located in the Wickenburg #9 School District.•Property Tax Revenues: $172.5 millionItF$660000Fhtit dhdldthdlill•ImpactFees:$660,000–Foreachnon age-restrictedhomedeveloped,thedeveloperwillpaya one-time $500 impact fee.•School district operating expenses would increase moderately—the majority of new homeswouldbeagerestrictedandnotincludeschoolagechildrenwouldbeage-restrictedandnotincludeschoolagechildren.•At build-out, we estimate the community would add 587 students to the school district creatingthe need for 57 additional teachers and staff.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201414Source: Wickenburg #9 School District; Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 166 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT– METHODOLOGY•RCLCO utilized IMPLAN software in order to project the economic (employment) impacts of theproposedWickenburgRanchDevelopmentproposedWickenburgRanchDevelopment.•IMPLAN is a widely employed and respected software tool that creates a localized model toinvestigate the consequences of projected economic transactions in specific geographicregions.regions.•Based on the developer’s plans and pro forma, RCLCO estimated construction costs, consumerspending, and overall economic activity as inputs to the IMPLAN model.Directeffectsaredeterminedbyan“Event”asdefinedbytheuser(iea$10milliondollar•DirecteffectsaredeterminedbyanEventasdefinedbytheuser(i.e.a$10milliondollarconstruction budget has a $10 million dollardirecteconomic effect).•Theindirecteffects (impacts of local industries buying goods from other local industries) aredeterminedbytheamountofthedirecteffectthatisspentwithinthestudyregiononsuppliesdeterminedbytheamountofthedirecteffectthatisspentwithinthestudyregiononsupplies,services, labor, and taxes.•Inducedeffects measures the money that is re-spentin the study area as a result of spendingfromtheindirecteffect.Eachofthesestepsrecognizesanimportantleakagefromtheeconomicfromtheindirecteffect.Eachofthesestepsrecognizesanimportantleakagefromtheeconomicstudy region spent on purchases outside of the defined area. Eventually these leakages willstop the cycle.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201415Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 167 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)EMPLOYMENTEMPLOYMENT1,400Projected Total Jobs Generated as a Result of Wickenburg Ranch’s Development800 1,000 1,200 1,400 School Jobs200 400 600 Indirect and Induced JobsOn-site - Construction JobsOn-site - Operations Jobs-•On-site (direct) EmploymentoPeak:– Operations – 120Construction480•Indirect & Induced Jobs oPeak – 660oAfter Build-Out – 170–Construction –480– Home Sales – 30oAfter Build-Out – 120WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201416Source: IMPLAN Group; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 168 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)LABOR INCOME VALUE ADDED AND OUTPUTLABOR INCOME, VALUE ADDED, AND OUTPUTLabor IncomeOutputValue AddedInducedInducedInducedIndirectIndirectIndirectDirectDirectDirect-500 1,000 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpending- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpending- 500 1,000 1,500 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpendingWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201417Source: IMPLAN Group; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 169 of 883
Tl MTaylor MammenPrincipalPhone: (310) 282-0437tmammen@rclco.comRCLCO233 Wilshire Blvd.Suite 370Suite 370Santa Monica, CA 90401Tel: (310) 914-1800Fax: (310) 9141810Fax: (310) 914-1810www.rclco.comMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 170 of 883
ASPI GROUP, INC
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PROVIDE TO CITY COUNCIL
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 171 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
September 7, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Planning Commission
401 S Balsam
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
ASPI Group, Inc./CFML LLC
Horizon – 350 Acres - Currently in UGA
Deletion of UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley
Expansion of Horizon UGA
Supplemental to September 2 Meeting
Dear Commissioners:
I want to thank you for allowing us to submit information that we feel is critical to the discussion
on amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan. I would, again, refer you to the written
comments that we submitted for the August 26 Planning Commission workshop.
Our simple request is that UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley – remain in the UGA.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS/OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE OVERALL PROCESS:
I would like to preface my substantive comments with my personal concerns over how this process
has been implemented. These are extremely important decisions that you are making. I have been
an attorney focusing on land use issues for more than 40 years and involved in the economic and
real estate development in your community for the past 30+ years. It appears to me that these
consequential recommendations from the city’s consultant are being rushed through by staff at all
costs. This is, in my opinion, a ‘railroad job’. Our company is at risk of losing millions of dollars
of value to our holdings from these ill-advised recommendations. More importantly, to the
community, these decisions will likely have a devastating effect on our continued ability to attract
large aerospace and industrial employers to the area because you won’t be able to respond to the
housing needs in a timely and cost-effective manner.
I noted at the September 2, 2021 workshop session, Planning Commissioners asked several very
important questions that either weren’t answered or the answers seemed intended only to gloss
over the question and speed the process along as quickly as possible. With all due respect, you are
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 172 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
the Planning Commission, charged with managing the direction that the city elects to take with
respect to growth and goals of economic development and employment opportunities for your
constituents. I repeatedly hear that these are the ‘recommendations of staff’ but no one asks,
specifically, who these ‘staff’ are that are making these recommendations. Is ‘staff’ the recently
hired City Manager and Planning Director who have only a brief relationship to the values of the
community and a ‘consulting’ firm from Bellevue that has no ties to your community? Does ‘staff’
include anyone else?
My observation is that, instead of the Planning Commission directing the future growth of the
community, you are viewed as simply an inconvenient ‘impediment’ that must be overcome to get
this agenda through as quickly as possible. Am I correct that the Planning Commission only saw
these draft recommendations a few days before the 8/26 meeting? As representatives of the citizens
of Moses Lake, were any of you individually interviewed by the city’s consultant to gauge what
direction you think the city should take on these matters? Were any of you vested with the ‘holy’
designation of ‘stakeholder’?
This is something that I observe frequently. The ‘state’ is used as the ‘excuse’ to hurry up and
implement ‘staff’-desired land use regulations. ‘Staff’ then seeks and hires expensive ‘consultants’
to confirm ‘staff’s’ desires. The local Planning Commissions and Councils are kept in the dark
until the ‘recommendations’ get published – usually right before some artificial deadline
supposedly imposed by ‘the state’ to hurry up and pass them. The consultant gets paid a lot of
money which makes it extremely difficult for part-time legislators, local Planning Commissions
or City Councils to reject the consultant’s recommendations as a waste of time and money, so they
are pressured to approve the report, as written, on a fast timeline and without proper notice to the
people affected or time for deliberation.
Any legitimate questions are glossed over with ‘consultant speak’ using terms like ‘sustainable’,
‘concurrency’, input from ‘stakeholders’, ‘holistically’, etc. Part time legislators can’t be expected
to review and understand complex regulations and they don’t want to be viewed as ‘obstructing’
the process so they just go along, approve, and hope for the best. The consultant’s get paid and
have no responsibility or liability for their recommendations when the unforeseen consequences
start. Note that by off-loading what, in my opinion, should be city staff functions to ‘consultants’,
city staff insulates itself from scrutiny and impacts to their continued employment by being able
to deflect and affix any ‘backlash’ onto the consultant. And so it goes…
SPECIFIC ISSUES REGARDING PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES:
Lack of Proper Legal Notice:
The first ‘procedural’ comment that I have concerns comments made by at least two
Commissioners that individual property owners have not been given adequate notice of staff’s
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 173 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
intent to potentially divest them of millions of dollars in property value, first by deleting their
properties from a bona fide UGA and, second, subjecting them to undefined zoning designations
and development regulations.
Commissioner Mann (See recoding at 26:55) commented as follows:
“[The city] has always had a process when we did anything with changes to the UGA and it
took a considerable amount of time and we usually did each and every parcel so we could get
comments from the neighbors and the landowners… The map amendments that I’m looking
at, it looks like we’re taking the consultant’s opinion and we are going to make these changes
and I’m not happy with that.”
City Manager Williams responded (See recording at 28:20):
“So the the, um, background on the Urban Growth Area amendments there was, uh, a
process that was gone through with our consultants, actually ‘Kevin’ came on board after
this process was done with Erika where the stakeholders for each of those areas were talked
to and then there was a process where there was a discussion with the county because in the
end the county has to approve the city’s urban growth area…um, and so, uh, there has been
substantial outreach in regards to all of these areas that are under consideration and by, uh,
doing this wholesale update of the plan that is supported by the analysis that has been done
this is our one time opportunity to look at the city holistically, um, and um, so that’s what
you have before you, uh, and it is based on significant input. Um, many many [laughs]
stakeholder conversations [laughs] occurred. I, I sat through, sat through many of them.
[laughs]”
With all due respect, I am taken aback that the City Manager thinks that hearing from stakeholders
is so hilarious. I can assure you that to a property owner at risk of losing millions of dollars in
property value, this is no laughing matter.
The City Manager’s claim that “stakeholders for each of those areas were talked to” is a blatant
misrepresentation of fact. ASPI was asked to participate as a ‘stakeholder’ limited to the housing
element of the plan. Several months ago, ASPI virtually attended two meetings along with Aho
Homes, Hayden Homes, and the real estate brokerage community moderated by the consultant
where there was a consistent message given to the consultant that the city needed more housing
areas, that the idea that in-fill was the primary solution to the city’s critical housing shortage was
naive and absurd on its face, that anyone suggesting in-fill as a primary solution was woefully
inexperienced in residential development, that city processing times and costs had become
unmanageable in the past two years driving away housing developers, and that city
mismanagement of the housing situation would eventually lead to job losses in the industrial
community and loss of new retail opportunities.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 174 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
I want to be clear that, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, no one ever talked to ASPI
about potentially deleting ASPI’s property in the North Mae Valley UGA Area 5 from the UGA.
In fact, we specifically advised the consultant that ASPI was working with several residential
developers to initiate a new master planned environment on our 350 acres currently in the UGA. I
was in Phoenix in late May meeting with two national developers. Neither the city or the consultant
ever told ASPI that you better not waste any more of your time and money because we are
preparing to cut the legs out from under you. The first time that ASPI had notice that its 350 -acre
parcel was at risk of being eliminated from the UGA was when we saw the agenda for the August
26 workshop. That gave us, literally, about two days to respond which, I am convinced, was the
intent. Why didn’t the City Manager contact us?
I would like the City Manager to disclose, specifically, what other property owners in the Area 5
UGA, North Mae Valley Area that either she, or the consultant ‘talked to’ about deleting their
properties from the valuable UGA designation. I would like to see a roster of names and dates that
they were ‘talked to’. It should be telling and concerning to the commission that no other
landowner in that area, other than ASPI, has stepped forward since the public disclosure of the
consultant’s report on or about August 23. Have any written notices been sent? Notices published?
I’ve also heard Allison Williams and Melissa Bethel state on multiple occasions that they
conducted outreach with ‘stakeholders’ at the county fair and farmer’s market. How can anyone
use the term ‘stakeholder’ when referring to a random person at the county fair? Did they provide
copies of the city’s consultant report? Disclose the consultant’s recommendations? Of course, they
didn’t. The report wasn’t even public at the time of the county fair. Did they get a roster (like we
are required to do for ‘neighborhood meetings’) of those who they talked to? Is the roster public
information?
Commissioner Mann is correct. Real parcel-specific notice needs to go out to every property owner
affected by these proposed changes or you are going to be castigated by your constituents for
jamming this through without proper input. I note that under the city’s new protocols advanced
and defended by these same staff, as developers, we are required to give specific written notice
and conduct neighborhood meetings before we can even apply for a development permit. Why
isn’t the city required to abide by its own rules?
Before leaving this topic, I want to point out that my office is 20 minutes from Berk Consulting
Group’s offices in Seattle. As the city’s largest industrial landowner, largest private aerospace
landowner, largest residential landowner, owner of a major retail center, health care facility, and
leading participant in economic development and job recruiting for the community for 30 years,
no one from Berk ever arranged a meeting at our offices to find out what we were doing or to gain
any knowledge from us. Despite regular communications with Allison Williams and Melissa
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 175 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Bethel on a variety of issues, neither they nor Berk Consulting Group EVER informed me
that they were intending to delete 350 acres of our property from the North Mae Valley UGA.
Is that acceptable to the Planning Commission? If I had not seen the item on the city’s published
Planning Commission agenda, I would never have known about this. Is this how we are supposed
to ‘trust’ this administration?
The Proposed Changes Should Trigger a Full SEPA/EIS Process:
A second procedural concern I have is the apparent lack of any SEPA or Environmental Impact
Statement accompanying these recommendations. These “wholesale” changes, as described in the
words of the City Manager, have the potential to divest property owners of millions of dollars of
property value, will direct 20 years of growth to the urban core, will most assuredly have a negative
impact on future employment as well as city revenues with the potential loss of accompanying
retail sales tax. Hyper-concentrating growth in the urban core will likely result in a very different
Moses Lake that will likely tax existing urban services like downtown traffic, utilities, and fire and
police protection. The consultant offers no explanation on how the city is supposed to pay for all
of this. I note at 30:30 in the recording that Melissa Bethel opines that ‘what it will cost the city to
serve has to be in the analysis’ – and yet it isn’t. Changes that are this significant demand a full-
blown SEPA and EIS process. How can the city proceed without that? Any “wholesale” adoption
of these changes deleting UGA will result in an immediate appeal for an EIS.
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Cannot be Adequately Addressed Until
Accompanying Development Code Changes are Available for Comment:
Another very legitimate question that came up during the September 2nd workshop was how the
Planning Commission can be expected to approve global Comprehensive Plan changes, including
new zone designations, before you are allowed to see the proposed accompanying Development
Code regulations that will describe what these zones actually mean. The answer that I heard was,
essentially, ‘shut up and trust us – we have hired yet another expensive out of town consultant that
will dictate those changes’. That begs the question, who are these additional consultants? Who
vetted them to make sure their goals are consistent with the community? Who is directing them on
what the development regulations should include? Someone has to be doing that. Or will they just
‘cut and paste’ from some other community and jam them through with little notice or
deliberation?
I keep hearing Allison Williams talk about ‘incentives’ that will be included in the new
Development Code to support a ‘downtown’ zone and other ‘incentives’ to push in-fill property
owners to sell. What are those ‘incentives?’ As Planning Commission Members, why are they
hesitant to share those with you? Might they include tax incentives that could affect the city’s
revenue forecasts and favor some property owners to the detriment of others? Who will ‘win’ and
who will ‘lose’? Are you entitled to know that before you recommend new ‘zones’? Might they
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 176 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
include options for the city to take private property from recalcitrant sellers to promote the ‘vision’
of a revitalized downtown core? (See Kelo v. New London, Connecticut where they did just that.)
These are critical pieces of information that you – and affected property owners - are being denied.
If you ultimately reject the Development Code changes – or there is public outrage that property
rights are being impacted – will the City then have to go back and set aside these Comprehensive
Plan amendments? What is the process for that? Why is there a race to put the cart before the
horse?
Process Rushed – Planning Commission Not Allowed to See Commerce Comments:
Another very legitimate question asked was about the timing of the response from the Washington
State Department of Commerce. You asked if the comments from Commerce – which could have
significant impact on these proposed changes – would be back prior to your decision. The answer
that I heard was ‘NO’, they would be back before the City Council makes its decision, but that you
will not be entitled to the benefit of those comments before you make your decision. Again, with
all due respect, I interpreted that as your decision doesn’t really matter. They need to get this by
you as quickly as possible. Staff will rely on Council to get this approved.
I would also note that at the August 26 workshop there was a discussion about timing for additional
deliberation from the Planning Commission (and including the scheduling of the 9/2 session) so
that you could have more time to consider these very impactful decisions and to gain more
information – including from city staff and the consultant. The answer from staff was that there
was an artificial deadline imposed by the Washington State Department of Commerce (the ‘state’)
and that this deadline demanded that you rush this process through. I found it interesting that there
was no discussion about what, if any, the consequences for violating Commerce’s deadline would
be, or could the city ask that the deadline be extended. With the pandemic issues, why would
Commerce have some onerous demand that Moses Lake rush through planning decisions that can
affect the city for the next two decades?
As a sidebar to the Commerce discussion, Melissa Bethel (Recoding time: 1:10:16 ) made the
comment that the city has “too much [UGA] for the state.” I would like to see what evidence that
she has to support her assertion. Did ‘the state’ tell her that? Who at the state told her that? Is it a
written document? If the state did tell her that, did she remind the state of the industrial recruitment
efforts that ASPI and the Washington State Department of Commerce are involved with on a
continuing basis? Where does ‘the state’ expect me to house these workers if the city can’t expand?
Did the city take an official position with ‘the state’ to affirm, contest, or deny the statement ‘the
city has too much UGA’? Did ‘staff’ seek direction from the Planning Commission or Council on
how they should officially respond to ‘the state’?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 177 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Misrepresentations and Failure to Include Cascade Valley in the UGA Analysis:
I also found the discussion regarding the Cascade Valley UGA to be concerning. Note that
Commissioner Mann asked why the Cascade Valley UGA was not under consideration by the
city’s consultant for removal given the overwhelming consensus that private developers could not
absorb the development costs of getting utilities up the significant grade. The additional consensus
was without sewer in Cascade Value there was considerable risk to the degradation of the water
quality in the lake so, without sewer, high-density UGA development could be a disaster to the
lake’s water quality.
At the August 26 workshop, Commissioner Mann was told by ‘staff’ that Cascade Valley had been
‘annexed’ and that the ‘once annexed, cities cannot de-annex property’. The city staff went on to
advise the Planning Commission that because it couldn’t de-annex Cascade Valley, that it would
need to find huge sums in its capital improvement budget to get water and sewer services to the
area. Commissioner Mann, again, brought up his frustration with the Cascade Valley UGA
question. This time, Commissioner Mann and others pointed out to city staff that only a small
portion of Cascade Valley had been annexed leaving vast sections of Cascade Valley locked in a
UGA that was not economically ‘serviceable’ and ripe for deletion.
This begs the question, “Did the city staff and its consultant mistakenly believe that all of Cascade
Valley had been annexed?” Is this why deletion of the Cascade Valley UGA was not considered
by the city’s consultant? If so, that would represent a marked and critical deficiency in the entire
UGA analysis. If the city staff knew that only a small portion of Cascade Valley had been annexed
then it was disingenuous, at best, to represent to the Planning Commission that the small
annexation prevented the city’s consultant from considering deleting the larger Cascade Valley
UGA.
Before I make the following comment, I will be the first to acknowledge that land use regulations
in Washington State are complex, disjointed, and ever-changing, so I cannot always be confident
that I am aware of each and every change as they occur. With that said, I do not believe that the
city staff’s assertion that properties, once annexed, cannot be ‘de-annexed’ is legally accurate.
In fact, RCW 35.16.010 specifically provides for de-annexation as follows:
As an alternate method, the legislative body of the city or town may by resolution submit a
proposal to the voters for excluding such a described area from the boundaries of the city or
town. The question shall be submitted at the next general municipal election if one is to be held
within one hundred eighty days or at a special election called for that purpose not less than
ninety days nor more than one hundred eighty days after the certification of sufficiency of the
petition or the passage of the resolution. The petition or resolution shall set out and describe the
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 178 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
territory to be excluded from the city or town, together with the boundaries of the city or town
as it will exist after such change is made.
Again, assuming RCW 35.16.010 is still the law of the State of Washington, staff gave the Planning
Commission erroneous information regarding the status of the Cascade Valley situation that
could/should have a significant impact on the conclusions of the city’s consultant. We would
certainly argue that it is much easier to serve North Mae Valley UGA Area 5 than Cascade Valley
so if UGA needs deleting, Cascade Valley is the obvious target. I think this is an additional
example of a ‘rush to decision’ without proper information. Cascade Valley should be part of the
overall discussion. The city’s consultant report should be sent back for additional analysis
regarding Cascade Valley.
Failure to Address and Account for Enhanced Revenues from Residential Growth:
The city consultant’s report doesn’t appear to account for, or quantify, the enhancement to the
city’s revenue based on employment growth and increased supplies of residential housing. We
hear, repeatedly, that ‘development into the UGAs isn’t ‘sustainable’ (there’s that buzzword again)
because of the costs to ‘service’ the new development. The statement belies reality and completely
fails to account for the enhanced revenues that the city reaps from any new development. Note that
it is not disputed that the current administration demands that developers pay for and build all new
infrastructure serving their projects. In many cases, there are concomitant agreements that also
require the developer to repay the city for infrastructure installed decades ago. Large permit fee
increases have also recently been implemented and various ‘impact fees’ are certain to be coming.
All of these costs fall on the developer, yet the staff and the city’s consultant continue to justify
their recommendations to limit growth on some phantom ‘cost’ analysis. That simply belies reality.
The Commission should note that there is a complete lack of analysis on the enormous amount of
additional revenue that the city reaps from new housing developments. There are massive rewards
to the city from sales taxes during construction, new retail, restaurant, and entertainment revenues
from the new residents, and depending on the project location, may benefit from a myriad of ad
valorem property taxes and assessments. Once the project is built out, the city can simply annex
the new homes and get a huge windfall in annual revenue.
Attached is an economic impact study on a large residential master planned project that I recently
visited in WIckenburg, Arizona. We are talking to and trying to get the developer of the
Wickenburg Ranch project interested in the Area 5 UGA and the greater Horizon property. There
is additional discussion about the Wickenburg Ranch project below in the section on Horizon, but
it bears mention here that the Wickenburg Ranch project generates $44 MILLION to the City of
Wickenburg if the project remains unincorporated and a whopping $104 MILLION if annexed into
the city.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 179 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
WICKENBURG RANCH – COMMUNITY CENTER
A similar example that I visited is a master planned project in San Tan Valley near the Phoenix
Mesa Gateway Airport and Boeing facility. The project, Encanterra, once built, actually sought to
incorporate itself as a city. The adjoining city of Queen Creek saw the huge revenue impacts that
annexing Encanterra would bring so they annexed it. Queen Creek (population 42,000) is now a
premier city with spectacular new retail and restaurant amenities and a world class cardiac care
hospital generated largely from enhanced revenues from the Encanterra project.
ENCANTERRA – COMMUNIY CENTER
So the question is, how can a consultant come to a conclusion that developing a premier master
planned environment – or even just regular large-format subdivisions ala Hayden and Aho are not
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 180 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
‘sustainable’ from a cost standpoint to the city if they never perform a revenue analysis or
economic impact study? You can’t, which, in my opinion, further taints the recommendations.
Note also that no city budget is sustainable without growth unless the city starts eliminating
services. Inflation, wage increases, all march forward. If the city doesn’t embrace growth, it will
suffer.
SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS REGARDING DELETION OF UGA AREA 5 – NORTH MAE
VALLEY
Turning to item-specific issues, I want to focus on the proposed Deletion of UGA Area 5 identified
as North Mae Valley. ASPI- affiliate entities own 350 +/- acres in the UGA Area 5. Please refer
to my previous-submitted statement on this area. The following are new comments based on what
was said at the September 2nd workshop session where I was not given an opportunity for input.
I want to highlight a question that two Commissioners asked of staff at the September 2 workshop,
specifically, if the concerns expressed in the three ASPI letters from the August 26 workshop had
been addressed and if they had any response.
This was City Manager, Allison William’s, verbatim response (See recording at 52:32):
“Well, I think those [ASPI’s detailed letters] are a part of the record and a part of, um, your
discussion. I think the staff reports have identified, um, recommendations, um, on the requests
and I think those the letter and, um, the staff report is consistent with the staff’s thinking there,
um, I’ll tell you from, from, uh, a long term sustainability perspective the city has a lot of work
to do to simply get up to speed and sustainable in terms of our service of our existing boundaries
and, uh, and we have to do it in a manner that is sustainable for our population and, um, when
you read the housing element and the, um, and get a sense of our demographics, I just am, am
struck by the poverty so we we, um, eh, the capital facilities plan identifies the the needs of our
urban services and, um, and and this is a financing strategy and I know, um, it is, um, there is
much consideration, uh, you know, from the development community that they are taking on
the burden to build, um, however, the city has to plan for the long term sustainability for the
long term maintenance and operations and the city it’s incumbent by us by, uh, through growth
management that we are assuring that when we we allow growth to happen that the
improvements, um, are concurrent so that we have adequate transportation facilities and urban
services and, um, I think that is the policy question for the Planning Commission and the City
Council to weigh is do we have a plan currently that can support expansion or do we need to
take, uh, this in steps and make sure that we get our house in order and then we have that
annual opportunity to review, uh, our urban growth area and update our growth numbers and
to look at expansions that may or may not have been made in our utilities and readjust, um, so
I think that is a long way of saying that, um, you have before you, um, you know, a land use
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 181 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
memo with recommendations, a comp plan with recommendations, and then you are the body
that gets to weigh that, uh, input, and and, uh, make a recommendation. Um, it’s hard for me.
I came from a place where I was encouraging development [laughs]. I, I just, um, we have a lot
that needs to get put into place and it’s the numbers are significant, um. Right now we have
WSDOT doing an analysis of the Yonezawa, uh, Highway 17 interchange and they’re looking
at the growth numbers provided by Perteet [sp?], uh, and they’ve been telling us you don’t want
to know what is going to be needed to upgrade this intersection because I think it is more than
anyone anticipated in order to handle the growth that has been allowed through a new hospital,
a school, hotels, the commercial, what is projected for that area and so this a long way of saying
what is getting presented to you is a holistic, uh, well thought out plan that takes our growth in
stages, uh, and lets us grow into ourselves essentially.”
That is clearly a non sequitur response to the question and, in my opinion, a direct intention to
avoid answering any of the specific questions/concerns that ASPI raised regarding housing supply,
employment creation, or economic development.
Please consider what the City Manager is saying. She uses the term ‘sustainable’ and ‘concurrent’
frequently but never defines what they mean. No growth will ever occur in your community if all
services must be in place before growth occurs. That, again, is a fallacy of the ‘progressive’
planning model and its mantra ‘concurrency’. Moses Lake, unlike many munipalities, requires
developers to build out the infrastructure to serve development. The City Manager acknowledges
that. When no growth is allowed, no infrastructure gets built and you end up in the desired no-
growth death spiral. Note that your City Manager is lamenting that you are getting a wonderful
new hospital, new high school, new hotels, and new commercial development (assuming the LDS
Temple as included in her description of new development ‘projected for that area’) in the
Yonezawa area because the city might incur some costs to improve an intersection. Note also that
the Yonezawa area is at least 7 miles, as the crow flies, from the North Mae Valley UGA Area 5.
Notice how the City Manager openly laughs when describing her previous job as “encouraging
development” - an apparent admission that she is now discouraging development – or she wouldn’t
be laughing. Note her comment “when we allow growth to happen...” This has played out with
recent demands for ‘neighborhood meetings’, her suggestions for huge new cost burdens to
develop industrial properties, and suggestions for massive fee increases – all of which present
additional obstacles to development, make Moses Lake less competitive, and will limit growth.
Note also the bizarre response to your questions about the specific issues that ASPI raised, that she
is “struck by the poverty.” What does that have to do with ASPI trying to attract a master planned
community developer to the North Mae Valley UGA area? It also begs the question why you
wouldn’t want more jobs, more economic opportunities, more retail, and more affordable housing
options? Does she believe that $500,000 townhomes in downtown Moses Lake will help the
‘poverty’ issue?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 182 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
The City Manager’s description of this process as a “well thought out plan” is simply laughable.
I find all of this to be consistent with our belief that the unidentified ‘staff’ has a no-growth
predisposition on these issues and ASPI’s concerns that it may incur millions of dollars of potential
damage and have catastrophic consequences on our efforts to bring jobs to the community are
nothing but a nuisance in the process. Staff seems to be openly inviting litigation as the only form
of relief. Unfortunately, we are already seeing this play out with the recent lawsuit filed against
the city by Hayden Homes and the frequency of powerful land use law firms becoming more and
more engaged in what should be straight forward and welcomed land use applications.
UGA AREA 5 – SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
During the September 2 workshop, there appeared to be considerable confusion between the
consultant’s report recommending deletion of the North Mae Valley UGA which currently
includes approximately 350 acres of the 4,000-acre property referred to as Horizon and the much
larger opportunities to expand the UGA to accommodate a larger master planned Horizon
environment as set forth in the exhibits submitted previously. It was frustrating that neither staff
nor the city’s consultant stepped in to separate the two discussions. Perhaps the goal was to use
the larger UGA expansion opportunity to eliminate the existing 350-acre UGA parcel. Throwing
the baby out with the bath water, I suppose.
Discussion of the North Mae Valley UGA that did occur was focused on the availability of, and
cost of servicing, the subject North Mae Valley area with city utilities. Commissioner ‘Erik’
questioned why there was no long-term planning identified in the report for increasing utilities and
services in the Mae Valley area. He specifically asked if it was simply a lack of planning or
“intentional”. (See recording at 25:08)
City Manager, Allison Williams, responded to Erik’s question as follows (See recording at 25:12):
“Erik, there were some ‘place holders’ left in the, in the plan, so, um, when we, um, launched
into this process, um, we realized that, um, the city was deficient on much of the, uh, long
range planning particularly in our utility planning so we immediately, um, worked with one
of the, one of the firms that was working with our team, it’s Perteet (sp?), uh, to do a sub
area for transportation needs for Mae Valley, um, but then, uh, you will read in the plan that
the plan, uh, identifies that we have updates to do [laughs] and so once we get our land use
and our urban growth area established this is also setting out a whole course of work for the
city to get those associated utility plans up to date as well so we’ll know what we are bound
to serve and we’ve got to figure out a way to get those plans updated”.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 183 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
This statement by the City Manager raises significant questions both in the deficiencies of process
and substantively, as it relates to the UGA Area 5.
The first critical question it raises is why it took an outside consultant to inform the City Manager
that the transportation plan and utility plans required updating? She discloses that they have left
‘place holders’ in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to insert key transportation and
utility elements sometime in the future. How can you approve amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan with huge holes still waiting analysis as admitted by the City Manager? Who is “Perteet”?
How were they hired? What is there function? Why does this require an outside ‘consultant’ again?
Are they doing work that city staff should be performing? Who is directing them on tasks and
input?
I note that this same “Perteet” firm is mentioned by the City Manager in another area stating that
they were responsible ‘for the population numbers’. No member of a “Perteet” firm has ever
contacted me to discuss projected major new employment growth, the I-90 Connector project as
affecting Mae Valley, or the ability of Horizon to supply large water resources and potential areas
for new sewer treatment facilities. Are we invisible or being intentionally excluded?
The gravamen of the staff’s recommendations is that utilities are not available in the UGA 5 Area
North Mae Valley area. This, again, is patently false. When Moses Point was developed, city water
and sewer services were extended to the golf course. A city water well is located in the middle of
UGA Area 5 on Road F. We have had discussions with both the city and the owners of the golf
course about participating in upgrades to the water system and sewer facilities including
construction of new storage tanks and variable speed fire flow pumps. Additional housing in the
area will provide these upgrades and also provide great benefit to the economic viability of the
golf course. To not disclose that to the Planning Commission was disingenuous, at best.
We have also had discussions with city staff about extending the water and sewer approximately
1.5 miles to the existing Horizon UGA area. City staff has provided construction information that
the cost of said extensions is typically $100/linear foot or in this case, about $750,000. Our private
contractors have estimated the cost to be much less at about $500,000. Regardless of what value
you use, it is a minor cost for a 350-acre master planned community. In fact, two lots directly
adjacent to the Horizon UGA parcel, in the Panorama subdivision, just sold for about $300,000
each. The cost of the water extension would equate to two lots out of a 350-acre development.
That is not cost-prohibitive. As noted in the material submitted for the August 26 workshop,
Horizon also has a 1600-acre foot water right that could be accessed for any Horizon UGA
development in lieu of city water. We have contractors and developers working on a Membrane
Bio Reactor option as a satellite solution for wastewater until city sewer was closer.
When confronted with costs that are manageable for a development to absorb, Allison Williams
then changes her focus to non-utility costs that the city might incur – such as fire and police
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 184 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
protection. Again, I would describe this as a ‘red-herring’. Note as stated above, that Allison
Williams completely avoids the analysis of enhanced revenues that would be generated from a
development in the area to offset those costs and further avoids a discussion on typical interlocal
agreements where perhaps Grant County continues to police the area and Grant Fire continues to
provide fire protection until the city could reap the windfall of tax base through a future annexation.
Those are all solutions to be discussed but are foreclosed at the starting gate without a UGA
designation to attract a development entity to the conversation.
Although I covered this in my August 26 submittal, it warrants repeating here that ‘in-fill-only’ as
the solution for the city’s twenty-year growth is a complete fallacy. Has the City Manager
identified a single development entity interested in, or capable of, providing hundreds of single-
family housing units on existing parcels in the urban core?
I will remind the Commission that ASPI has been a major economic development driver for the
community. We are in continuous engagement with the Washington State Department of
Commerce, the Port of Moses Lake, and Grant County EDC to recruit new aerospace and industrial
employers. These projects have been an economic bonanza to the City of Moses Lake. They
include Genie, BMW/SGL Carbon Fiber, Fuji Chemical, US KDK, and most recently the Boeing
Return to Service Center for the 737 MAX. It also includes recruitment of major retailers like
Marshall’s, Sportsman’s Warehouse, and Winco. We are currently engaged with several prospect
employers – including a major aerospace employer – that could bring more than 1,000 new
aerospace jobs to the community.
I would note an article in the Columbia Basin Herald today that State Representative Tom Dent
just brought a bus load of state legislators to tour Grant County International Airport and our
aerospace employers including a bi-partisan group from the west side. They were extremely
impressed with what they saw. Kudos to Representative Dent. This visit will provide terrific
support for our efforts in recruiting. How do you think they would have responded if
Representative Dent told them that the city is impeding the housing supply that new employers
need?
Without significant, easy-to-build, standby UGA areas, where does staff and the city’s consultant
propose we build housing to accommodate a sudden influx of 1,000+ new workers? They can’t
possibly be serious that this could occur within the urban ‘in-fill’ area. That is simply absurd. Am
I supposed to quickly find 30, 40, 50 downtown property owners willing to sell their small tracts,
find builders willing to construct a hodgepodge of disjointed product, try to get dozens and dozens
of individual site permits when the city can’t handle the work load they have now? I continue to
ask this question and get no response. I interpret this as ‘staff’ doesn’t want any more high-paying
industrial jobs. In fact, Allison Williams told me several weeks ago that ‘maybe we need to focus
less on industrial jobs and more on ‘artisan industries’ and ‘craft businesses’ like wineries and
brew pubs.’
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 185 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
As I have stated ad nauseum, without the ability to represent to these large employers that we have
development-ready residential inventory available, we will lose the opportunity for these high-
paying jobs to our competition in Arizona (see Eastmark as an example adjacent to the Phoenix
Mesa Gateway Airport), Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina – all places where Boeing is active.
When the 737s were grounded, ASPI immediately reached out to Boeing to offer our 137-acre
ASPI Airpark as a solution. This eventually brought 700 jobs to Moses Lake. One of the key
concerns was lack of available housing – with Boeing workers seeking housing as far away as
Wenatchee, the Tri-cities, and Spokane. Of course, the 737 project is officially ‘temporary’ so
workers were able to find a variety of temporary and shared living options – some commuting
weekly from the Puget Sound. But had this been a permanent project, the lack of housing response
would have likely kept those 700 jobs from benefitting the community.
We rely on the North Mae Valley UGA area for immediate potential master planned housing so
that we can also have residential developers and builders pre-programmed to respond to a major
employer opportunity. I am able to represent to the prospect employers that we have regional and
national developers and homebuilders standing ready to meet their housing needs. I simply cannot
do that on an ‘in-fill’ basis. Anyone who asserts the ‘in-fill mantra’, in my opinion, has no idea
how industrial recruitment occurs. It goes without saying that having the Moses Point golf course
in the middle of North Mae Valley UGA area and miles of waterfront access are huge amenities
that give us credibility with both the employers and the development community. Why, on earth,
would anyone want to just throw that away?
As a side note, it cannot be overlooked that the same industrial jobs are what drive retail
development and the massive revenue impact it has on the city. Our industrial achievements were
the catalyst for all of the new retail in Moses Lake. Like industrial, if I were to tell retailers that
the city isn’t interested in providing larger scale housing to meet the needs of industrial employees,
retail would be severely constrained. Retail relies on employee statistics and rooftops. If their
revenues don’t continue to grow, they will curtail operations in Moses Lake. This, again, begs the
question of where in the city’s consultant report is there any discussion on these issues. Did they
talk to the EDC? Did they talk to Commerce? Did they talk to the Port of Moses Lake?
I also wanted to address a comment made by Melissa Bethel where she, essentially, said that
‘deleting the North Mae Valley UGA Area was no big deal’ because it could be reinstated at any
time during the annual round of county Comprehensive Plan amendments. Again, in my opinion,
this is either terribly naïve and/or intentionally misleading. Once a UGA is deleted, and I have a
major employer ready to go, we would have to apply to the county for another comp plan
amendment. Melissa fails to acknowledge that the county applications are due March 31 of any
year - Comp Plan amendments only occur once each year. So, if a need for additional UGA arises
to accommodate a sudden employment surge in April, we have to wait a whole year just to make
the application with the county, then wait another year for the application to be processed. Then
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 186 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
find a developer willing to wait. Then take another year for the city to process land use applications
and building permits. All while staff has made it clear that they would not support a return of a
UGA area because they are demanding ‘in-fill’. It is extremely naïve to think a prospect employer
is going to wait three or four years on the outside chance additional UGA would be approved. That
employer will be gone. Note I am currently working with a major new prospect employer that
wants their facility operational in 10 months – not three years..
I should also point out that the staff’s recommendation to terminate the North Mae Valley UGA
will, itself, put the whole North Mae Valley UGA Area into more than a year of ‘limbo’. What am
I supposed to tell the developer/builders we are currently working with? That they may not want
to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars in planning and engineering because the city is about
to jerk the rug out from under them? But, who knows for sure – maybe in a year or so we should
know? That puts us in an impossible predicament.
The Larger Horizon Master Planned Environment Requiring Additional UGA:
Finally, I want to address the other ‘leg’ of the Horizon confusion – the big Horizon master planned
community and request for UGA expansion. I covered this extensively in my August 26
memorandum and the application itself. There were, again, significant misrepresentations made at
the September 2 workshop that need further clarification.
To briefly refresh, Horizon represents 4,000 acres and almost six miles of lakefront. It is an
unparalleled opportunity for the community to create a premier master planned community. The
request to expand the UGA farther into the Horizon property is a wholly separate issue from the
recommendation to delete the existing North Mae Valley UGA 5 Area.
Discussion at the 9/2 workshop by the city’s consultant and staff suggested that the city would be
unable to serve the larger Horizon property with city services. I want you to know that as the
largest industrial and residential landowner in the city, and despite providing them with
information, I was never contacted by the city’s consultant to discuss Horizon in detail. One has
to wonder, how well grounded is the report from the city’s consultant when they don’t engage a
discussion on the biggest residential growth opportunity for the city in a generation? Were they
instructed not to engage us?
Horizon has an existing 1600-acre foot water right. Under current DOE/DOH protocols that is
enough water to supply about 5,000 homes. We have discussed with the city for years the prospect
of developing Horizon as a ‘stand-alone’ master planned community that would rely on its own
water resources for development. Similarly, we have discussed with the city, for years, the use of
both package membrane bio-reactor sewer systems as a stand-alone option and the potential to
construct a new municipal sewer treatment plant with Horizon donating the land that could serve
the entire Mae Valley area as far west as Hiawatha Road. Of course, all internal infrastructure
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 187 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
would be done at the cost of the developer. We could provide ‘free’ school sites, police and fire
stations, and massive public amenities. Was any of this discussed with the city’s consultant? It
doesn’t appear it was.
As stated above, I recently traveled to Arizona to meet with a developer of a large master planned
community outside the town of Wickenburg. Wickenburg is about 90 minutes from Phoenix and
was a town of about 10,000 people. It has no industry and is widely known for a rodeo school. The
developer I met purchased the former family ranch of TV mogul Merv Griffin. They proposed and
built a spectacular master planned community known as Wickenburg Ranch just outside of town.
The project has transformed the community.
Attached is an economic impact study for the Wickenburg Ranch project. I provided this to staff
and various county officials as well. You will note that they included two revenue analysis for the
project. One assumes that the city of Wickenburg annexes the stand-alone project. That analysis
shows a revenue return to the city of almost $104 MILLION in 2014 dollars. If the city chose to
leave the project as unincorporated, the revenue to the city would still be $43 MILLION in 2014
dollars. You could take this valuation and apply it to Horizon – maybe with a multiplier – taking
into account Horizon’s proximity to the massive Grant County International Airport employment
center and its waterfront environment.
I have also discussed with city staff projects here in Washington including Tehaleh (Pierce County,
Bonney Lake), Ten Trails (King County. Black Diamond), Suncadia (Kittitas County, Cle Elum),
and The Lookout (Chelan, Chelan County). I have pleaded with staff to look at Mesa, Arizona,
(Eastmark – built on an ex-GM test track), Denton and Sugarland, Texas…these are communities
we compete with offering spectacular master planned environments. Querie – was the city’s
consultant aware of these discussions? Are they aware of these economic projections? Why would
the city deny the community the opportunity for a once in a generation premier development? Why
would the city’s consultant recommend to the city that they forego hundreds of millions of dollars
of future revenue? Is that prudent ‘planning’?
There was a question from a Commissioner (See recording at 38:03) inquiring about ‘access to
Walmart’ from any master planned development in the Horizon or North Mae Valley UGA Area.
Of course, any large master planned development at the larger Horizon would include provisions
within the Development Agreement for commercial uses within the project boundaries to serve the
development. As I heard the question, I wondered, ironically, how many times Moses Lake
residents drive all the way to East Wenatchee to go to Costco because Moses Lake doesn’t have
enough ‘rooftops’ to get a Costco of its own?
Another Commissioner commented that he would anticipate that a large Horizon master planned
community would likely include provisions for a secondary lake crossing that would provide direct
access to the Grant County International Airport employment center. He was correct. What was
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 188 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
troubling is that both Allison Williams and Melissa Bethel were silent on that issue, again
preventing the Planning Commission from getting the full picture.. ASPI, the Port of Moses Lake,
the City, and the County have been engaged in discussions for about a year on re-energizing the
prospects of a secondary lake crossing that would not only allow direct employee access to the
airport but also divert truck traffic from downtown Moses Lake directly from the Hiawatha Road
I-90 interchange to the airport.
This project would have significant benefits to the city’s traffic and transportation elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. A draft interlocal agreement to allow the county to proceed as lead agency
is pending and in circulation. ASPI has pledged to donate all the right-of-way through Horizon to
accommodate the project. It should be noted that this is not a ‘new’ project. This is a revitalization
of the same project that was the subject of a major study by The Transpo Group prior to the
recession. I am attaching a copy of the report. So, my question is, why didn’t Allison Williams or
Melissa Bethel inform the Planning Commission about the potential project in response to the
question on potential access to the employment centers? One of the ‘drivers’ for the project would
be contributions from a master planned community at Horizon – thereby needing an expanded
UGA!
As an attorney this picking and choosing of what information the Planning Commission is given
is troubling. One of the stated goals of the Open Public Meetings Act was to insure that all parties
have access to and are apprised of the information. If the staff is withholding information relevant
to the discussion, how can you be expected to make an informed decision? It also begs the question
on whether the city’s consultant was made aware of the proposed I-90 Connector project and the
impacts it would have on traffic in downtown? If not, why not? These are questions that I would
think the Planning Commission would want answered before moving forward.
CONCLUSION:
Thank you, again, for your consideration. I apologize for the length of these comments and our
prior submissions. I hope you can understand our concerns about the process, input parameters,
and recommendations of the consultant’s report. Our company invests millions of dollars in your
community in our ongoing efforts to create great family wage jobs, create millions and millions of
dollars of new tax base, and bring in premier retailers that pump massive amounts of sales tax
revenue into the city coffers. We have brought a valuable colleague and made him available to the
discussion at no cost to the city, Jim Warjone, one of the state’s most knowledgeable resources on
Growth Management and master planned communities. I hope you can understand our frustration
when new city staff and ‘consultants’ are hired that seemingly have no respect for what we have
accomplished for Moses Lake and little or no respect for the knowledge base that we have
developed and are always willing to share. These proposed changes will likely have a catastrophic
effect on our ability to continue to recruit and retain our industrial employers and will create
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 189 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
millions of dollars in damage to our portfolio value. We feel completely disenfranchised, our
efforts and years of investment and ‘partnership’ with the city all for naught. It falls on deaf ears.
And for no apparent reason.
I want to reiterate that we support revitalization efforts for the downtown core but why does that
have to come at the expense of our larger scale master planned communities in the Mae Valley
area?
I would ask that you leave the North Mae Valley UGA Area 5 in the Comprehensive Plan so
that we can continue our efforts to attract new employers and develop new housing that
employees and employers actually want. It is costing the city nothing.
Sincerely yours,
Kim Foster
Corporate Counsel
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 190 of 883
Fiscal and Economic Impact Study for Wi k b R h M tPl dWickenburg Ranch, a Master-Planned Community in Wickenburg, ArizonaPrepared by Taylor Mammen, Principal, RCLCO | March 17, 2014Robert Charles Lesser & Co. Real Estate Advisors | rclco.comMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 191 of 883
KEY FACTS ABOUT RCLCO•Founded in 1967 in Los Angeles, California•RCLCO is the leading knowledge solutions provider to the real estate industry•RCLCO provides real estate economics, strategic planning, management consulting andimplementation services to real estate investors, developers, financial institutions, publicagencies, and anchor institutions•Headquartered in the Washington, D.C. area, with offices in California, Florida, and TexasWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20142Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 192 of 883
RCLCO ADVISORY GROUPSCommunity and Resort Advisory• Master-Planned CommunitiesSi lFilT hPublic Strategies• Local, State, and Federal GovernmentRi lPl i O iti•Single-Family, Townhomes• Active Adult Communities• Independent, Assisted Living, CCRC• Second Home Communities•Regional Planning Organizations• Redevelopment Authorities• Transit Agencies• Chambers of Commerce• Conservation Communities• Beach, Mountain, Lake Resorts• Casino, Marina• Economic Development Organizations• Business Improvement DistrictsUrban Real Estate AdvisoryStrategic Planning• Capital Formation Strategies• Corporate, Business Unit, Portfolio, or Asset Level Strategies• Apartments, Condominiums•Office• Retail• R&D/Industrialg• Performance Audit• Litigation Support ServicesInstitutional Advisory• Mixed-Use • Lifestyle/Entertainment Centers• University/Medical CampusInstitutional Advisory• Asset Portfolio Strategy• Sector Strategy• Manager SelectionManagement & MonitoringWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 2014•Management & Monitoring3Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 193 of 883
CONSULTING TO THE PUBLIC SECTORFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedThDl tCt tiFiscal Impact Analysis and SupportingMktAlifMltiSelected Engagements (2013)• RCLCO has unsurpassed experience withfiscalandeconomicimpactstudiesforTownhomeDevelopment;CatoctinCircle, Leesburg, VA (Loudoun County)Revenue and Economic Analysis forHampton Inn and Suites; CarolinaBeach, SCMarketAnalysisfor aMultiuseDevelopment; Loudoun County, VAFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis ofCity Place Mall RepositioningFiscalImpactAnalysisforMarketSquarefiscalandeconomicimpactstudiesforlocal governments, school districts, privatedevelopers, etc.• Local governments are often interested inFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis fora Mixed-Use Development; Falls Church,VAFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedRehabilitation Hospital; Chesapeake, VAFiscalImpactAnalysisforMarketSquareat Potomac Station; Leesburg, VAFiscal Impact Analyses for BraddockSouth Village, Wildwood Active AdultCommunity, and Lexington 7 TownhomeDevelopment; Loudoun County, VAthe potential future fiscal impact of thegrowth coming to their area and theeconomic impacts generated.FiscalImpactStudies:EstimaterevenuesDirect and Indirect Economic andRevenue Analysis of Planned JBGDevelopment Activity; Fairfax County, VAEconomic and Fiscal Impact Analysis ofJBGDevelopmentActivityinSelectedFiscal Impact Analysis Whole FoodsAnchored 132,000 Square FootShopping Center; Huntsville, ALFiscal Impact and Proffers Analysis ofWaltonwoodAshburnContinuingCare•FiscalImpactStudies:Estimaterevenuesand expenditures to be generated by thegrowth and development. The projectednet fiscal impact is calculated to determineJBGDevelopmentActivityinSelectedWashington Metropolitan Area Sub-MarketsSupplementary Direct and IndirectEconomic and Revenue Analysis ofPlanned Fort Totten SouthWaltonwoodAshburnContinuingCareFacility; Ashburn, VAFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedMultiuse Development; Leesburg, VA(Loudoun County)cost-benefit to the jurisdiction.•Economic Impact Studies: Utilize marketanalysis data and projections for individuallandsecategoriestoestimateeconomicDevelopment; Washington, D.C.Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis ofNuckols-Rhodes Tract; Henrico County,VAFi lItAlifPl dFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis ofRedevelopment of the Old Post Office;Washington, D.C.landusecategoriestoestimateeconomicimpact in terms of direct, indirect, andinduced effects on the economy.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 2014FiscalImpactAnalysisfor aPlannedOutlet Center4Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 194 of 883
PROJECT OVERVIEW•Wickenburg Ranch is a master-plannedcommunityjustnorthoftheTownofcommunityjustnorthoftheTownofWickenburg.•The community would contain 3,125residential units:o~1,800 age-restricted homeso~1,300 primary homeso24 rental casitas to be marketed as“Stay and Play” units•Non-Residential Uses:oGolfCourseoGolfCourseoClubhouseoRestaurantoFitness CenterSoSpao120-room resortWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20145Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 195 of 883
PROJECT OVERVIEW (CONT.)()•Home would be sold over the course of 10 years – approximately 310 homes per yearo180age-restrictedhomesperyearo180agerestrictedhomesperyearo130 primary homes per year•This sales pace should be achievable given the following development characteristics:oVarietyofproduct segments rangingfrom conventional homes to large lots in both age-ypgggggrestricted and primary home settingsoFull amenity program – golf course, club house, spa, fitness, activities, etc.oPartnership with and sales to well-respected and recognized regional and national homebuildersparticularlyfortheagerestrictedhomesbuilders,particularlyfortheage-restrictedhomes400 450 500 es150200 250 300 350 nnual Home SalePrimaryAge-Resticted-50 100 150 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10AnWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20146Source: Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 196 of 883
OBJECTIVESThe objective of RCLCO’s fiscal and economic impact study is to project the revenues and costs totheTownofWickenburgasaresultofthedevelopmentofWickenburgRanchundertwotheTownofWickenburgasaresultofthedevelopmentofWickenburgRanchundertwoscenarios: 1) Wickenburg Ranch is annexed into the Town and 2) Wickenburg Ranch remains inunincorporated Yavapai County. This process included the following analyses:•Determine the net fiscal impact that theproposed WickenburgRanch development wouldpppgpprovide to the Town of Wickenburg (revenues minus expenditures):oEstimate the future revenues to be generated by Wickenburg Ranch for the Town ofWickenburg’s general fund, including sales tax, property tax, building permits, andmiscellaneous sources of revenue. In addition, estimate projected revenues for theWickenburg # 9 School District.oProject the future expenses to be incurred bythe Town of Wickenburg and the Wickenburg#9 School District as a result of the development of Wickenburg Ranch.•Assess the change in total economic activity (direct, indirect, and induced) in the Town ofWickenburg and in broader Maricopa County generated by the development and operation ofWi k bRhWickenburgRanch.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 197 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT – METHODOLOGYDetermine Fiscal Impact CategoriesReview Wickenburg Ranch DevelopmentReview Wickenburg Ranch Development Plans and Pro FormaReview Fund BudgetsCalculateRevenuesCalculateRevenuesGeneral Fund• Property Tax• Sales Tax/TPTSchool District• Property Tax•Impact Fees• Building Permit Fees• Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public ServicespCalculate ExpendituresGeneral FundSchool DistrictDetermine Net Fiscal Impact (Revenues Minus Expenditures)WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20148Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 198 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)TYPES OF IMPACTSTYPES OF IMPACTSWICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXEDCOSTSNEUTRALREVENUES●Town Services●Utilities●General Fund Property Tax●School District Services●Sales Tax/TPT●Building Permit Fees●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public Services●School District Property Tax●School District Impact FeesWICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXEDCOSTSNEUTRALREVENUES●Town Services●Fire District Property Tax●School District Services●Sales Tax/TPT●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public ServicesServices●School District Property Tax●School District Impact FeesWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20149Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg #9 School District; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 199 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTSSUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS$6,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $, ,RevenuesExpenditures$3,000,000$3,500,000 $0$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 Net Impact$0 •Duringtheconstructionperiod(2014-2025)WickenburgRanchwouldgenerateageneralfund•Duringtheconstructionperiod(2014-2025),WickenburgRanchwouldgenerateageneralfundsurplus: $16 million or average $1.4 million per year.• After build-out, the net fiscal impact is less clear: the Town states its intention to manageexpendituresaccordingtonewincrementalrevenuesofapproximately$6million/yearWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201410expendituresaccordingtonewincrementalrevenuesofapproximately$6million/year.Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 200 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)WICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXEDWICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXED•Miscellaneous Revenues ($45 million):GtdftiflGeneral Fund Revenue CategoriesFY 2014–FY 2033oGeneratedas afunction ofalargerpopulation and employment base.oIncludes administrative charges, fees, useofpublicfacilities(library)etcProperty TaxFY 2014 –FY 2033ofpublicfacilities(library),etc.•Sales Tax/TPT ($24.1 million): Resultingfrom increased spending in Wickenburg.Building Permit Fees$14,500,000 Property Tax$9,000,000 •Contracting Tax and Building Permit Fees($36.7 million): Generated by construction ofhomes and community facilities.PtT($9illi )RbdMiscellaneous Revenues$45,000,000 Contracting Tax$12,200,000 •PropertyTax($9million):Revenuesbasedon the value of the homes and communityfacilities.Note:doesnotincludeproposeddeveloperSales Tax/TPT$ , 00,000•Note:doesnotincludeproposeddeveloper-financed and subsidized water andwastewater treatment facilities.Tax/TPT$24,100,000 Total Revenues - $104,800,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201411Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 201 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)WICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXEDWICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXED•$61.4 million less than if Wickenburg Ranchisannexed.General Fund RevenuesFY 2014–FY 2033isannexed.•Sales Tax/TPT ($15.8 million): Generated bynew household and visitor spending in theTown.Miscellaneous Revenues$2,500,000 FY 2014 –FY 2033•Fire District Tax ($25.1 million): Secondaryproperty tax to fund fire services for thecommunity (Wickenburg Ranch is located inthe Wickenburg Rural Fire District).•Miscellaneous Revenues ($2.5 million):Revenues generated by increased activityFire District Retail Sales Tax$15,805,000 from the population living in WickenburgRanch.Tax$25,100,000 Total Revenues - $43,405,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201412Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 202 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)ANNEXATION COMPARISONANNEXATION COMPARISON$8,000,000 Estimated Comparison of Wickenburg General Fund Revenues by Type, with and without $6,000,000 $7,000,000 yyAnnexation, FY 2014 – FY 2033WITH ANNEXATIONWITHOUT ANNEXATIONSales Tax Revenues$4,000,000 $5,000,000 Retail Sales Tax$16,900,000 $15,800,000Hotel/Motel Tax$3,600,000 $5,000Real Estate Rental Tax $2,400,000-Telecommunications Tax $1,200,000-Contracting Tax$12,200,000-$2,000,000 $3,000,000 gSub-Total$36,300,000 $15,805,000Property Tax Revenues$9,000,000-Fire District Tax$0 $1,000,000 456789023456789023Fire District Tax Revenues- $25,100,000Building Permit Revenues$14,500,000 -FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020FY 2021FY 2022FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028FY 2029FY 2030FY 2031FY 2032FY 2033Revenues (with Annexation)Revenues (without Annexation)Miscellaneous Revenues$45,000,000 $2,500,000Total Wickenburg General Fund Revenues$104,800,000 $43,405,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201413Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOGeneral Fund RevenuesMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 203 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)SCHOOL DISTRICTSCHOOL DISTRICT$14,000,000$16,000,000 $18,000,000 $2 000 000$4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 RevenuesExpenditures$0 $2,000,000 •Wickenburg Ranch is located in the Wickenburg #9 School District.•Property Tax Revenues: $172.5 millionItF$660000Fhtit dhdldthdlill•ImpactFees:$660,000–Foreachnon age-restrictedhomedeveloped,thedeveloperwillpaya one-time $500 impact fee.•School district operating expenses would increase moderately—the majority of new homeswouldbeagerestrictedandnotincludeschoolagechildrenwouldbeage-restrictedandnotincludeschoolagechildren.•At build-out, we estimate the community would add 587 students to the school district creatingthe need for 57 additional teachers and staff.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201414Source: Wickenburg #9 School District; Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 204 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT– METHODOLOGY•RCLCO utilized IMPLAN software in order to project the economic (employment) impacts of theproposedWickenburgRanchDevelopmentproposedWickenburgRanchDevelopment.•IMPLAN is a widely employed and respected software tool that creates a localized model toinvestigate the consequences of projected economic transactions in specific geographicregions.regions.•Based on the developer’s plans and pro forma, RCLCO estimated construction costs, consumerspending, and overall economic activity as inputs to the IMPLAN model.Directeffectsaredeterminedbyan“Event”asdefinedbytheuser(iea$10milliondollar•DirecteffectsaredeterminedbyanEventasdefinedbytheuser(i.e.a$10milliondollarconstruction budget has a $10 million dollardirecteconomic effect).•Theindirecteffects (impacts of local industries buying goods from other local industries) aredeterminedbytheamountofthedirecteffectthatisspentwithinthestudyregiononsuppliesdeterminedbytheamountofthedirecteffectthatisspentwithinthestudyregiononsupplies,services, labor, and taxes.•Inducedeffects measures the money that is re-spentin the study area as a result of spendingfromtheindirecteffect.Eachofthesestepsrecognizesanimportantleakagefromtheeconomicfromtheindirecteffect.Eachofthesestepsrecognizesanimportantleakagefromtheeconomicstudy region spent on purchases outside of the defined area. Eventually these leakages willstop the cycle.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201415Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 205 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)EMPLOYMENTEMPLOYMENT1,400Projected Total Jobs Generated as a Result of Wickenburg Ranch’s Development800 1,000 1,200 1,400 School Jobs200 400 600 Indirect and Induced JobsOn-site - Construction JobsOn-site - Operations Jobs-•On-site (direct) EmploymentoPeak:– Operations – 120Construction480•Indirect & Induced Jobs oPeak – 660oAfter Build-Out – 170–Construction –480– Home Sales – 30oAfter Build-Out – 120WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201416Source: IMPLAN Group; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 206 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)LABOR INCOME VALUE ADDED AND OUTPUTLABOR INCOME, VALUE ADDED, AND OUTPUTLabor IncomeOutputValue AddedInducedInducedInducedIndirectIndirectIndirectDirectDirectDirect-500 1,000 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpending- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpending- 500 1,000 1,500 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpendingWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201417Source: IMPLAN Group; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 207 of 883
Tl MTaylor MammenPrincipalPhone: (310) 282-0437tmammen@rclco.comRCLCO233 Wilshire Blvd.Suite 370Suite 370Santa Monica, CA 90401Tel: (310) 914-1800Fax: (310) 9141810Fax: (310) 914-1810www.rclco.comMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 208 of 883
Prepared By:
Transpo Group
11730 118thAvenue NE, Suite 600
Kirkland, WA98034-7120
(425) 821-3665
August 2009
Grant County
Moses Lake Crossing Study
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 209 of 883
August 2009
1
Executive Summary
Moses Lake has seen steady growth in the past decade thereby resulting in urban-type of congestion
issues. In addition regional transportation infrastructure has been built out resulting in additional highway
capacity along SR-17. However, key bottlenecks remain in the transportation system due to a singular
lake crossing and connection between SR-17 and I-90. In order for the region and surrounding areas to
continue strong economic growth, it is critical that a sufficient transportation infrastructure be provided
that would reduce the amount of “circuitous and out of the way” travel that results in additional costs to
motorists, freight haulers, and the public in general. This document summarizes a study conducted to
assess the feasibility and necessity of a second lake crossing.
Although near-term needs in and of themselves do not justify the construction of a second lake crossing,
the benefits of having a second bridge crossing to the north of Moses Lake sometime in the next 15 to 40
years are numerous. Time savings for freight and commuters to the current economic growth areas to
the north of the city would greatly benefit from the added access. Residents and emergency personnel
wound no longer be limited to only one available bridge crossing. Tourist would have greater access to
surrounding area activities and have a better perception of the central business district due to decreased
freight movement thru the area. Businesses would capitalize on the added route options surrounding the
added west side access and opened areas. Eastside residents would gain traffic relief along SR-17 thru
town and city maintenance costs would drop due to the reduction of heavy vehicles on local roads.
Although a demonstrated “need” cannot be quantified in the very near term, it is important for the area
representatives, residents, and businesses to continue to move forward toward the design and
implementation of a second bridge crossing. The next steps towards the goal of a new bridge crossing
include the development of an Environment Impact Statement, public and private outreach for route
development and support, and the continued identification and mediation of project obstacles that may
delay this essential area improvement.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 210 of 883
August 2009
2
What is the Purpose of this Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route
Feasibility Study?
The Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route Feasibility Study has been conducted in response to
regional business concerns about access to the west side of Moses Lake and I-90. Local representatives
and residents have observed increased congestion and safety issues associated with the current single
connection between the east and west sides of Moses Lake.
This planning level study evaluates the why, what, where, and potential benefits in the long-term (20 to 50
years) of a potential second lake crossing location. The study identifies alternative locations and the
feasibility of those lake crossings. Local stakeholders involved in this study provided input and direction
in development of alternatives intended to provide connectivity and circulation in and around Moses Lake,
SR 17, and I-90 and identification of issues.
The purpose of an additional lake crossing is to improve the movement of people and goods
across Moses Lake between the northern area of the city and I-90 on the west side of the lake. A
potential new connection would eliminate the added travel distance, time, and cost associated with the
current routing of vehicle south on SR-17 to I-90.
Is a Second Lake Bridge Crossing Needed?
In the context of near term funding and infrastructure needs, a second lake crossing does not have high
likelihood and need. However, this study is intended to lay the groundwork such that corridors can begin
to be preserved and locations identified for a long-term bridge crossing location and its associated
improvements. The City of Moses Lake and the surrounding areas have continued to grow and pressure
the existing transportation infrastructure. Growth in the area has resulted in congestion and economic
costs for the area which will only continue to grow without additional transportation infrastructure. As the
area continues to develop it also becomes more difficult to preserve a corridor for any potential future
transportation infrastructure.
Without additional circulation
alternatives in the future,
existing intersections along SR
17 will become increasingly
congested while attempting to
serve a mix of local, through
and freight traffic. Delays
currently identified on SR-17
thru Moses Lake are a result of:
• At Grade Rail Crossings
• Seven Traffic Signals
• Reduced Speeds in the
Urban Area
• Future Congestion
Pinch Points Due to
Lack of Viable North
Bypass
Existing and Future Delays for SR 17 to 1-90.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 211 of 883
August 2009
3
In addition to delays, as a result of a singular lake crossing several other negative impacts on area
activities exist including:
• Increased City road maintenance costs
• Limited future economic development opportunities on the east side due to congestion
• Decreased tourist appeal for Central Business District due to limited connectivity throughout town
• Lack of emergency access redundancy
This feasibility study outlines the benefits, challenges, and path forward to a new lake crossing which
would minimize and reduce the costly delays, congestion, safety concerns, and missed economic
opportunities that exist with a singular lake crossing.
Several key economic area leaders were contacted to receive input on the potential for a second lake
crossing. The following is a summary of those leaders comments regarding the issue.
Areas that would benefit from the Moses Lake bridge crossing.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 212 of 883
August 2009
4
Perspectives on Why a Second Lake Bridge Crossing is Needed from
Regional Economic Leaders?
“The Port of Moses Lake believes that a future outer bridge crossing of the Lake is extremely
important for purposes of freight mobility and economic development, and recommends that a
corridor be preserved for routing of this crossing. Currently all freight coming into and out of the
Port industrial properties has to come through downtown Moses Lake, with no alternate bypass.
This crossing would allow for freight to be moved from I-90 to SR 17 via a more direct route,
eliminating the truck traffic on city streets. This would also enhance economic development, as
three items are important to prospective businesses: air service, rail service and highway
access.”
Craig L. Baldwin
Executive Manager
Port of Moses Lake
“The proposed north lake crossing and lake loop road is a much needed component of the
greater Moses Lake area transportation infrastructure. The project has the potential to produce
tremendous economic and social benefits for this region of Grant County for the remainder of
the 21st Century.”
Terry L. Brewer, CEcD
Executive Director
Grant County Economic Development Council
“As a Port Manager, there is absolutely no way to “sell” manufacturing growth in this area
without both a current strong logistics path in and out of the Ephrata/Moses Lake area as well
as a long term plan for sustaining that path. This project must establish the intended corridor so
that it may be preserved for our future growth, safety and economic development.”
Michael Wren
Manager
Port of Ephrata
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 213 of 883
August 2009
5
Where Could a New Bridge be Located?
Preliminary planning for a new bridge
crossing location has centered on the
northern area of Moses Lake. Focus
has been given on a connection that
would allow southbound vehicles and
freight on SR-17 to gain access to I-90
without the costly delays associated
with travel through the city center and
surrounding developed areas.
Existing roadway infrastructure and
right-of-way on the west side allows
for several crossing alternatives that
would reduce overall project costs.
Direct access to the Port of Moses
Lake is desirable due to the current
amount of economic growth in the
area that would benefit from the
added access.
What are the Other
Possible Roadway
Connection
Improvements Associated with a New Lake Crossing?
Several options are available for potential arterial connections to a possible new bridge sites. The west
side of Moses Lake has several existing roadway facilities that either currently, or with minor upgrades,
would be able to connect to the various possible bridge crossing locations. Each possible arterial
improvement would benefit a variety of important stakeholders and as such a key step in the bridge
crossing location would be to link arterial improvement/right-of-way/corridor preservation with the bridge
crossing. Potential north/south connecting arterial routes on the west side include:
• Hiawatha Road
• West Shore Drive
• Road E NE
It is recommended that any of the designated arterial connections be designed to a more urban standard
and sufficient right-of-way be set aside to accommodate all modes of travel including bikes and peds. It is
anticipated that no more than one travel lane would be required in each direction to accommodate future
travel demands. However, to facilitate efficient traffic flow, it is recommended that turn lanes be provided
at each key intersection.
Several locations have been identified, including alternatives
to reduce overall project costs.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 214 of 883
August 2009
6
What Land Use Changes Could Result From a New Crossing?
Improved connectivity and access to the west side of Moses Lake would make the area more desirable
for residential and commercial activities. Businesses wishing to capitalize on the future growth of the
west side and the availability of better access around the city will want to take advantage of the
connectivity that a new bridge would provide. Due to improved connectivity, it is likely that the urban
growth area would change and the land uses surrounding such an improvement project would intensify
due to the added access provided by a new bridge crossing.
The development of the opened areas to the west would result in future utilization of the new bridge. Trip
generation projections developed for the future economic development area would add to the utilization of
the new bridge and give added justification for the bridge crossing. Future long –term (30+ years from
2009) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) projections for the new bridge amount to 11,500 total vehicle trips.
This volume is typically supported by a two lane structure presented in this study report with potential for
Each possible bridge route would provide benefits for the variety of stakeholders.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 215 of 883
August 2009
7
a third lane for passing with grade issues given the anticipated freight activity on the bridge. This
projected volume was developed using surrounding area growth estimates and reasonable long term
planning assumptions to develop a high level planning bases for trip generation figures. It is important to
note that without the commitment to future development of the west side of Moses Lake that the feasibility
of a new bridge crossing to the north would be difficult to justify.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 216 of 883
August 2009
8
What Would a New Bridge Potentially Look Like?
How the new bridge crossing Moses Lake may ultimately look and function will be influenced by several
factors including:
• Lake crossing location
• Number of lanes
• Pedestrian and bicycle amenities
• Steepness of grade
• Height above the water
• Bridge approach conditions
• Type of construction materials
• Number of bridge piers/columns
• Lake and shoreline uses
• Environmental factors
• Aesthetics
• Budget
Lake Crossing Location
Location of the new bridge will be greatest single factor ultimately affecting how the bridge looks. Bridge
location influences other variables such as height, approach conditions, grade, material type, adjacent
uses, aesthetics, and environmental impacts. The most influential factors affecting bridge location are
quite often length, width, height, cost, and economic benefit. For a new bridge constructed at Randolph
Road / SR 17, the estimated bridge length would be approximately 3,100 feet.
A new crossing would accommodate traffic, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 217 of 883
August 2009
8
Number of Lanes
Although no formal travel demand modeling has been completed, a review of forecast traffic volumes
suggests that the required capacity for a new bridge crossing would most likely be two 12-foot lanes –
one in each direction. It is possible for alternate bridge locations to generate more or less traffic based on
adjacent land use and connecting destinations; however in any event it is likely that one lane in each
direction would provide sufficient capacity. Other factors influencing the number of lanes may include
steepness of grade; with any steep grade a second through lane in the uphill direction would facilitate
improved operations especially in light of the fact that freight would be a key user of a new bridge.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
The type, number, and width of pedestrian and bicycle amenities across the new bridge significantly
influences bridge width/cost, and may also significantly affect the perceived benefit of the bridge to the
surrounding community and businesses. Pedestrian sidewalks located on both sides of the bridge are
normally a minimum of 6 feet in width, and are not intended to support bicycle traffic. Bicycle lanes on
each side of the bridge are normally at least 5 feet in width and are constructed at-grade with adjacent
vehicle traffic – separated by the fog line. As an option to separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
each side of the bridge, a multi-use path a minimum of 12 feet wide may be considered on one side only
– separated from vehicle traffic by a solid barrier. It would be very important to provide for pedestrian and
bicycle amenities as these would help improve the overall connectivity of the trail, bicycle, and pedestrian
systems.
Grade Issues
Long steep upward grades at locations where significant heavy truck traffic is anticipated may require an
additional outside lane for trucks to climb in; allowing lighter vehicles to travel past them at normal
speeds. This would likely be the case for a new bridge constructed at Randolph Road / SR 17 where the
northern bluff overlooking Moses Lake is approximately 140 feet higher than the southern Lake shore,
causing sustained upward grades of 5% to 6%. In general, steep grades are less favorable to traffic
conditions, causing vehicles to slow down going up hill; and are more difficult to travel and maintain
during cold periods of snow and ice.
Height Above Water
Bridge height above water significantly affects the length and cost of vertical bridge columns/piers on
which the bridge superstructure rests. The height, type, diameter, geometry, and spacing of piers
significantly influence bridge cost and aesthetics. Height above water is most directly affected by
connecting elevations from one side of the Lake to the other. Other factors influencing bridge height may
include requirements to pass vehicles below the bridge at one or both Lake shores, or minimum vertical
clearances needed for boats to pass under the bridge. For bridges with very low clearance to the water, it
may be possible to extend a road base partially across the Lake, which causes the length of the bridge to
be shorter. This approach was used for the existing I-90 Bridge crossing Moses Lake.
Bridge Approach Conditions
Bridge approach conditions refer to the roadway and topographic conditions approaching each end of the
new bridge. For instances where one end of the bridge is raised significantly above the Lake shore (for
whatever reason), the bridge approach is built up on a roadway fill slope which is sometimes 20 to 30 feet
high. Construction of significant bridge approach slopes costs significantly more, relative to bridge ends
which touch down close to existing elevations on both ends. For conditions where intersections are
located very close to one or both ends of the bridge, it may also ne necessary to widen the end of the
bridge to add left or right turn lanes approaching the intersection.
Type of Construction Materials
Construction material types can significantly affect the bridge geometry, bridge cost, and aesthetics. The
two most common basic materials which are compared in bridge construction are concrete and steel. For
steel bridge structures, concrete is often still used in the construction of bridge piers/columns and bridge
deck. The most noticeable difference in concrete and steel bridge construction is the maximum
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 218 of 883
August 2009
9
length/span of bridge superstructure occurring between bridge piers/columns. For concrete bridge
structures, the normal span length between columns is in the range of 150 feet to 200 feet. For steel
bridge structures, the normal span length increases to the range of 250 feet to 300 feet. One potential
advantage to using a steel bridge superstructure crossing Moses Lake is a reduction in the number of
costly bridge piers/columns which must be constructed within the lake. Concrete bridge superstructures,
on the other hand, may be constructed at less cost (not factoring in pier construction), and require less
maintenance/painting over time.
Number of Bridge Piers / Columns
Total number and location of bridge piers placed within the Lake significantly affects environmental
impacts and associated mitigation measures/costs. The necessity to place more or less piers is highly
affected by the selection of bridge superstructure material type (discussed above). A reduction in the
number of piers may significantly reduce environmental impacts and potential impacts to Lake recreation
associated with the new bridge crossing.
Lake and Shoreline Uses
Existing and planned lake and shoreline uses may most directly affect factors including bridge location,
bridge height, pier spacing, and aesthetic requirements. Shoreline uses may cause one or both ends of
the bridge to be elevated above grade to allow continuous access to the shoreline. This may be the case
if a trail is established along the Lake shore. Significant on-water use (fishing and boating) at some
locations may require bridge piers to be placed higher or further apart to facilitate such uses in a safe
manner. If a bridge is established at a location where significant residential and/or business use exists
close to the bridge, where the bridge becomes more visible, then aesthetics may become more of a
consideration.
Environmental Factors
There are several environmental factors which may ultimately affect the location and geometry of the
proposed bridge crossing Moses Lake. Several factors may include impacts to wetlands and waters of
the US (falling under jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers), fish and wildlife considerations,
cultural/archaeological resources which may exist, air quality considerations, noise generated from traffic,
lake and shoreline uses, and many other potential factors.
Aesthetics
Bridge architecture/aesthetics may be built into any bridge type, in many different ways, at any location.
The extent of bridge aesthetics is most influenced by the perceived desire/need for aesthetics in
combination with available project budget. For bridges located at locations where they are less visible,
aesthetics may be less important. For bridges located in highly visible areas closer to downtown where
they may be seen as more of a “gateway”, aesthetics may be assigned a high level of importance.
What would be the overall cost of a new lake crossing?
Ultimate project cost/budget is affected by each of the factors discussed above. Each of these factors will
need to be defined, weighed against one another (trade-offs), and considered in the context of
community/regional benefit in determining the appropriate bridge/project cost. A planning level cost
estimate developed for this study revealed a total estimated planning level 2010 project cost of
$215,000,000, with a future 2030 estimated cost of $390,000,000. These estimates were based off a
bridge crossing location at Randolph Road and direct connecting new roadway to the existing Hiawatha
Road.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 219 of 883
August 2009
10
What Are The Potential Lake Crossing Benefits?
Based on review of transportation data, interviews with stakeholders, and review of forecast travel
demands, several potential regional benefits are associated with the addition of a second lake crossing:
Freight Mobility
Freight mobility would benefit from the connection, particularly those bound to/from the west.
Westbound truck routes to/from the Port of Moses Lake would be shortened by approximately 8
miles, and would no longer be required to travel along SR 17 through Moses Lake where delays may
be encountered. This becomes even more important with the expectation of “just-in-time” delivery for
some of the Port industries to maintain competitiveness.
Travel From SR-17 (Randolph Rd.) to I-90 (Hiawatha Rd.)
Existing Route 24.5 min/trip
Estimated New Bridge Route 12.5 min/trip
Potential Time Savings New Route 12 min/trip
The Port of Moses Lake Access
Industrial areas provide jobs to many residents of the Cities of Moses Lake and Ephrata. The Port of
Moses Lake area is continuing to grow, and the new transportation corridor will help facilitate future
economic growth within this area. Prospective businesses will see the port as a viable development
alternative with its air service, rail service, and enhanced highway access.
Access Redundancy
SR 17 through Moses Lake would no longer serve as the only transportation route to the north side of
the City, Port of Moses Lake, and Big Bend Community College, and would likely experience some
future traffic relief from the alternate western route. Based on Transpo’s 2002 Moses Lake city-wide
circulation study, the eastbound and westbound SR 17/I-90 ramps are anticipated to fail (LOS F) by
year 2022 without future capacity improvements.
Transportation Redundancy and Security
Security and reliability would be enhanced by the redundancy afforded by the new route. If an
incident occurs on I-90, or if the I-90 bridge crossing of Moses Lake is unavailable, then an alternate
transportation route from I-90 would exist across/around Moses Lake to serve the Port of Moses
Lake, the City of Moses Lake, and I-90 through traffic.
Future Urban Growth:
Anticipated growth occurring within the City and County west/south of Moses Lake would benefit from
the new road alignment and bridge connection directly to the City/Port of Moses Lake. The new
corridor would most likely facilitate economic development within this area.
Commuter Access
With anticipated expansion of Big Bend Community College, the new connection will provide benefit
and convenience to staff and students. Many students commute from Quincy and George along I-90.
Emergency Access
Emergency access from the west of the City of Moses lake is now limited to one bridge structure.
With a second bridge crossing the City of Moses Lake would have a second emergency access
option. With future development to the south and west of the city this additional emergency access
route would allow for faster response times and route options which may save lives.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 220 of 883
August 2009
11
City Road Maintenance Cost
Road maintenance would be decreased from the re-routing of heavy vehicles around the cities
existing infrastructure. In simple terms, one fully loaded 80,000 pound truck causes the same
pavement wear and damage as 10,000 automobiles. By eliminating a good share of the heavy
vehicle traffic, existing roadway structures will last much longer and require significantly less funds to
maintain.
Enhanced Tourism Opportunities
Additional access to the tourist activities surrounding Moses Lake would bring increased revenues to
the city and area businesses. The added connections would also reduce the amount of freight
activity around the central business district and make the eastside more inviting to tourist activities.
Added Resident Access and Circulation
Area residents would have additional circulation options to access recreational and business areas
through the new connection. Additional access to the airport, community college, north lake parks,
and other activities would no longer need to purely navigate through the only current corridor
available (Stratford).
Corridor Preservation
Existing urban arterials and collectors would gain relief from congestion due to only one lake crossing
and allow for the new corridor to be preemptively protected before future interested access
stakeholders become entrenched in developing areas to the west. This corridor preservation would
allow for sustained future industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural growth throughout the
surrounding area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 221 of 883
August 2009
12
What Are The Next Steps?
Development of and Environmental Impact Statement
One of the first steps towards permitting the bridge would be the development of an environmental impact
document that would meet requisite permitting and funding requirements. The EIS could potentially
evaluate the alternatives identified in this study with the purpose of identifying a “preferred” alternative.
Public Outreach
In order for any of the possible bridge locations and route options to be accepted and funded they will
need the support of local officials and residents. In order to develop the support of these essential
stakeholders, efforts should be made to include their input in the selection and future development of
crossing alternatives. The following are ways to promote and advertise the potential benefits and
possibilities of a Moses Lake crossing:
• Project Web Site
• Project Newsletter (see attached example)
• Public Open Houses/Workshops
• Solicitation for Letters of Support from business, residents, and other local stakeholders
• Route Alternative input and consensus.
Overcoming Obstacles to Project Implementation
Some potential important obstacles which need to be addressed include the following:
• Addressing west side residents concerns
• Identifying funding sources and opportunities
• Addressing impacts to City activities
o Boat Races
o Recreation on the lake
Attached Figures:
• Existing Issues Map
• Economic Growth Areas Map
• Bridge Crossing Locations Map
• Routing Option 1 Map
• Routing Option 2 Map
• Routing Option 3 Map
• Sample Mailer/Newsletter
• Planning Level Cost Estimate
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 222 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
16
,
0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
(4
%
)16,00015,000(<1%)20,000
17,000
9,000(3%)
90
17 L NE7 NE
3 NE171 17
NJ NE4 NE
F NEK NEEAST NEI NE2 NE
5 NE
1 NEWESTSHORE DR NE
CHEROKEE RD E
WHEELER RD NE
E5 NE67 NE
CANAL
STRATFORD RD NEN FRONTAGE RD E
N FRONTAGE RD W
MAE VALLEY RD NE
MCCONIHE RD NE
56 NE
65 NE
WILSON RD W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLV
D NE
BASELINE RD E
S FRONTAGE RD EW PENINSULA DR W BROADWAY AVE OLD FRONTAGE RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
MAPLE DR NE
R
D
MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD HARRIS RD NE
S PI
ONEER WAY VALLEY RD NED5 NEP
A
T
TON
B
LVD
M NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR NORTH NE22ND AVE NES CLOVER DR 37 NE
W 3RD AVE DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FAIR W AY DR N ERANDOLPH RD N E
E HILL AVE
NELSON RD NE
KITTLESON RD NE L9 NEBOLLING ST NE
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NES GRAND DR HANSEN RD SA
ND DUNES RD S
EW LAKESHORE DR CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE17
S
ATWOOD RD
S
JUNI
PER DR 21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR BRAD ST NEE
L
G
IN RD NE
E NELSON RD
BROAD ST NE
E BROADWAY AVE
ANDREWS ST NE
POTATO HILL RD NEVIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE DUNN ST NE
S ALDER ST GRAPE DR NEW IVY AVE W WAPATO DR NE
P
P
E
L
R
D
N
E
DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR GO ODRICH RD SE
N CRESTVI
EW DR
K
A
R
L RD NE
SHARON AVE E
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
D NEE 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NEE LARK AVE
SCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE
E WHEELER RD ALMA RD NEF5 NEBELL RD NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD 6 NE
WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD PAXSON DR W LEE ST
42 NE
S WANAPUM DR I5 NENE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
K5 NEORCHARD DR NEM SEYOUNG RD NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
54 NE
K SEN
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
TEAL RD NE
A R LINGT O N D R CALVERT RD NEWENATCHEE DR NECOX ST 19TH AVE
NEDALEY DR
BROADWAY NEW LAKESIDE DR JOEY RD NEBLUFF RD NEW BASIN ST BACON LN NERAY RD NEADMIRAL RD NEC R E STVIEW DR K7
SEMCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E CRAIG ST
DOOLITTLE
D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1 L NE RD N BLOCK S
T LO
W
RY ST
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEFIVE NE
S SKYLINE DR L2 NEE AGLE D R NEGRACE LN NE
FERGUSON RD NED
OG
WOOD S
T HERITAGE LN SEW KNOLLS VISTA DR K7 NEBLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD N
E N BUELL DR ASTRO LN NES
CHI
LLING DR F4 NEW C
R
AIG S
T
JU
D
Y
R
D
N
E
S BATT
E
R
Y
R
D
M
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEE HAYDEN DR W GEM AVE N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NENORTH SEPETTIGREW RD NE
K8 NEW
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BASELINE2 RD SE
GROVE RD NE
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN MA
R
C
H
S
T
CRAW LN
E OLIVE AVE
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
E
CITATION RD NENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NES HERMIT RD CAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR RAMM RD NEN DANIEL ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD S JEFFERSON AVE E PL
U
M
S
T
DUSTY ST 24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWA
T
E
R
L
N STEWART RD NES C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
KUTTLESON RD
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
ROBIN LN NES PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
WISER LN NE
PARK DR
S POMMER ST
FORRESTA
L
L
N W TOEVS AVE CIND
I
E
L
N
N
E M NE3 NE
N FRONTAGE RD EK NEF NEEAST NE1 NE1 NE
6 NE
WESTSHORE DR NENORTH NEM NEL9 NE5 NE5 NE NORTH NE5 NE
4 NE M NEI NE
NORTH NEWESTSHORE DR NE37 NE
65 NE
VALLEY RD NE2 NE
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Existing Issues
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Growth_Areas.mxd
FIGUREX
Legend
Signals
Key Bottleneck Locations
2007 Average Daily Traffic
Traffic Growth (Annual Rate over 5 years)
Estimated Year 2025 Volumes
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
XXX(X%)XXX
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 223 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
FutureEconomicGrowthArea(Ind, Ret, Res)
EconomicGrowthAreaAdded Freight Mobility/Resident Access
Traffic ReliefArea
90
17 J NE4 NE
L NE3 NE
10 NE
7 NE NORTH NE17
N
8 NE M NEF NEK NE9 NE
N FRONTAGE RD WB NEA NENEPP
E
L
R
D
N
E
N FRONTAGE RD E EAST NE5 NE STRATFORD RD NED NEI NE2 NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
DIVISION RD N78 NE
9
N
W
OLD M
O
S
E
S
L
A
K
E
H
W
Y
HIAWATHA RD NEMOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD WHEELER RD NE
1 NEWESTSHORE DR NED5 NEWHITE TRAIL RD
17
S
CHEROKEE RD E
CANAL
1 SEE5 NETHREE NE
67 NE
C NE65 NE
RAND
OLPH R
D NE
S FRONTAGE RD E
3 NW
2 NW
4 NW
5 NW
H8 NE
MCCONIHE RD NE K7 NE
OLD FRONTAGE RD
56 NE
W PENINSULA DR WILSON RD
P
AT
T
ON BL
VD N
E
BASELINE RD E
K SEA SEM SECANAL 20 W6 NE
R
D
K4
N
E
HARRIS RD NE K5 NEH NEBASELINE 5 RD SE
S
AND DU
NES R
D SEC SE RD 22ND AVE NE14 NE N2 NE37 NE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FAIRW AY DR NE
NORTH SELAKE VISTA DR NE
L9 NEDICK RD NE
W LAKESHORE DR WALKER RD HANSEN RD H ONE TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
G O OD R ICH RD SE N9 NE21ST AVE NEN4 NENE ROAD POTATO HILL RD NEVIKING RD NEARN
O
LD D
R N
E
KAR
L RD NE M3 NEKONISHI RD NE
BELL RD NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE H FOUR POTATO HILL RD SEI5 NENE D EIGHT DIVISION RD SYOUNG RD NENE H SIX 97 NE
54 NE
DAHL RD NE
85 NE
S
T
O
N
E
C
RE
ST RD N
E
32ND AVE NEARLINGT
O
N D
R C4 NECOX ST DALEY DR
SCENIC DR SEBACON LN NEK7
SENE M TWO STONERIDGE RD NEA NW
D O O L IT TLE DR L NE RD FIVE NE
GRACE LN NE
FERGUSON RD NEHERITAGE LN SE
BLUE GOOSE ST NED2 NEASTRO LN NESCHILLING DR F4 NEW CRAIG ST JU
D
Y
R
D
N
E
F
8
N
E
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE
UNION RD IDANO RD NEDUSTY ST
18 NEHIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NEB NECANAL 20 WK NENORTH NEC NEL NE10 NE
4 NE
7 NE
6 NEK5 NENORTH NEHARRIS RD NE
F NE1 NE
5 NE 5 NED NE5 NE
NORTH NEA NE65 NEEAST NEEAST NE2 NE M NE3 NE
D NEM NEK
5
N
E
9 NE 9 NE
N FRONTAGE RD E
10 NE
2 NE
I NE
N FRONTAGE RD W B
NEDIVISION RD NA NE5 NE
M NEC NELegend
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 1 20.5
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Growth Areas
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Growth_Areas.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 224 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LA
KE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNOLLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F
8
N
E
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWA
T
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Possible Crossing Locations
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Bridges.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 225 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway
Existing Roadway
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 1 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option1.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 226 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway/ROW
Existing Roadway/ROW
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 2 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option2.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 227 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway/ROW
Existing Roadway/ROW
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 3 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option3.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 228 of 883
Need AddressGrant County
Moses Lake Bridge Crossing
and Route FeasibilityStudy
Developing area excitement and ownership thru a
Public/Private Outreach initiative
In order for any of the possible bridge locations and route options to be accepted and funded they will need the
support of local officials and residents. In order to develop the support of these essential stakeholders, efforts
should be made to include their input in the selection and future development of crossing alternatives. The
following are ways to promote and advertise the potential benefits and possibilities of a Moses Lake crossing:
• Project Web Site
• Project Newsletter
• Public Open Houses/Workshops
• Solicitation for Letters of Support from business, residents, and other local stakeholders
• Route Alternative input and consensus
The Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route Feasibility Study was conducted in response to local resident and
business concerns about access to the west side of Moses Lake and I-90. Local representatives and residents
have for a long time noted the mounting transportation issues associated with the current single connection
between the east and west sides of Moses Lake.
This study is intended to evaluate bridge crossing alternative and the feasibility of those crossings around
Moses Lake. Local stakeholders involved in this study provided input and direction in order to develop viable
alternatives to mounting transportation issues in the area.
The Purpose of the project is to improve the movement of people and goods across Moses Lake between
the northern area of the city and I-90 on the west side of the lake. This connection would eliminate the added
travel distance, time, and cost associated with the current routing of vehicle south on SR-17 to I-90.
The City of Moses Lake and the surrounding urban
growth area has developed and out grown its existing
transportation infrastructure. Time and money have
been sacrificed due to a lack of effective connections
between trip producing areas around the city and
county. These increases and deficiencies have
caused congestion and economic losses for the area
which will only continue to mount unless a viable
infrastructure improvement is implemented. The
economic future of the area requires a preserved
corridor around the city to the north to allow for
enhanced freight and resident mobility. Without a
preserved corridor, existing facilities along SR 17
will become significantly saturated with a mix of
residential and freight vehicles.
What is the
Moses Lake Bridge Crossing
and Route Feasibility Study?
Why is a Second Bridge Crossing Needed?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 229 of 883
Where Will the New Bridge be Located and
What are the Possible Routes Associated with
a New Bridge Crossing?
What are the Potential Bridge Crossing Benefits?
Based on our conversations with local stakeholders, Transpo understands that study partners have been
reviewing this route together for roughly two years, and foresee several potential regional benefits:
• Freight Hauling Mobility
• The Port of Moses Lake Access
• Access Redundancy
• Transportation and Freight Security
• Future urban growth
• Commuter Access
• Emergency Access
• City road maintenance cost
• Enhanced tourism opportunities
• Added resident access
• Corridor preservation
• East Side Development Corridor Traffic Relief
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 230 of 883
Bridge CrossingBridge Length3,000.00 FTBridge Width65.00 FTTotal Deck Area195,000.00 SQ. FTUnit Cost$250.00 Per SQ. FTTotal$48,750,000.00IntersectionsMajor Intersections$500,000.00 EachNumber of Major Intersections4Minor Intersections$200,000.00 EachNumber of Minor Intersections5Total$3,000,000.00RoadwayCross Section:Width 40 FTROW Width 80 FTLength 50160 FTErosion Control/Soil Stabilization$40.00 Per LN FTPlanning Level Lake Crossing Estimate(Randolph Road to Hiawatha Road Bridge and Route)Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 231 of 883
Clearing and Grubbing$10.00 Per LN FTPavement:Depth 1 FTCost $300.00 Per LN FTSubgrade Preparation$20.00 Per LN FTGravel Base:Depth 2 FTCost $120.00 Per LN FTGrading$90.00 Per LN FTStrom Drainage:Collection/Culverts/Catch Basins $90.00 Per LN FTDrainage treatment/Detention $60.00 Per LN FTMajor Drainage Crossings $30.00 Per LN FTMinor Drainage Crossings $10.00 Per LN FTGuard Rail (50% of Length)$40.00 Per LN FTRetaining Walls$50.00 Per LN FTSub-Total Major Roadway Items$880.00 Per FTSub-Total Minor Roadway Items$260.00 Per FTTotal Basic Roadway Construction Cost $1,140.00 Per FT $57,182,400.00Right-Of-WayNew Alignment $200.00 Per LN FTMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 232 of 883
Existing Alignment Adjustment$120.00 Per LN FTTotal Right-Of-Way$8,342,400.00Project Cost SummaryBasic Bridge$48,750,000.00Basic Roadway$57,182,400.00Intersections $3,000,000.00Sub-Total $108,932,400.00Design/Construction Contingency (35%) $38,126,340.00Environmental Mitigation (10%) $10,893,240.00Sub-Total $157,951,980.00Project Development Costs (30%) $47,385,594.00Sub-Total $205,337,574.00Right of Way $8,342,400.00Total Estimated 2010 Project Cost$213,679,974.00Total Estimated 2030 Project Cost (3% annual Growth) $385,929,801.67Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 233 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
September 20, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Planning Commission
401 S Balsam
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Response to Planning Commission Request
Retention of UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley
Procedural Deficiencies – Notice of Public Meeting and SEPA DNS
Substantive Comments
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak at the September 16 meeting and to expand the time
limit from three minutes to six minutes. With so many serious issues with the consultant and staff reports,
even six minutes was impossible to get everything in. Below is some supplemental information on my
comments at the September 16 meeting.
Issues with Published Notice:
Regarding the deficiency of the published notice, MLC 20.07.020 has strict requirements for notice of
public meetings:
1. Publication at least fifteen (15) days before the date of a public meeting, hearing, or pending action
in the City’s official newspaper of general circulation; and
2. Mailing at least fifteen (15) days before the date of a public hearing, or pending action to all
property owners as shown on the records of the County Assessor and to all street addresses of
properties within five hundred (500) feet, not including street rights-of-way, of the boundaries of the
property which is the subject of the meeting or pending action. Addressed, pre-stamped envelopes
shall be provided by the applicant.
Although I understand your good faith intent to table the September 16 meeting to September 23 to heal
the time deficiency, I’m not so certain that you can ‘bootstrap’ the non-compliant notice simply by
continuing the meeting to September 23. Once the City Manager confirmed that the original notice was
legally deficient, you probably shouldn’t have conducted the meeting at all – or redefined it as another
‘workshop’. I think you need to start over with a new 15-day notice.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 234 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Notice to Property Owners:
I would also concur with the objection that Commissioner Henning had (and Commissioner Mann had at
the September 2nd workshop) about the failure to give mailed notice to affected property owners on parcels
where the proposed amendments would have specific adverse impacts to their property.
The City Manager opined that she didn’t feel she was required to do that because she describes the proposed
amendments as ‘legislative’ in nature. I can understand an argument that proposed changes to the overall
vision, goals, and objectives of the plan that affect the direction of the city in ‘general’ terms could be
deemed ‘legislative’, but when parcel-specific changes like deletion from a UGA (huge impact on property
value) change in zone designation, or subjecting a parcel to an overlay restriction, those parcels owners
should be receiving actual written notice in compliance with the regulation so they can present their case.
The city, is essentially, acting as a proponent to re-classify property that doesn’t belong to it and they are
proposing to do it without actual notice to the owner.
Disguising those site-specific changes under the cloak of Comprehensive Plan ‘updates’ should not relieve
the City Manager of providing legally sufficient notice and process that would be required if they were
stand-alone applications. This begs the question on why the City Manager would be trying to avoid making
sure that impacted property owners understand what the city is about to do to them? It should be ‘telling’
that only the most sophisticated landowners showed up at the meeting.
Substantive Objections:
The most glaring substantive issue is the data assumptions used to justify the consultant’s recommendations.
The City Manager has made it clear that she wants the next twenty years of residential growth in Moses
Lake to occur in the urban core and not in the UGA areas. The way to justify that is to influence and control
the data used in the residential land supply equation. It is a simple supply and demand analysis.
The first data input is demand – in this case projected population growth. The smaller the number you use,
the less room you need to allocate for residential growth. If the number is too large, expansion is required.
To support a vision of ‘urban core in-fill’ you need a small population number. The consultant’s
recommendations assume only about 7,000 new residents over the next 20 years. If they can find ‘room’
for 7,000 new residents in the urban core, they can then recommend elimination of UGAs.
ASPI, Mark Fancher (as a real estate professional and representing Central Terminals), Hayden Homes and
Houston Aho have all provided testimony that the population growth number used in the analysis is far too
low. As the largest industrial landowners in the city, ASPI and Central Terminals are heavily involved in
recruiting large industrial employers. We work with the Port of Moses Lake, Grant County EDC, and most
importantly, the Washington State Department of Commerce to entice large industrial employers to the
community. I am aware of about 2,500 potential jobs currently in play in the Wheeler Corridor and
proposals out for another 3-5000 aerospace and industrial jobs in the airport industrial area which includes
the ASPI Technology Park, ASPI Airpark, and the Port’s new westside industrial area. The Port, EDC,
ASPI and Commerce have dozens of proposals out to prospect employers.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 235 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
We also do not believe the forecasted 2500-3500 new residents accounted for the LDS temple under
construction. We would, again, encourage the consultant to look at the housing and population impacts of
the LDS temple in Meridian, Idaho, and the Tri-cities as examples.
Based on data from our econometric consultants and data from Commerce, each direct job creates between
three and four indirect and induced jobs. Most will come from out of the area. If these recruiting efforts
result in a single large employer – like Genie, as an example – you would get an instant influx of up to
5,000 new residents. That cannot be accommodated with urban core infill.
WAC 365-196-325 RCW 36.70A.115 requires counties and cities to ensure that, taken collectively,
comprehensive plans and development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for
development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment
growth. [emphasis added]
WAC 365-196-310 requires that the population forecast include a county-wide employment forecast.
The regulation requires that “economic trends and forecasts produced by outside agencies or private
sources” be considered in the process.”
No one from the consultant ever contacted ASPI, and to the best of my knowledge, Central Terminals, the
Port of Moses Lake, or EDC for input on projected industrial employment that could critically impact
housing demand going forward. Mitsubishi Aerospace and Boeing are recent examples how these large
employer projects instantly affect housing demand. You had Mitsubishi employees sharing housing and
Boeing employees living as far away as Wenatchee or commuting from the Puget Sound and staying in
hotels! If the City Manager had asked the consultant to reach out to us, we could have provided some insight
on this.
I hope you noted the testimony of Jim Warjone where he said that when he attempted to contact the
consultant with additional information, he was told that there would be no response – that the window to
collect data was closed.
WAC 365-196-310 provides a lot of flexibility so that cities can take into effect their unique
circumstances.
Moses Lake is blessed with a massive international airport, the lowest electric power rates in the nation, a
foreign trade zone, U.S. Opportunity Zone designation, and readily developable heavy industrial lands.
Moses Lake is a huge target for industrial growth. The population forecasts appear to completely miss that.
Now let’s look at the supply side of the equation.
To justify hyper-development of the urban core, and discourage development in the UGA, the consultant
must show adequate supply of available lands in the urban core to accommodate the population number
they used. They do this by taking an inventory of available vacant residential lands and properties that they
deem suitable for “redevelopment”. To accommodate the urban core infill vision, the available lands
number – the SUPPLY in the urban core – has to be made as large as possible.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 236 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
WAC 365-196-310 provides as follows: The land capacity analysis may also include a reasonable land
market supply factor, also referred to as the "market factor." The purpose of the market factor is to
account for the estimated percentage of developable acres contained within an urban growth area
that, due to fluctuating market forces, is likely to remain undeveloped over the course of the twenty-
year planning period. The market factor recognizes that not all developable land will be put to its
maximum use because of owner preference, cost, stability, quality, and location.
The Market Factor deduction from available land supply accounts for sellers that may not want to sell for
a myriad of reasons, but also properties that may be odd-sized or configuration, in undesirable or unkempt
neighborhoods, next to undesirable or incompatible uses, high crime areas, or sites that are too costly to
develop. The term “MARKET FACTOR” means properties that the ‘market’ won’t likely attract a
developer willing to risk their capital on – or that residents have no interest in living on.
To maintain a robust supply number, the consultant only used a 10% Market Factor deduction on vacant
properties within the urban core. In other words, they assume that ninety percent of all available properties
will attract developers, capital, and buyers.
To further meet the supply requirement, the consultant assumes that seventy-five percent of re-developable
existing buildings in the urban core will be redeveloped into new housing.
The testimony from ASPI, Houston Aho (has built 11,000 homes), and Mark Fancher was that these
assumptions are untenable. The consistent testimony from the development community and brokerage
community is that in-fill development in the urban core is very slow and very expensive as opposed to new
development in the UGAs that provide fast response, economies of scale and more affordable product. Note
that neither the City Manager, nor the consultant, has identified a single entity willing to invest millions of
dollars into fee-ownership residential product in the urban core.
That brings us, we would suggest, to the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one seems to want to talk about.
Everyone, including several Commissioners, keep asking the City Manager, “Why are you trying to knock
out the UGAs? They aren’t costing the city anything.” This question was asked of the City Manager several
times at the September 16 meeting. Why can’t the City Manager pursue her vision of urban core infill while
ASPI and others continue to pursue master planned community developers for UGA Area 5? After a lot of
colloquy in her response, the City Manager finally admitted she could point to no negative impacts from
leaving the existing UGAs alone.
The answer on why they want to eliminate the UGAs, of course, is simple. The UGAs, with their lower cost
structure, economies of scale, affordability, lower crime rates, master planned environments, and amenities
like being next to a premier golf course, represent a competitive threat to the vision of in-fill urban core
development. For the urban core infill vision to occur, the competitive threat of single-family homes in new
amenity-laden UGA master planned communities must be eliminated or made cost prohibitive. They need
to be out of the equation for the urban core infill numbers to work.
Notice how this occurs. While the City Manager describes how she intends to implement new ‘incentives’
for the in-fill urban core including applying new tax incentives, allowing hyper densities, allowing mixed
uses, and special overlay districts, the city requires UGA developers to pay their own way. Make it as tough
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 237 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
on them as possible. Notice how not much attention is given to the Cascade Valley UGA because they
know it is already cost prohibitive to develop and, therefore, poses no competitive pressure to the urban
core. By leaving it in the UGA it creates a false dichotomy that ‘not all UGAs need to eliminated’.
The urban core infill vision all falls apart when, despite attempts to influence and control the input data,
industrial employees still don’t want to live or raise their families in the urban core. Crime continues, traffic
continues, and because you can’t quickly respond to what the industrial employers and their employees
want, you lose jobs.
The UGAs represent huge potential advantages to the city. They enable the city to respond to sudden surges
in industrial employment but also in significant revenue growth as illustrated in the Wickenburg economic
report. They provide elasticity rather than rigidity to allow Moses Lake to continue to compete for these
important employers.
There is another ironic and insidious aspect of this. At the September 2nd Planning Commission workshop,
the City Manager made an out-of-context comment that she was “struck by the poverty” in Moses Lake.” I
would direct your attention to Exhibit 9 of the Housing Needs Assessment (Page 13) which shows the
distribution of household income demographics. You will note that the urban core area – the area where the
consultant and City Manager advocate expensive, high density in-fill development, represents the
LOWEST income demographic area of the city.
Those least able to afford housing in Moses Lake are the target of the urban core infill that will increase
housing costs in those neighborhoods and drive the low-income people out. As noted in the September 16
meeting, only about 50% of residents in Moses Lake are homeowners. Urban core infill will only exacerbate
the problem as most urban core infill projects will be apartments. It should also be noted that the consultant
forecasts traffic impacts at Level Of Service “F” for the urban core if the infill model is implemented.
Again, where are they advocating making traffic unbearable? For the low-income people and their families.
SEPA Review Objections:
City staff issued a State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-Significance on September 1,
2021, concluding that the proposed changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan and including the elimination
of UGA Area 5 North Mae Valley posed no significant environmental impacts. We disagree. The proposed
changes present sweeping impacts to the city.
To avoid in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts, the city describes the proposed amendments as
being “non-project”. The Washington State Department of Ecology describes the criteria required to satisfy
the act as follows:
“When a nonproject action involves a comprehensive plan or similar proposal governing future
project development, the probable environmental impacts that would be allowed for the future
development need to be considered. For example, environmental analysis of a zone designation
should analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 238 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
SEPA review for nonproject actions requires agencies to consider the “big picture” by:
• Conducting comprehensive analysis
• Addressing cumulative impacts
• Considering possible alternatives
• Outlining successful mitigation measures”
The proposed Comprehensive Plan changes are significant. It is not credible to issue a Determination of
Non-Significance when the proposed changes, on their face, will do the following:
1. Result in a traffic Level of Service “F” – the worst – for downtown Moses Lake.
2. Result in hundreds of acres being summarily deleted from the Urban Growth Area.
3. Will result in millions of dollars of lost property values.
4. Will result in fewer choices for housing..
5. Will negatively impact industrial employment growth.
6. By allowing the Cascade Valley UGA to remain as potential high-density development,
water quality in the lake is at risk from septic systems.
7. The impact of urban core in-fill will be most profound on the lowest income demographics
in Moses Lake and likely cause them to be displaced.
8. Urban core infill impacts will adversely impact single family home ownership.
9. Assume demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings.
10. Create ‘overlay’ areas that may subject property owners to additional restrictions.
11. Do not provide any analysis of the economic viability of the urban core infill vision.
12. Does not provide any analysis on the effect limiting growth has on potential passenger air
service serving Grant County International Airport.
13. Provided no economic analysis of the impacts to revenues and operations at the Moses
Point golf course from potentially adding hundreds of new homes in close proximity.
The proposed changes demand an Environmental Impact Statement.
It should further be noted that the Notice of Determination of Non-Significance is deficient on its face
because of references to the September 16 Planning Commission meeting; the published notice of
which has now been found deficient. The Determination of Non-Significance contains the wrong
dates. At the very least it must be republished as well.
Response to Specific Request from Planning Commission:
Per the request of the Planning Commission, attached is an exhibit showing the city’s existing well in UGA
Area 5 at Road 4.5 and Road F. This is the location where there has been ongoing discussion with the Moses
Point Golf Course ownership, ASPI, and the city about construction of a new water tank or variable speed
fire flow pumps to serve the area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 239 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Also shown is the massive ASPI/Horizon well located in the UGA area west of Road E. That well has
capacity under current DOE/DOH regulations to supply about 5,000 homes and would be the likely source
of water to serve a master planned community in the existing Horizon UGA Area 5 and any expansion
thereof.
To the best of our knowledge, as evidenced by language in the recommendations that UGA Area 5 has no
ability for utility service, the city’s consultants never were aware of these massive water resources available
in the UGA Area 5.
Conclusion:
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to respond. I know these responses have been lengthy. I hope you
can appreciate that the proposals represent millions of dollars of potential damage to our property values.
They also serve to thwart millions of dollars and decades of our efforts to attract new industrial employers
to the community – employers that pay great family wages, and through multiplier effects, support local
retail, restaurant, and service businesses and their employees as well.
We have grave concerns in how the process was managed and/or influenced to promote the urban core infill
solution to the exclusion of the UGAs. We, along with the stalwarts in the development and brokerage
communities promoting Moses Lake, tried to participate in the process. We have decades of experience and
knowledge and we were shunned. Even after the recommendations surfaced, we tried to reach out to correct
the record and were rebuffed. That should be troubling to the Commission. It is unfortunate that our
participation has been relegated to lengthy written submissions at the late stage of Planning Commission
review – essentially ‘after the train has left the station’. More troubling was the attempt to even limit our
participation there to only three minutes.
We support any efforts to enhance the urban core and entrance gateways to Moses Lake. But why does it
have to come at the expense of all the investment and effort that ASPI and others are doing to recruit
employers to Moses Lake? Why does it have to come at the sacrifice of great master planned community
options in the UGA? Why does it have to come at the expense of maintaining flexibility to accommodate
surges to population if a large aerospace or industrial employer wants to locate in Moses Lake?
We ask that you maintain UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley – in the UGA.
Sincerely yours,
Kim Foster
Corporate Counsel
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 240 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
August 25, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Planning Commission
401 S Balsam
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Re: August 26 Agenda
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
ASPI Group, Inc./CFML LLC
Horizon – 320 Acres - Currently in UGA
Deletion of UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is in response to the recommendations from the city’s consultant on the updates to the
Comprehensive Plan that certain existing UGA areas should be eliminated from the city’s Urban
Growth Area designation and maps. One of the areas targeted for deletion is referred to in the
consultant’s report as Area 5 – North Mae Valley – that largely encompasses the area north of the
Moses Point golf course and includes 350+/- acres owned by ASPI-affiliated entity, CFML LLC.
The 350 +/-acre parcel is generally described as the north half of Section 2, Range 27, Township
19 and including portions of Tax Parcel Nos. 161358005, 161358000, and 161714000.
We are adamantly against this action as recommended by the city’s consultant for both pragmatic
and legal reasons as follows:
Background:
ASPI has been invested in Moses Lake, including the subject 350 +/- acres for more than 30 years.
As one of the community’s largest industrial, commercial, residential, and waterfront landowners,
ASPI is heavily engaged in economic development activities including the recruitment of large
employers to the community. ASPI participates daily with the Grant County Economic
Development Council, the Port of Moses Lake, and the Washington State Department of
Commerce to site new family-wage industrial employers to the community. The company is the
largest private entity contributor to the EDC. Past successes include the BMW/SGL Carbon plant,
Fuji Chemical/AstaReal, Genie, and US KDK. Most recently, ASPI recruited Boeing to use Moses
Lake as its Return to Service Center for the 737 MAX aircraft that brought 700 jobs to the
community.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 241 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
ASPI also redeveloped the former abandoned K-Mart complex into the Moses Lake Town Center
to help recruit retailers that generate massive amounts of sales tax revenue to the city. These retail
recruitment efforts have resulted in a transformation of the retail environment in Moses Lake and
now include Marshall’s, Sportsman’s Warehouse, and Winco.
As part of the industrial and retail employer recruitment effort, we must be able to demonstrate the
community’s ability to provide quality housing for potentially hundreds of new workers. In the
‘competition’ to get these employers to choose Moses Lake, we are competing against
communities across the nation that offer spectacular affordable master planned environments for
their workforce. This includes Arizona, Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and Alabama. Moses Lake
is woefully deficient in being able to accommodate modern, master planned residential built
environments that can compete with these other locations. I have provided city staff and the city’s
consultants with information on how these other communities accommodate their employee
housing needs.
ASPI-specific efforts to develop the subject 350 +/- UGA acres:
The subject 350 +/- acres representing a portion of the Area 5 UGA includes approximately one
mile of waterfront on Moses Lake. We are currently working with a significant new industrial
employer that is anticipated to make a public announcement in the coming weeks about building
a new manufacturing facility in Moses Lake. We are also working with at least three potential
aerospace employers, food processor, and a data center that could mean hundreds of new jobs for
Moses Lake.
Because we recognize that the lack of employee housing will be an impediment to securing any of
these employers, ASPI has invested significant time resources and hundreds of thousands of
dollars to recruit residential developers and home builders to Moses Lake. These recruitment
efforts include both regional and national homebuilders that have the organizational capacity and
financial abilities to develop residential product at scale. As discussed below, these residential
development entities have no interest in building on disjointed parcels in the existing urban core.
ASPI has proposed using the 350+/- acre waterfront UGA area as a location for a new master-
planned environment. In addition to the waterfront amenity, proximity to the Moses Point golf
course and the economies of scale because of the scope of the parcel are attractive. This is a process
that is time consuming and requires a lot of due diligence and planning on the part of the residential
developers to assess market conditions, product design, land and infrastructure development costs,
availability of large-scale suppliers and subcontractors, and financing options. The increasing
regulatory burden is a major concern – other locales across the country are far more ‘development
friendly’ than Moses Lake. We are currently working with two significant residential developers
and multiple infrastructure contractors to move a project forward on the site. ASPI has had had
significant contact with the city regarding potential development on this site.
Obviously, the short-sided elimination of this significant parcel of property from the UGA and the
attendant reduction in potential density, would destroy the economics of any master planned
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 242 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
environment and these residential developers would immediately withdraw causing significant
financial damage – in the millions of dollars - to the company for which the company would seek
legal remedy. The company would view this as a ‘taking’ by the city. This begs the question on
whether the city’s consultants were aware of or took any of this into account when making their
recommendations.
The deletion of UGA Area 5 and UGAs generally as ill-advised:
In October of 2020, upon the request of Allison Williams, and as the largest combined property
owner in Moses Lake, we were asked to participate as a ‘stakeholder’ in the city’s process to update
the Comprehensive Plan. ASPI invested significant time resources to engage with the city’s
consultant and including participating in multiple ‘stakeholder’ study-sessions that involved other
significant entities engaged in economic development, the real estate brokerage community, and
real property development in Moses Lake. These included Hayden Homes, AHO, Tomlinson and
Black, and others. These entities comprise the ‘expert opinion’ or ‘brain trust’ on all things related
to development issues in Moses Lake.
Every single person who participated in these sessions was clear and concise – Moses Lake is
failing to mitigate the dearth of housing because the regulatory process is too burdensome and
fragmented, that the city’s response time in processing land use applications is too slow and costly,
and development costs and fees are too high. Many of the participants are active in multiple
jurisdictions and described Moses Lake in the past two years as becoming one of the most
burdensome. Another theme that was consistent was the city’s lack of awareness in embracing
master planned environments as opposed to pushing a hodge-podge of disjointed ‘in-fill’ type
product.
Moses Lake suffers from significant geographic constraints for residential growth. The city can’t
grow to the north because of the Grant County International Airport and heavy industrial areas. It
can’t grow to the east because of the Wheeler industrial corridor, the municipal airport, and large
tract agricultural zoning. It is constrained south of I-90 by large swaths of publicly owned lands
including the Sand Dunes and Columbia National Wildlife Refuge. I-90 presents a significant
barrier.
The logical place for the city to add residential capacity is to the west in the Mae Valley area. The
participants in the ‘stakeholder’ sessions all advised the city’s consultant that the Mae Valley area
can accommodate master planned environments that are very desirable in the market. It is a low-
crime area, the available parcels are large enough to accommodate production-scale housing
needed for industrial recruitment, and the availability of existing infrastructure and the proximity
to the Moses Point golf course were advantages.
Needless to say, the stakeholders, representing decades of expertise in residential development in
Moses Lake, were shocked to find that they were summarily rejected by the city’s West-side
consultant which appears to proffer that all residential growth for the next twenty years should
occur in the existing urban core. That ‘vision’ would require hundreds of new housing units to be
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 243 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
constructed on disjointed ‘in-fill’ parcels. The vision is completely at odds with market conditions
on both the supply and demand side of the residential equation. We note with interest that we did
not see the city’s consultant suggest one entity that would be willing to finance – or construct – a
residential project of scale in the existing urban core. Certainly, none are identified that are willing
to start a project tomorrow.
The bigger question, as it relates to wholesale deletion of existing Urban Growth Areas is ‘why’?
The city’s consultant justifies its recommendation on the statement that servicing the identified
UGA areas is ‘too difficult’ or ‘too costly’. That is an interesting statement given the fact that the
current city protocol demands that developers pay all costs associated with new development. How
does it ‘harm’ anyone to leave the UGAs alone? If a developer – like the ones ASPI is dealing with
– can provide utility and infrastructure improvements, at their cost, to support development in a
previously-identified UGA area, what is the downside risk to the city? There are none! Summarily
deleting UGA areas on the whim of a consultant may be catastrophic to the future economic growth
of the city as these areas may never be retrieved. At best, if faced with an opportunity for a large-
scale employer, it would take years of process to get a UGA area ‘back’.
Regarding the Area 5 location, city services are in close proximity to Moses Point. Extending
utilities from there is an easy proposition. Additional development in the area would also foster
potential improvements to the system including construction of water storage tanks for fire flow
and potentially additional sanitary sewer facilities. Some options under study for the 350 +/- acre
waterfront tract include a self-contained membrane bio-reactor sewer system and a stand-alone
water system. How would the introduction of those stand-alone new technology systems
negatively impact the city in any way?
Also important is the fact that after the developer has to absorb all of the costs of getting the utility
and infrastructure to the site – a function that other jurisdictions typically participate in, the city
gets to annex the area and reap the massive tax benefits from the development at literally no-cost
to the city. How can the city give up those future revenue opportunities for no reason at all? This
begs the question of whether the city’s consultant even considered that?
The Fallacy of ‘in-fill’ development:
One of the justifications of the city’s consultant for removing huge areas of existing UGA is a
conclusion that all residential demand for the next 20 years can be accommodated by ‘in-fill’
development in the existing urban core. This is a fallacy typically embraced by ‘progressive’
jurisdictions on the West-side whose values are far different than what we perceive in Moses Lake
and among the prospect employers. The drive for ‘in-fill’ development on the West-side has been
a disaster as huge apartment projects crowd out single-family neighborhoods. While urban
redevelopment, adding additional entertainment, food, and retail environments is a terrific goal
and amenities to residential growth, you simply cannot accomplish large-scale residential
development on an ‘in-fill’ basis.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 244 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
The consultant’s conclusions are undoubtedly based on a simple inventory of existing vacant lands
in the urban core coupled with a multiplier of what the Department of Commerce forecasts as the
population growth over the twenty-year period. Coupling population forecasts with available
lands, “viola” - no new areas are required. That equation is woefully deficient. Did the consultant
question whether the growth predictions included the potential for thousands of new industrial jobs
that EDC, ASPI, and others are working to recruit? Does it include the estimated thousand of new
residents that will be attracted by the new LDA Temple, hospital, or high school?
Just because there are lands located in the existing urban core doesn’t mean they will be developed.
The ‘in-fill’ mantra basically assumes that the city can magically direct landowners to sell or
developers to develop. The reality is that the city can’t force landowners to sell so a simple
inventory of available lands is unrealistic. Then as the city creates an artificial impediment to
development in the UGAs, urban landowners escalate their pricing, developers can’t afford to
build, and the ‘in-fill’ model collapses.
Another fallacy of the ‘infill’ mantra is that you cannot attract investment or residential developers
if they are limited to a couple of houses on A street and a couple more over there on T street.
Maybe a small condo here or there. No one will build new ‘in-fill’ housing in a fifty-year old
neighborhood that may be unkempt, or have issues with traffic, crime, or homelessness. In-fill, by
its definition, cannot benefit from economies of scale so costs rise dramatically and the product
quickly exceeds the market ability.
The ‘in-fill only’ fallacy also assumes that people moving to Moses Lake would prefer to live in
an urban core that is not visually appealing, offers little in the way of ‘lifestyle amenities’, is not
‘walkable or bikeable’, is burdened with traffic, crime, and homeless issues, and has few, if any,
new residential projects. The new employees coming to Moses Lake will largely prefer homes in
new master planned neighborhoods with yards, security, amenities, consistency of theme,
environments governed by home owners associations, and visually consistent. In-fill, by its
definition cannot provide any of that.
The fallacy also doesn’t account for when a new employer, like Boeing, needing 700 residences
for its people arrives. In-fill cannot accommodate those surges. In-fill also cannot attract capital
investment from large-scale developers able to meet these large employer demand events. They
don’t have the time or ability to focus on small, disjointed projects. These opportunities require
large tracts of UGA-available properties where production-scale housing can occur. Without that,
the city must take responsibility for effectively destroying the community’s ability to attract new
large-scale employers. And keep in mind, without the continued industrial growth of large-scale
employers, additional retail and restaurant investment will be thwarted (Costco, Target, Fred
Meyer, etc.), as well as entertainment options and the ability to finance additional public amenities.
Again, there can be boutique ‘in-fill’ development as one element of the solution, but you cannot
rely on small, disjointed development alone to cure the critical housing needs of the community.
In conclusion, as a landowner in Area 5 UGA, we are adamantly against it being deleted from
UGA designation. This will cause significant financial damage to the company and will be
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 245 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
considered a ‘taking’. On a larger note, we disagree, geneally, with deleting any UGA area as
limiting the city’s options for future economic growth, sustaining existing industrial employers,
and accommodating residential demand.
Sincerely yours,
Kim Foster
Corporate Counsel
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 246 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
September 20, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Planning Commission
401 S Balsam
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Response to Planning Commission Request
Retention of UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley
Procedural Deficiencies – Notice of Public Meeting and SEPA DNS
Substantive Comments
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak at the September 16 meeting and to expand the time
limit from three minutes to six minutes. With so many serious issues with the consultant and staff reports,
even six minutes was impossible to get everything in. Below is some supplemental information on my
comments at the September 16 meeting.
Issues with Published Notice:
Regarding the deficiency of the published notice, MLC 20.07.020 has strict requirements for notice of
public meetings:
1. Publication at least fifteen (15) days before the date of a public meeting, hearing, or pending action
in the City’s official newspaper of general circulation; and
2. Mailing at least fifteen (15) days before the date of a public hearing, or pending action to all
property owners as shown on the records of the County Assessor and to all street addresses of
properties within five hundred (500) feet, not including street rights-of-way, of the boundaries of the
property which is the subject of the meeting or pending action. Addressed, pre-stamped envelopes
shall be provided by the applicant.
Although I understand your good faith intent to table the September 16 meeting to September 23 to heal
the time deficiency, I’m not so certain that you can ‘bootstrap’ the non-compliant notice simply by
continuing the meeting to September 23. Once the City Manager confirmed that the original notice was
legally deficient, you probably shouldn’t have conducted the meeting at all – or redefined it as another
‘workshop’. I think you need to start over with a new 15-day notice.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 247 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Notice to Property Owners:
I would also concur with the objection that Commissioner Henning had (and Commissioner Mann had at
the September 2nd workshop) about the failure to give mailed notice to affected property owners on parcels
where the proposed amendments would have specific adverse impacts to their property.
The City Manager opined that she didn’t feel she was required to do that because she describes the proposed
amendments as ‘legislative’ in nature. I can understand an argument that proposed changes to the overall
vision, goals, and objectives of the plan that affect the direction of the city in ‘general’ terms could be
deemed ‘legislative’, but when parcel-specific changes like deletion from a UGA (huge impact on property
value) change in zone designation, or subjecting a parcel to an overlay restriction, those parcels owners
should be receiving actual written notice in compliance with the regulation so they can present their case.
The city, is essentially, acting as a proponent to re-classify property that doesn’t belong to it and they are
proposing to do it without actual notice to the owner.
Disguising those site-specific changes under the cloak of Comprehensive Plan ‘updates’ should not relieve
the City Manager of providing legally sufficient notice and process that would be required if they were
stand-alone applications. This begs the question on why the City Manager would be trying to avoid making
sure that impacted property owners understand what the city is about to do to them? It should be ‘telling’
that only the most sophisticated landowners showed up at the meeting.
Substantive Objections:
The most glaring substantive issue is the data assumptions used to justify the consultant’s recommendations.
The City Manager has made it clear that she wants the next twenty years of residential growth in Moses
Lake to occur in the urban core and not in the UGA areas. The way to justify that is to influence and control
the data used in the residential land supply equation. It is a simple supply and demand analysis.
The first data input is demand – in this case projected population growth. The smaller the number you use,
the less room you need to allocate for residential growth. If the number is too large, expansion is required.
To support a vision of ‘urban core in-fill’ you need a small population number. The consultant’s
recommendations assume only about 7,000 new residents over the next 20 years. If they can find ‘room’
for 7,000 new residents in the urban core, they can then recommend elimination of UGAs.
ASPI, Mark Fancher (as a real estate professional and representing Central Terminals), Hayden Homes and
Houston Aho have all provided testimony that the population growth number used in the analysis is far too
low. As the largest industrial landowners in the city, ASPI and Central Terminals are heavily involved in
recruiting large industrial employers. We work with the Port of Moses Lake, Grant County EDC, and most
importantly, the Washington State Department of Commerce to entice large industrial employers to the
community. I am aware of about 2,500 potential jobs currently in play in the Wheeler Corridor and
proposals out for another 3-5000 aerospace and industrial jobs in the airport industrial area which includes
the ASPI Technology Park, ASPI Airpark, and the Port’s new westside industrial area. The Port, EDC,
ASPI and Commerce have dozens of proposals out to prospect employers.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 248 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
We also do not believe the forecasted 2500-3500 new residents accounted for the LDS temple under
construction. We would, again, encourage the consultant to look at the housing and population impacts of
the LDS temple in Meridian, Idaho, and the Tri-cities as examples.
Based on data from our econometric consultants and data from Commerce, each direct job creates between
three and four indirect and induced jobs. Most will come from out of the area. If these recruiting efforts
result in a single large employer – like Genie, as an example – you would get an instant influx of up to
5,000 new residents. That cannot be accommodated with urban core infill.
WAC 365-196-325 RCW 36.70A.115 requires counties and cities to ensure that, taken collectively,
comprehensive plans and development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for
development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment
growth. [emphasis added]
WAC 365-196-310 requires that the population forecast include a county-wide employment forecast.
The regulation requires that “economic trends and forecasts produced by outside agencies or private
sources” be considered in the process.”
No one from the consultant ever contacted ASPI, and to the best of my knowledge, Central Terminals, the
Port of Moses Lake, or EDC for input on projected industrial employment that could critically impact
housing demand going forward. Mitsubishi Aerospace and Boeing are recent examples how these large
employer projects instantly affect housing demand. You had Mitsubishi employees sharing housing and
Boeing employees living as far away as Wenatchee or commuting from the Puget Sound and staying in
hotels! If the City Manager had asked the consultant to reach out to us, we could have provided some insight
on this.
I hope you noted the testimony of Jim Warjone where he said that when he attempted to contact the
consultant with additional information, he was told that there would be no response – that the window to
collect data was closed.
WAC 365-196-310 provides a lot of flexibility so that cities can take into effect their unique
circumstances.
Moses Lake is blessed with a massive international airport, the lowest electric power rates in the nation, a
foreign trade zone, U.S. Opportunity Zone designation, and readily developable heavy industrial lands.
Moses Lake is a huge target for industrial growth. The population forecasts appear to completely miss that.
Now let’s look at the supply side of the equation.
To justify hyper-development of the urban core, and discourage development in the UGA, the consultant
must show adequate supply of available lands in the urban core to accommodate the population number
they used. They do this by taking an inventory of available vacant residential lands and properties that they
deem suitable for “redevelopment”. To accommodate the urban core infill vision, the available lands
number – the SUPPLY in the urban core – has to be made as large as possible.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 249 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
WAC 365-196-310 provides as follows: The land capacity analysis may also include a reasonable land
market supply factor, also referred to as the "market factor." The purpose of the market factor is to
account for the estimated percentage of developable acres contained within an urban growth area
that, due to fluctuating market forces, is likely to remain undeveloped over the course of the twenty-
year planning period. The market factor recognizes that not all developable land will be put to its
maximum use because of owner preference, cost, stability, quality, and location.
The Market Factor deduction from available land supply accounts for sellers that may not want to sell for
a myriad of reasons, but also properties that may be odd-sized or configuration, in undesirable or unkempt
neighborhoods, next to undesirable or incompatible uses, high crime areas, or sites that are too costly to
develop. The term “MARKET FACTOR” means properties that the ‘market’ won’t likely attract a
developer willing to risk their capital on – or that residents have no interest in living on.
To maintain a robust supply number, the consultant only used a 10% Market Factor deduction on vacant
properties within the urban core. In other words, they assume that ninety percent of all available properties
will attract developers, capital, and buyers.
To further meet the supply requirement, the consultant assumes that seventy-five percent of re-developable
existing buildings in the urban core will be redeveloped into new housing.
The testimony from ASPI, Houston Aho (has built 11,000 homes), and Mark Fancher was that these
assumptions are untenable. The consistent testimony from the development community and brokerage
community is that in-fill development in the urban core is very slow and very expensive as opposed to new
development in the UGAs that provide fast response, economies of scale and more affordable product. Note
that neither the City Manager, nor the consultant, has identified a single entity willing to invest millions of
dollars into fee-ownership residential product in the urban core.
That brings us, we would suggest, to the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one seems to want to talk about.
Everyone, including several Commissioners, keep asking the City Manager, “Why are you trying to knock
out the UGAs? They aren’t costing the city anything.” This question was asked of the City Manager several
times at the September 16 meeting. Why can’t the City Manager pursue her vision of urban core infill while
ASPI and others continue to pursue master planned community developers for UGA Area 5? After a lot of
colloquy in her response, the City Manager finally admitted she could point to no negative impacts from
leaving the existing UGAs alone.
The answer on why they want to eliminate the UGAs, of course, is simple. The UGAs, with their lower cost
structure, economies of scale, affordability, lower crime rates, master planned environments, and amenities
like being next to a premier golf course, represent a competitive threat to the vision of in-fill urban core
development. For the urban core infill vision to occur, the competitive threat of single-family homes in new
amenity-laden UGA master planned communities must be eliminated or made cost prohibitive. They need
to be out of the equation for the urban core infill numbers to work.
Notice how this occurs. While the City Manager describes how she intends to implement new ‘incentives’
for the in-fill urban core including applying new tax incentives, allowing hyper densities, allowing mixed
uses, and special overlay districts, the city requires UGA developers to pay their own way. Make it as tough
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 250 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
on them as possible. Notice how not much attention is given to the Cascade Valley UGA because they
know it is already cost prohibitive to develop and, therefore, poses no competitive pressure to the urban
core. By leaving it in the UGA it creates a false dichotomy that ‘not all UGAs need to eliminated’.
The urban core infill vision all falls apart when, despite attempts to influence and control the input data,
industrial employees still don’t want to live or raise their families in the urban core. Crime continues, traffic
continues, and because you can’t quickly respond to what the industrial employers and their employees
want, you lose jobs.
The UGAs represent huge potential advantages to the city. They enable the city to respond to sudden surges
in industrial employment but also in significant revenue growth as illustrated in the Wickenburg economic
report. They provide elasticity rather than rigidity to allow Moses Lake to continue to compete for these
important employers.
There is another ironic and insidious aspect of this. At the September 2nd Planning Commission workshop,
the City Manager made an out-of-context comment that she was “struck by the poverty” in Moses Lake.” I
would direct your attention to Exhibit 9 of the Housing Needs Assessment (Page 13) which shows the
distribution of household income demographics. You will note that the urban core area – the area where the
consultant and City Manager advocate expensive, high density in-fill development, represents the
LOWEST income demographic area of the city.
Those least able to afford housing in Moses Lake are the target of the urban core infill that will increase
housing costs in those neighborhoods and drive the low-income people out. As noted in the September 16
meeting, only about 50% of residents in Moses Lake are homeowners. Urban core infill will only exacerbate
the problem as most urban core infill projects will be apartments. It should also be noted that the consultant
forecasts traffic impacts at Level Of Service “F” for the urban core if the infill model is implemented.
Again, where are they advocating making traffic unbearable? For the low-income people and their families.
SEPA Review Objections:
City staff issued a State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-Significance on September 1,
2021, concluding that the proposed changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan and including the elimination
of UGA Area 5 North Mae Valley posed no significant environmental impacts. We disagree. The proposed
changes present sweeping impacts to the city.
To avoid in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts, the city describes the proposed amendments as
being “non-project”. The Washington State Department of Ecology describes the criteria required to satisfy
the act as follows:
“When a nonproject action involves a comprehensive plan or similar proposal governing future
project development, the probable environmental impacts that would be allowed for the future
development need to be considered. For example, environmental analysis of a zone designation
should analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 251 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
SEPA review for nonproject actions requires agencies to consider the “big picture” by:
• Conducting comprehensive analysis
• Addressing cumulative impacts
• Considering possible alternatives
• Outlining successful mitigation measures”
The proposed Comprehensive Plan changes are significant. It is not credible to issue a Determination of
Non-Significance when the proposed changes, on their face, will do the following:
1. Result in a traffic Level of Service “F” – the worst – for downtown Moses Lake.
2. Result in hundreds of acres being summarily deleted from the Urban Growth Area.
3. Will result in millions of dollars of lost property values.
4. Will result in fewer choices for housing..
5. Will negatively impact industrial employment growth.
6. By allowing the Cascade Valley UGA to remain as potential high-density development,
water quality in the lake is at risk from septic systems.
7. The impact of urban core in-fill will be most profound on the lowest income demographics
in Moses Lake and likely cause them to be displaced.
8. Urban core infill impacts will adversely impact single family home ownership.
9. Assume demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings.
10. Create ‘overlay’ areas that may subject property owners to additional restrictions.
11. Do not provide any analysis of the economic viability of the urban core infill vision.
12. Does not provide any analysis on the effect limiting growth has on potential passenger air
service serving Grant County International Airport.
13. Provided no economic analysis of the impacts to revenues and operations at the Moses
Point golf course from potentially adding hundreds of new homes in close proximity.
The proposed changes demand an Environmental Impact Statement.
It should further be noted that the Notice of Determination of Non-Significance is deficient on its face
because of references to the September 16 Planning Commission meeting; the published notice of
which has now been found deficient. The Determination of Non-Significance contains the wrong
dates. At the very least it must be republished as well.
Response to Specific Request from Planning Commission:
Per the request of the Planning Commission, attached is an exhibit showing the city’s existing well in UGA
Area 5 at Road 4.5 and Road F. This is the location where there has been ongoing discussion with the Moses
Point Golf Course ownership, ASPI, and the city about construction of a new water tank or variable speed
fire flow pumps to serve the area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 252 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Also shown is the massive ASPI/Horizon well located in the UGA area west of Road E. That well has
capacity under current DOE/DOH regulations to supply about 5,000 homes and would be the likely source
of water to serve a master planned community in the existing Horizon UGA Area 5 and any expansion
thereof.
To the best of our knowledge, as evidenced by language in the recommendations that UGA Area 5 has no
ability for utility service, the city’s consultants never were aware of these massive water resources available
in the UGA Area 5.
Conclusion:
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to respond. I know these responses have been lengthy. I hope you
can appreciate that the proposals represent millions of dollars of potential damage to our property values.
They also serve to thwart millions of dollars and decades of our efforts to attract new industrial employers
to the community – employers that pay great family wages, and through multiplier effects, support local
retail, restaurant, and service businesses and their employees as well.
We have grave concerns in how the process was managed and/or influenced to promote the urban core infill
solution to the exclusion of the UGAs. We, along with the stalwarts in the development and brokerage
communities promoting Moses Lake, tried to participate in the process. We have decades of experience and
knowledge and we were shunned. Even after the recommendations surfaced, we tried to reach out to correct
the record and were rebuffed. That should be troubling to the Commission. It is unfortunate that our
participation has been relegated to lengthy written submissions at the late stage of Planning Commission
review – essentially ‘after the train has left the station’. More troubling was the attempt to even limit our
participation there to only three minutes.
We support any efforts to enhance the urban core and entrance gateways to Moses Lake. But why does it
have to come at the expense of all the investment and effort that ASPI and others are doing to recruit
employers to Moses Lake? Why does it have to come at the sacrifice of great master planned community
options in the UGA? Why does it have to come at the expense of maintaining flexibility to accommodate
surges to population if a large aerospace or industrial employer wants to locate in Moses Lake?
We ask that you maintain UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley – in the UGA.
Sincerely yours,
Kim Foster
Corporate Counsel
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 253 of 883
FROM COLUMBIA BASIN HERALD Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 254 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 255 of 883
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
EXISTING WELL
ASPI HORIZON EXISTING WELLS
1600 ACRE FEET AT 2500 GPM
ENOUGH TO SERVE 5000 +/-HOMES
PER CURRENT DOE/DOH REGULATIONS
EXISTING WELLS IN UGA AREA 5
NORTH MAE VALLEY
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 256 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
September 7, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Planning Commission
401 S Balsam
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
ASPI Group, Inc./CFML LLC
Horizon – 350 Acres - Currently in UGA
Deletion of UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley
Expansion of Horizon UGA
Supplemental to September 2 Meeting
Dear Commissioners:
I want to thank you for allowing us to submit information that we feel is critical to the discussion
on amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan. I would, again, refer you to the written
comments that we submitted for the August 26 Planning Commission workshop.
Our simple request is that UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley – remain in the UGA.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS/OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE OVERALL PROCESS:
I would like to preface my substantive comments with my personal concerns over how this process
has been implemented. These are extremely important decisions that you are making. I have been
an attorney focusing on land use issues for more than 40 years and involved in the economic and
real estate development in your community for the past 30+ years. It appears to me that these
consequential recommendations from the city’s consultant are being rushed through by staff at all
costs. This is, in my opinion, a ‘railroad job’. Our company is at risk of losing millions of dollars
of value to our holdings from these ill-advised recommendations. More importantly, to the
community, these decisions will likely have a devastating effect on our continued ability to attract
large aerospace and industrial employers to the area because you won’t be able to respond to the
housing needs in a timely and cost-effective manner.
I noted at the September 2, 2021 workshop session, Planning Commissioners asked several very
important questions that either weren’t answered or the answers seemed intended only to gloss
over the question and speed the process along as quickly as possible. With all due respect, you are
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 257 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
the Planning Commission, charged with managing the direction that the city elects to take with
respect to growth and goals of economic development and employment opportunities for your
constituents. I repeatedly hear that these are the ‘recommendations of staff’ but no one asks,
specifically, who these ‘staff’ are that are making these recommendations. Is ‘staff’ the recently
hired City Manager and Planning Director who have only a brief relationship to the values of the
community and a ‘consulting’ firm from Bellevue that has no ties to your community? Does ‘staff’
include anyone else?
My observation is that, instead of the Planning Commission directing the future growth of the
community, you are viewed as simply an inconvenient ‘impediment’ that must be overcome to get
this agenda through as quickly as possible. Am I correct that the Planning Commission only saw
these draft recommendations a few days before the 8/26 meeting? As representatives of the citizens
of Moses Lake, were any of you individually interviewed by the city’s consultant to gauge what
direction you think the city should take on these matters? Were any of you vested with the ‘holy’
designation of ‘stakeholder’?
This is something that I observe frequently. The ‘state’ is used as the ‘excuse’ to hurry up and
implement ‘staff’-desired land use regulations. ‘Staff’ then seeks and hires expensive ‘consultants’
to confirm ‘staff’s’ desires. The local Planning Commissions and Councils are kept in the dark
until the ‘recommendations’ get published – usually right before some artificial deadline
supposedly imposed by ‘the state’ to hurry up and pass them. The consultant gets paid a lot of
money which makes it extremely difficult for part-time legislators, local Planning Commissions
or City Councils to reject the consultant’s recommendations as a waste of time and money, so they
are pressured to approve the report, as written, on a fast timeline and without proper notice to the
people affected or time for deliberation.
Any legitimate questions are glossed over with ‘consultant speak’ using terms like ‘sustainable’,
‘concurrency’, input from ‘stakeholders’, ‘holistically’, etc. Part time legislators can’t be expected
to review and understand complex regulations and they don’t want to be viewed as ‘obstructing’
the process so they just go along, approve, and hope for the best. The consultant’s get paid and
have no responsibility or liability for their recommendations when the unforeseen consequences
start. Note that by off-loading what, in my opinion, should be city staff functions to ‘consultants’,
city staff insulates itself from scrutiny and impacts to their continued employment by being able
to deflect and affix any ‘backlash’ onto the consultant. And so it goes…
SPECIFIC ISSUES REGARDING PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES:
Lack of Proper Legal Notice:
The first ‘procedural’ comment that I have concerns comments made by at least two
Commissioners that individual property owners have not been given adequate notice of staff’s
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 258 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
intent to potentially divest them of millions of dollars in property value, first by deleting their
properties from a bona fide UGA and, second, subjecting them to undefined zoning designations
and development regulations.
Commissioner Mann (See recoding at 26:55) commented as follows:
“[The city] has always had a process when we did anything with changes to the UGA and it
took a considerable amount of time and we usually did each and every parcel so we could get
comments from the neighbors and the landowners… The map amendments that I’m looking
at, it looks like we’re taking the consultant’s opinion and we are going to make these changes
and I’m not happy with that.”
City Manager Williams responded (See recording at 28:20):
“So the the, um, background on the Urban Growth Area amendments there was, uh, a
process that was gone through with our consultants, actually ‘Kevin’ came on board after
this process was done with Erika where the stakeholders for each of those areas were talked
to and then there was a process where there was a discussion with the county because in the
end the county has to approve the city’s urban growth area…um, and so, uh, there has been
substantial outreach in regards to all of these areas that are under consideration and by, uh,
doing this wholesale update of the plan that is supported by the analysis that has been done
this is our one time opportunity to look at the city holistically, um, and um, so that’s what
you have before you, uh, and it is based on significant input. Um, many many [laughs]
stakeholder conversations [laughs] occurred. I, I sat through, sat through many of them.
[laughs]”
With all due respect, I am taken aback that the City Manager thinks that hearing from stakeholders
is so hilarious. I can assure you that to a property owner at risk of losing millions of dollars in
property value, this is no laughing matter.
The City Manager’s claim that “stakeholders for each of those areas were talked to” is a blatant
misrepresentation of fact. ASPI was asked to participate as a ‘stakeholder’ limited to the housing
element of the plan. Several months ago, ASPI virtually attended two meetings along with Aho
Homes, Hayden Homes, and the real estate brokerage community moderated by the consultant
where there was a consistent message given to the consultant that the city needed more housing
areas, that the idea that in-fill was the primary solution to the city’s critical housing shortage was
naive and absurd on its face, that anyone suggesting in-fill as a primary solution was woefully
inexperienced in residential development, that city processing times and costs had become
unmanageable in the past two years driving away housing developers, and that city
mismanagement of the housing situation would eventually lead to job losses in the industrial
community and loss of new retail opportunities.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 259 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
I want to be clear that, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, no one ever talked to ASPI
about potentially deleting ASPI’s property in the North Mae Valley UGA Area 5 from the UGA.
In fact, we specifically advised the consultant that ASPI was working with several residential
developers to initiate a new master planned environment on our 350 acres currently in the UGA. I
was in Phoenix in late May meeting with two national developers. Neither the city or the consultant
ever told ASPI that you better not waste any more of your time and money because we are
preparing to cut the legs out from under you. The first time that ASPI had notice that its 350 -acre
parcel was at risk of being eliminated from the UGA was when we saw the agenda for the August
26 workshop. That gave us, literally, about two days to respond which, I am convinced, was the
intent. Why didn’t the City Manager contact us?
I would like the City Manager to disclose, specifically, what other property owners in the Area 5
UGA, North Mae Valley Area that either she, or the consultant ‘talked to’ about deleting their
properties from the valuable UGA designation. I would like to see a roster of names and dates that
they were ‘talked to’. It should be telling and concerning to the commission that no other
landowner in that area, other than ASPI, has stepped forward since the public disclosure of the
consultant’s report on or about August 23. Have any written notices been sent? Notices published?
I’ve also heard Allison Williams and Melissa Bethel state on multiple occasions that they
conducted outreach with ‘stakeholders’ at the county fair and farmer’s market. How can anyone
use the term ‘stakeholder’ when referring to a random person at the county fair? Did they provide
copies of the city’s consultant report? Disclose the consultant’s recommendations? Of course, they
didn’t. The report wasn’t even public at the time of the county fair. Did they get a roster (like we
are required to do for ‘neighborhood meetings’) of those who they talked to? Is the roster public
information?
Commissioner Mann is correct. Real parcel-specific notice needs to go out to every property owner
affected by these proposed changes or you are going to be castigated by your constituents for
jamming this through without proper input. I note that under the city’s new protocols advanced
and defended by these same staff, as developers, we are required to give specific written notice
and conduct neighborhood meetings before we can even apply for a development permit. Why
isn’t the city required to abide by its own rules?
Before leaving this topic, I want to point out that my office is 20 minutes from Berk Consulting
Group’s offices in Seattle. As the city’s largest industrial landowner, largest private aerospace
landowner, largest residential landowner, owner of a major retail center, health care facility, and
leading participant in economic development and job recruiting for the community for 30 years,
no one from Berk ever arranged a meeting at our offices to find out what we were doing or to gain
any knowledge from us. Despite regular communications with Allison Williams and Melissa
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 260 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Bethel on a variety of issues, neither they nor Berk Consulting Group EVER informed me
that they were intending to delete 350 acres of our property from the North Mae Valley UGA.
Is that acceptable to the Planning Commission? If I had not seen the item on the city’s published
Planning Commission agenda, I would never have known about this. Is this how we are supposed
to ‘trust’ this administration?
The Proposed Changes Should Trigger a Full SEPA/EIS Process:
A second procedural concern I have is the apparent lack of any SEPA or Environmental Impact
Statement accompanying these recommendations. These “wholesale” changes, as described in the
words of the City Manager, have the potential to divest property owners of millions of dollars of
property value, will direct 20 years of growth to the urban core, will most assuredly have a negative
impact on future employment as well as city revenues with the potential loss of accompanying
retail sales tax. Hyper-concentrating growth in the urban core will likely result in a very different
Moses Lake that will likely tax existing urban services like downtown traffic, utilities, and fire and
police protection. The consultant offers no explanation on how the city is supposed to pay for all
of this. I note at 30:30 in the recording that Melissa Bethel opines that ‘what it will cost the city to
serve has to be in the analysis’ – and yet it isn’t. Changes that are this significant demand a full-
blown SEPA and EIS process. How can the city proceed without that? Any “wholesale” adoption
of these changes deleting UGA will result in an immediate appeal for an EIS.
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Cannot be Adequately Addressed Until
Accompanying Development Code Changes are Available for Comment:
Another very legitimate question that came up during the September 2nd workshop was how the
Planning Commission can be expected to approve global Comprehensive Plan changes, including
new zone designations, before you are allowed to see the proposed accompanying Development
Code regulations that will describe what these zones actually mean. The answer that I heard was,
essentially, ‘shut up and trust us – we have hired yet another expensive out of town consultant that
will dictate those changes’. That begs the question, who are these additional consultants? Who
vetted them to make sure their goals are consistent with the community? Who is directing them on
what the development regulations should include? Someone has to be doing that. Or will they just
‘cut and paste’ from some other community and jam them through with little notice or
deliberation?
I keep hearing Allison Williams talk about ‘incentives’ that will be included in the new
Development Code to support a ‘downtown’ zone and other ‘incentives’ to push in-fill property
owners to sell. What are those ‘incentives?’ As Planning Commission Members, why are they
hesitant to share those with you? Might they include tax incentives that could affect the city’s
revenue forecasts and favor some property owners to the detriment of others? Who will ‘win’ and
who will ‘lose’? Are you entitled to know that before you recommend new ‘zones’? Might they
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 261 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
include options for the city to take private property from recalcitrant sellers to promote the ‘vision’
of a revitalized downtown core? (See Kelo v. New London, Connecticut where they did just that.)
These are critical pieces of information that you – and affected property owners - are being denied.
If you ultimately reject the Development Code changes – or there is public outrage that property
rights are being impacted – will the City then have to go back and set aside these Comprehensive
Plan amendments? What is the process for that? Why is there a race to put the cart before the
horse?
Process Rushed – Planning Commission Not Allowed to See Commerce Comments:
Another very legitimate question asked was about the timing of the response from the Washington
State Department of Commerce. You asked if the comments from Commerce – which could have
significant impact on these proposed changes – would be back prior to your decision. The answer
that I heard was ‘NO’, they would be back before the City Council makes its decision, but that you
will not be entitled to the benefit of those comments before you make your decision. Again, with
all due respect, I interpreted that as your decision doesn’t really matter. They need to get this by
you as quickly as possible. Staff will rely on Council to get this approved.
I would also note that at the August 26 workshop there was a discussion about timing for additional
deliberation from the Planning Commission (and including the scheduling of the 9/2 session) so
that you could have more time to consider these very impactful decisions and to gain more
information – including from city staff and the consultant. The answer from staff was that there
was an artificial deadline imposed by the Washington State Department of Commerce (the ‘state’)
and that this deadline demanded that you rush this process through. I found it interesting that there
was no discussion about what, if any, the consequences for violating Commerce’s deadline would
be, or could the city ask that the deadline be extended. With the pandemic issues, why would
Commerce have some onerous demand that Moses Lake rush through planning decisions that can
affect the city for the next two decades?
As a sidebar to the Commerce discussion, Melissa Bethel (Recoding time: 1:10:16 ) made the
comment that the city has “too much [UGA] for the state.” I would like to see what evidence that
she has to support her assertion. Did ‘the state’ tell her that? Who at the state told her that? Is it a
written document? If the state did tell her that, did she remind the state of the industrial recruitment
efforts that ASPI and the Washington State Department of Commerce are involved with on a
continuing basis? Where does ‘the state’ expect me to house these workers if the city can’t expand?
Did the city take an official position with ‘the state’ to affirm, contest, or deny the statement ‘the
city has too much UGA’? Did ‘staff’ seek direction from the Planning Commission or Council on
how they should officially respond to ‘the state’?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 262 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
Misrepresentations and Failure to Include Cascade Valley in the UGA Analysis:
I also found the discussion regarding the Cascade Valley UGA to be concerning. Note that
Commissioner Mann asked why the Cascade Valley UGA was not under consideration by the
city’s consultant for removal given the overwhelming consensus that private developers could not
absorb the development costs of getting utilities up the significant grade. The additional consensus
was without sewer in Cascade Value there was considerable risk to the degradation of the water
quality in the lake so, without sewer, high-density UGA development could be a disaster to the
lake’s water quality.
At the August 26 workshop, Commissioner Mann was told by ‘staff’ that Cascade Valley had been
‘annexed’ and that the ‘once annexed, cities cannot de-annex property’. The city staff went on to
advise the Planning Commission that because it couldn’t de-annex Cascade Valley, that it would
need to find huge sums in its capital improvement budget to get water and sewer services to the
area. Commissioner Mann, again, brought up his frustration with the Cascade Valley UGA
question. This time, Commissioner Mann and others pointed out to city staff that only a small
portion of Cascade Valley had been annexed leaving vast sections of Cascade Valley locked in a
UGA that was not economically ‘serviceable’ and ripe for deletion.
This begs the question, “Did the city staff and its consultant mistakenly believe that all of Cascade
Valley had been annexed?” Is this why deletion of the Cascade Valley UGA was not considered
by the city’s consultant? If so, that would represent a marked and critical deficiency in the entire
UGA analysis. If the city staff knew that only a small portion of Cascade Valley had been annexed
then it was disingenuous, at best, to represent to the Planning Commission that the small
annexation prevented the city’s consultant from considering deleting the larger Cascade Valley
UGA.
Before I make the following comment, I will be the first to acknowledge that land use regulations
in Washington State are complex, disjointed, and ever-changing, so I cannot always be confident
that I am aware of each and every change as they occur. With that said, I do not believe that the
city staff’s assertion that properties, once annexed, cannot be ‘de-annexed’ is legally accurate.
In fact, RCW 35.16.010 specifically provides for de-annexation as follows:
As an alternate method, the legislative body of the city or town may by resolution submit a
proposal to the voters for excluding such a described area from the boundaries of the city or
town. The question shall be submitted at the next general municipal election if one is to be held
within one hundred eighty days or at a special election called for that purpose not less than
ninety days nor more than one hundred eighty days after the certification of sufficiency of the
petition or the passage of the resolution. The petition or resolution shall set out and describe the
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 263 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
territory to be excluded from the city or town, together with the boundaries of the city or town
as it will exist after such change is made.
Again, assuming RCW 35.16.010 is still the law of the State of Washington, staff gave the Planning
Commission erroneous information regarding the status of the Cascade Valley situation that
could/should have a significant impact on the conclusions of the city’s consultant. We would
certainly argue that it is much easier to serve North Mae Valley UGA Area 5 than Cascade Valley
so if UGA needs deleting, Cascade Valley is the obvious target. I think this is an additional
example of a ‘rush to decision’ without proper information. Cascade Valley should be part of the
overall discussion. The city’s consultant report should be sent back for additional analysis
regarding Cascade Valley.
Failure to Address and Account for Enhanced Revenues from Residential Growth:
The city consultant’s report doesn’t appear to account for, or quantify, the enhancement to the
city’s revenue based on employment growth and increased supplies of residential housing. We
hear, repeatedly, that ‘development into the UGAs isn’t ‘sustainable’ (there’s that buzzword again)
because of the costs to ‘service’ the new development. The statement belies reality and completely
fails to account for the enhanced revenues that the city reaps from any new development. Note that
it is not disputed that the current administration demands that developers pay for and build all new
infrastructure serving their projects. In many cases, there are concomitant agreements that also
require the developer to repay the city for infrastructure installed decades ago. Large permit fee
increases have also recently been implemented and various ‘impact fees’ are certain to be coming.
All of these costs fall on the developer, yet the staff and the city’s consultant continue to justify
their recommendations to limit growth on some phantom ‘cost’ analysis. That simply belies reality.
The Commission should note that there is a complete lack of analysis on the enormous amount of
additional revenue that the city reaps from new housing developments. There are massive rewards
to the city from sales taxes during construction, new retail, restaurant, and entertainment revenues
from the new residents, and depending on the project location, may benefit from a myriad of ad
valorem property taxes and assessments. Once the project is built out, the city can simply annex
the new homes and get a huge windfall in annual revenue.
Attached is an economic impact study on a large residential master planned project that I recently
visited in WIckenburg, Arizona. We are talking to and trying to get the developer of the
Wickenburg Ranch project interested in the Area 5 UGA and the greater Horizon property. There
is additional discussion about the Wickenburg Ranch project below in the section on Horizon, but
it bears mention here that the Wickenburg Ranch project generates $44 MILLION to the City of
Wickenburg if the project remains unincorporated and a whopping $104 MILLION if annexed into
the city.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 264 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
WICKENBURG RANCH – COMMUNITY CENTER
A similar example that I visited is a master planned project in San Tan Valley near the Phoenix
Mesa Gateway Airport and Boeing facility. The project, Encanterra, once built, actually sought to
incorporate itself as a city. The adjoining city of Queen Creek saw the huge revenue impacts that
annexing Encanterra would bring so they annexed it. Queen Creek (population 42,000) is now a
premier city with spectacular new retail and restaurant amenities and a world class cardiac care
hospital generated largely from enhanced revenues from the Encanterra project.
ENCANTERRA – COMMUNIY CENTER
So the question is, how can a consultant come to a conclusion that developing a premier master
planned environment – or even just regular large-format subdivisions ala Hayden and Aho are not
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 265 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
‘sustainable’ from a cost standpoint to the city if they never perform a revenue analysis or
economic impact study? You can’t, which, in my opinion, further taints the recommendations.
Note also that no city budget is sustainable without growth unless the city starts eliminating
services. Inflation, wage increases, all march forward. If the city doesn’t embrace growth, it will
suffer.
SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS REGARDING DELETION OF UGA AREA 5 – NORTH MAE
VALLEY
Turning to item-specific issues, I want to focus on the proposed Deletion of UGA Area 5 identified
as North Mae Valley. ASPI- affiliate entities own 350 +/- acres in the UGA Area 5. Please refer
to my previous-submitted statement on this area. The following are new comments based on what
was said at the September 2nd workshop session where I was not given an opportunity for input.
I want to highlight a question that two Commissioners asked of staff at the September 2 workshop,
specifically, if the concerns expressed in the three ASPI letters from the August 26 workshop had
been addressed and if they had any response.
This was City Manager, Allison William’s, verbatim response (See recording at 52:32):
“Well, I think those [ASPI’s detailed letters] are a part of the record and a part of, um, your
discussion. I think the staff reports have identified, um, recommendations, um, on the requests
and I think those the letter and, um, the staff report is consistent with the staff’s thinking there,
um, I’ll tell you from, from, uh, a long term sustainability perspective the city has a lot of work
to do to simply get up to speed and sustainable in terms of our service of our existing boundaries
and, uh, and we have to do it in a manner that is sustainable for our population and, um, when
you read the housing element and the, um, and get a sense of our demographics, I just am, am
struck by the poverty so we we, um, eh, the capital facilities plan identifies the the needs of our
urban services and, um, and and this is a financing strategy and I know, um, it is, um, there is
much consideration, uh, you know, from the development community that they are taking on
the burden to build, um, however, the city has to plan for the long term sustainability for the
long term maintenance and operations and the city it’s incumbent by us by, uh, through growth
management that we are assuring that when we we allow growth to happen that the
improvements, um, are concurrent so that we have adequate transportation facilities and urban
services and, um, I think that is the policy question for the Planning Commission and the City
Council to weigh is do we have a plan currently that can support expansion or do we need to
take, uh, this in steps and make sure that we get our house in order and then we have that
annual opportunity to review, uh, our urban growth area and update our growth numbers and
to look at expansions that may or may not have been made in our utilities and readjust, um, so
I think that is a long way of saying that, um, you have before you, um, you know, a land use
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 266 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
memo with recommendations, a comp plan with recommendations, and then you are the body
that gets to weigh that, uh, input, and and, uh, make a recommendation. Um, it’s hard for me.
I came from a place where I was encouraging development [laughs]. I, I just, um, we have a lot
that needs to get put into place and it’s the numbers are significant, um. Right now we have
WSDOT doing an analysis of the Yonezawa, uh, Highway 17 interchange and they’re looking
at the growth numbers provided by Perteet [sp?], uh, and they’ve been telling us you don’t want
to know what is going to be needed to upgrade this intersection because I think it is more than
anyone anticipated in order to handle the growth that has been allowed through a new hospital,
a school, hotels, the commercial, what is projected for that area and so this a long way of saying
what is getting presented to you is a holistic, uh, well thought out plan that takes our growth in
stages, uh, and lets us grow into ourselves essentially.”
That is clearly a non sequitur response to the question and, in my opinion, a direct intention to
avoid answering any of the specific questions/concerns that ASPI raised regarding housing supply,
employment creation, or economic development.
Please consider what the City Manager is saying. She uses the term ‘sustainable’ and ‘concurrent’
frequently but never defines what they mean. No growth will ever occur in your community if all
services must be in place before growth occurs. That, again, is a fallacy of the ‘progressive’
planning model and its mantra ‘concurrency’. Moses Lake, unlike many munipalities, requires
developers to build out the infrastructure to serve development. The City Manager acknowledges
that. When no growth is allowed, no infrastructure gets built and you end up in the desired no-
growth death spiral. Note that your City Manager is lamenting that you are getting a wonderful
new hospital, new high school, new hotels, and new commercial development (assuming the LDS
Temple as included in her description of new development ‘projected for that area’) in the
Yonezawa area because the city might incur some costs to improve an intersection. Note also that
the Yonezawa area is at least 7 miles, as the crow flies, from the North Mae Valley UGA Area 5.
Notice how the City Manager openly laughs when describing her previous job as “encouraging
development” - an apparent admission that she is now discouraging development – or she wouldn’t
be laughing. Note her comment “when we allow growth to happen...” This has played out with
recent demands for ‘neighborhood meetings’, her suggestions for huge new cost burdens to
develop industrial properties, and suggestions for massive fee increases – all of which present
additional obstacles to development, make Moses Lake less competitive, and will limit growth.
Note also the bizarre response to your questions about the specific issues that ASPI raised, that she
is “struck by the poverty.” What does that have to do with ASPI trying to attract a master planned
community developer to the North Mae Valley UGA area? It also begs the question why you
wouldn’t want more jobs, more economic opportunities, more retail, and more affordable housing
options? Does she believe that $500,000 townhomes in downtown Moses Lake will help the
‘poverty’ issue?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 267 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
The City Manager’s description of this process as a “well thought out plan” is simply laughable.
I find all of this to be consistent with our belief that the unidentified ‘staff’ has a no-growth
predisposition on these issues and ASPI’s concerns that it may incur millions of dollars of potential
damage and have catastrophic consequences on our efforts to bring jobs to the community are
nothing but a nuisance in the process. Staff seems to be openly inviting litigation as the only form
of relief. Unfortunately, we are already seeing this play out with the recent lawsuit filed against
the city by Hayden Homes and the frequency of powerful land use law firms becoming more and
more engaged in what should be straight forward and welcomed land use applications.
UGA AREA 5 – SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
During the September 2 workshop, there appeared to be considerable confusion between the
consultant’s report recommending deletion of the North Mae Valley UGA which currently
includes approximately 350 acres of the 4,000-acre property referred to as Horizon and the much
larger opportunities to expand the UGA to accommodate a larger master planned Horizon
environment as set forth in the exhibits submitted previously. It was frustrating that neither staff
nor the city’s consultant stepped in to separate the two discussions. Perhaps the goal was to use
the larger UGA expansion opportunity to eliminate the existing 350-acre UGA parcel. Throwing
the baby out with the bath water, I suppose.
Discussion of the North Mae Valley UGA that did occur was focused on the availability of, and
cost of servicing, the subject North Mae Valley area with city utilities. Commissioner ‘Erik’
questioned why there was no long-term planning identified in the report for increasing utilities and
services in the Mae Valley area. He specifically asked if it was simply a lack of planning or
“intentional”. (See recording at 25:08)
City Manager, Allison Williams, responded to Erik’s question as follows (See recording at 25:12):
“Erik, there were some ‘place holders’ left in the, in the plan, so, um, when we, um, launched
into this process, um, we realized that, um, the city was deficient on much of the, uh, long
range planning particularly in our utility planning so we immediately, um, worked with one
of the, one of the firms that was working with our team, it’s Perteet (sp?), uh, to do a sub
area for transportation needs for Mae Valley, um, but then, uh, you will read in the plan that
the plan, uh, identifies that we have updates to do [laughs] and so once we get our land use
and our urban growth area established this is also setting out a whole course of work for the
city to get those associated utility plans up to date as well so we’ll know what we are bound
to serve and we’ve got to figure out a way to get those plans updated”.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 268 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
This statement by the City Manager raises significant questions both in the deficiencies of process
and substantively, as it relates to the UGA Area 5.
The first critical question it raises is why it took an outside consultant to inform the City Manager
that the transportation plan and utility plans required updating? She discloses that they have left
‘place holders’ in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to insert key transportation and
utility elements sometime in the future. How can you approve amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan with huge holes still waiting analysis as admitted by the City Manager? Who is “Perteet”?
How were they hired? What is there function? Why does this require an outside ‘consultant’ again?
Are they doing work that city staff should be performing? Who is directing them on tasks and
input?
I note that this same “Perteet” firm is mentioned by the City Manager in another area stating that
they were responsible ‘for the population numbers’. No member of a “Perteet” firm has ever
contacted me to discuss projected major new employment growth, the I-90 Connector project as
affecting Mae Valley, or the ability of Horizon to supply large water resources and potential areas
for new sewer treatment facilities. Are we invisible or being intentionally excluded?
The gravamen of the staff’s recommendations is that utilities are not available in the UGA 5 Area
North Mae Valley area. This, again, is patently false. When Moses Point was developed, city water
and sewer services were extended to the golf course. A city water well is located in the middle of
UGA Area 5 on Road F. We have had discussions with both the city and the owners of the golf
course about participating in upgrades to the water system and sewer facilities including
construction of new storage tanks and variable speed fire flow pumps. Additional housing in the
area will provide these upgrades and also provide great benefit to the economic viability of the
golf course. To not disclose that to the Planning Commission was disingenuous, at best.
We have also had discussions with city staff about extending the water and sewer approximately
1.5 miles to the existing Horizon UGA area. City staff has provided construction information that
the cost of said extensions is typically $100/linear foot or in this case, about $750,000. Our private
contractors have estimated the cost to be much less at about $500,000. Regardless of what value
you use, it is a minor cost for a 350-acre master planned community. In fact, two lots directly
adjacent to the Horizon UGA parcel, in the Panorama subdivision, just sold for about $300,000
each. The cost of the water extension would equate to two lots out of a 350-acre development.
That is not cost-prohibitive. As noted in the material submitted for the August 26 workshop,
Horizon also has a 1600-acre foot water right that could be accessed for any Horizon UGA
development in lieu of city water. We have contractors and developers working on a Membrane
Bio Reactor option as a satellite solution for wastewater until city sewer was closer.
When confronted with costs that are manageable for a development to absorb, Allison Williams
then changes her focus to non-utility costs that the city might incur – such as fire and police
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 269 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
protection. Again, I would describe this as a ‘red-herring’. Note as stated above, that Allison
Williams completely avoids the analysis of enhanced revenues that would be generated from a
development in the area to offset those costs and further avoids a discussion on typical interlocal
agreements where perhaps Grant County continues to police the area and Grant Fire continues to
provide fire protection until the city could reap the windfall of tax base through a future annexation.
Those are all solutions to be discussed but are foreclosed at the starting gate without a UGA
designation to attract a development entity to the conversation.
Although I covered this in my August 26 submittal, it warrants repeating here that ‘in-fill-only’ as
the solution for the city’s twenty-year growth is a complete fallacy. Has the City Manager
identified a single development entity interested in, or capable of, providing hundreds of single-
family housing units on existing parcels in the urban core?
I will remind the Commission that ASPI has been a major economic development driver for the
community. We are in continuous engagement with the Washington State Department of
Commerce, the Port of Moses Lake, and Grant County EDC to recruit new aerospace and industrial
employers. These projects have been an economic bonanza to the City of Moses Lake. They
include Genie, BMW/SGL Carbon Fiber, Fuji Chemical, US KDK, and most recently the Boeing
Return to Service Center for the 737 MAX. It also includes recruitment of major retailers like
Marshall’s, Sportsman’s Warehouse, and Winco. We are currently engaged with several prospect
employers – including a major aerospace employer – that could bring more than 1,000 new
aerospace jobs to the community.
I would note an article in the Columbia Basin Herald today that State Representative Tom Dent
just brought a bus load of state legislators to tour Grant County International Airport and our
aerospace employers including a bi-partisan group from the west side. They were extremely
impressed with what they saw. Kudos to Representative Dent. This visit will provide terrific
support for our efforts in recruiting. How do you think they would have responded if
Representative Dent told them that the city is impeding the housing supply that new employers
need?
Without significant, easy-to-build, standby UGA areas, where does staff and the city’s consultant
propose we build housing to accommodate a sudden influx of 1,000+ new workers? They can’t
possibly be serious that this could occur within the urban ‘in-fill’ area. That is simply absurd. Am
I supposed to quickly find 30, 40, 50 downtown property owners willing to sell their small tracts,
find builders willing to construct a hodgepodge of disjointed product, try to get dozens and dozens
of individual site permits when the city can’t handle the work load they have now? I continue to
ask this question and get no response. I interpret this as ‘staff’ doesn’t want any more high-paying
industrial jobs. In fact, Allison Williams told me several weeks ago that ‘maybe we need to focus
less on industrial jobs and more on ‘artisan industries’ and ‘craft businesses’ like wineries and
brew pubs.’
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 270 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
As I have stated ad nauseum, without the ability to represent to these large employers that we have
development-ready residential inventory available, we will lose the opportunity for these high-
paying jobs to our competition in Arizona (see Eastmark as an example adjacent to the Phoenix
Mesa Gateway Airport), Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina – all places where Boeing is active.
When the 737s were grounded, ASPI immediately reached out to Boeing to offer our 137-acre
ASPI Airpark as a solution. This eventually brought 700 jobs to Moses Lake. One of the key
concerns was lack of available housing – with Boeing workers seeking housing as far away as
Wenatchee, the Tri-cities, and Spokane. Of course, the 737 project is officially ‘temporary’ so
workers were able to find a variety of temporary and shared living options – some commuting
weekly from the Puget Sound. But had this been a permanent project, the lack of housing response
would have likely kept those 700 jobs from benefitting the community.
We rely on the North Mae Valley UGA area for immediate potential master planned housing so
that we can also have residential developers and builders pre-programmed to respond to a major
employer opportunity. I am able to represent to the prospect employers that we have regional and
national developers and homebuilders standing ready to meet their housing needs. I simply cannot
do that on an ‘in-fill’ basis. Anyone who asserts the ‘in-fill mantra’, in my opinion, has no idea
how industrial recruitment occurs. It goes without saying that having the Moses Point golf course
in the middle of North Mae Valley UGA area and miles of waterfront access are huge amenities
that give us credibility with both the employers and the development community. Why, on earth,
would anyone want to just throw that away?
As a side note, it cannot be overlooked that the same industrial jobs are what drive retail
development and the massive revenue impact it has on the city. Our industrial achievements were
the catalyst for all of the new retail in Moses Lake. Like industrial, if I were to tell retailers that
the city isn’t interested in providing larger scale housing to meet the needs of industrial employees,
retail would be severely constrained. Retail relies on employee statistics and rooftops. If their
revenues don’t continue to grow, they will curtail operations in Moses Lake. This, again, begs the
question of where in the city’s consultant report is there any discussion on these issues. Did they
talk to the EDC? Did they talk to Commerce? Did they talk to the Port of Moses Lake?
I also wanted to address a comment made by Melissa Bethel where she, essentially, said that
‘deleting the North Mae Valley UGA Area was no big deal’ because it could be reinstated at any
time during the annual round of county Comprehensive Plan amendments. Again, in my opinion,
this is either terribly naïve and/or intentionally misleading. Once a UGA is deleted, and I have a
major employer ready to go, we would have to apply to the county for another comp plan
amendment. Melissa fails to acknowledge that the county applications are due March 31 of any
year - Comp Plan amendments only occur once each year. So, if a need for additional UGA arises
to accommodate a sudden employment surge in April, we have to wait a whole year just to make
the application with the county, then wait another year for the application to be processed. Then
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 271 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
find a developer willing to wait. Then take another year for the city to process land use applications
and building permits. All while staff has made it clear that they would not support a return of a
UGA area because they are demanding ‘in-fill’. It is extremely naïve to think a prospect employer
is going to wait three or four years on the outside chance additional UGA would be approved. That
employer will be gone. Note I am currently working with a major new prospect employer that
wants their facility operational in 10 months – not three years..
I should also point out that the staff’s recommendation to terminate the North Mae Valley UGA
will, itself, put the whole North Mae Valley UGA Area into more than a year of ‘limbo’. What am
I supposed to tell the developer/builders we are currently working with? That they may not want
to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars in planning and engineering because the city is about
to jerk the rug out from under them? But, who knows for sure – maybe in a year or so we should
know? That puts us in an impossible predicament.
The Larger Horizon Master Planned Environment Requiring Additional UGA:
Finally, I want to address the other ‘leg’ of the Horizon confusion – the big Horizon master planned
community and request for UGA expansion. I covered this extensively in my August 26
memorandum and the application itself. There were, again, significant misrepresentations made at
the September 2 workshop that need further clarification.
To briefly refresh, Horizon represents 4,000 acres and almost six miles of lakefront. It is an
unparalleled opportunity for the community to create a premier master planned community. The
request to expand the UGA farther into the Horizon property is a wholly separate issue from the
recommendation to delete the existing North Mae Valley UGA 5 Area.
Discussion at the 9/2 workshop by the city’s consultant and staff suggested that the city would be
unable to serve the larger Horizon property with city services. I want you to know that as the
largest industrial and residential landowner in the city, and despite providing them with
information, I was never contacted by the city’s consultant to discuss Horizon in detail. One has
to wonder, how well grounded is the report from the city’s consultant when they don’t engage a
discussion on the biggest residential growth opportunity for the city in a generation? Were they
instructed not to engage us?
Horizon has an existing 1600-acre foot water right. Under current DOE/DOH protocols that is
enough water to supply about 5,000 homes. We have discussed with the city for years the prospect
of developing Horizon as a ‘stand-alone’ master planned community that would rely on its own
water resources for development. Similarly, we have discussed with the city, for years, the use of
both package membrane bio-reactor sewer systems as a stand-alone option and the potential to
construct a new municipal sewer treatment plant with Horizon donating the land that could serve
the entire Mae Valley area as far west as Hiawatha Road. Of course, all internal infrastructure
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 272 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
would be done at the cost of the developer. We could provide ‘free’ school sites, police and fire
stations, and massive public amenities. Was any of this discussed with the city’s consultant? It
doesn’t appear it was.
As stated above, I recently traveled to Arizona to meet with a developer of a large master planned
community outside the town of Wickenburg. Wickenburg is about 90 minutes from Phoenix and
was a town of about 10,000 people. It has no industry and is widely known for a rodeo school. The
developer I met purchased the former family ranch of TV mogul Merv Griffin. They proposed and
built a spectacular master planned community known as Wickenburg Ranch just outside of town.
The project has transformed the community.
Attached is an economic impact study for the Wickenburg Ranch project. I provided this to staff
and various county officials as well. You will note that they included two revenue analysis for the
project. One assumes that the city of Wickenburg annexes the stand-alone project. That analysis
shows a revenue return to the city of almost $104 MILLION in 2014 dollars. If the city chose to
leave the project as unincorporated, the revenue to the city would still be $43 MILLION in 2014
dollars. You could take this valuation and apply it to Horizon – maybe with a multiplier – taking
into account Horizon’s proximity to the massive Grant County International Airport employment
center and its waterfront environment.
I have also discussed with city staff projects here in Washington including Tehaleh (Pierce County,
Bonney Lake), Ten Trails (King County. Black Diamond), Suncadia (Kittitas County, Cle Elum),
and The Lookout (Chelan, Chelan County). I have pleaded with staff to look at Mesa, Arizona,
(Eastmark – built on an ex-GM test track), Denton and Sugarland, Texas…these are communities
we compete with offering spectacular master planned environments. Querie – was the city’s
consultant aware of these discussions? Are they aware of these economic projections? Why would
the city deny the community the opportunity for a once in a generation premier development? Why
would the city’s consultant recommend to the city that they forego hundreds of millions of dollars
of future revenue? Is that prudent ‘planning’?
There was a question from a Commissioner (See recording at 38:03) inquiring about ‘access to
Walmart’ from any master planned development in the Horizon or North Mae Valley UGA Area.
Of course, any large master planned development at the larger Horizon would include provisions
within the Development Agreement for commercial uses within the project boundaries to serve the
development. As I heard the question, I wondered, ironically, how many times Moses Lake
residents drive all the way to East Wenatchee to go to Costco because Moses Lake doesn’t have
enough ‘rooftops’ to get a Costco of its own?
Another Commissioner commented that he would anticipate that a large Horizon master planned
community would likely include provisions for a secondary lake crossing that would provide direct
access to the Grant County International Airport employment center. He was correct. What was
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 273 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
troubling is that both Allison Williams and Melissa Bethel were silent on that issue, again
preventing the Planning Commission from getting the full picture.. ASPI, the Port of Moses Lake,
the City, and the County have been engaged in discussions for about a year on re-energizing the
prospects of a secondary lake crossing that would not only allow direct employee access to the
airport but also divert truck traffic from downtown Moses Lake directly from the Hiawatha Road
I-90 interchange to the airport.
This project would have significant benefits to the city’s traffic and transportation elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. A draft interlocal agreement to allow the county to proceed as lead agency
is pending and in circulation. ASPI has pledged to donate all the right-of-way through Horizon to
accommodate the project. It should be noted that this is not a ‘new’ project. This is a revitalization
of the same project that was the subject of a major study by The Transpo Group prior to the
recession. I am attaching a copy of the report. So, my question is, why didn’t Allison Williams or
Melissa Bethel inform the Planning Commission about the potential project in response to the
question on potential access to the employment centers? One of the ‘drivers’ for the project would
be contributions from a master planned community at Horizon – thereby needing an expanded
UGA!
As an attorney this picking and choosing of what information the Planning Commission is given
is troubling. One of the stated goals of the Open Public Meetings Act was to insure that all parties
have access to and are apprised of the information. If the staff is withholding information relevant
to the discussion, how can you be expected to make an informed decision? It also begs the question
on whether the city’s consultant was made aware of the proposed I-90 Connector project and the
impacts it would have on traffic in downtown? If not, why not? These are questions that I would
think the Planning Commission would want answered before moving forward.
CONCLUSION:
Thank you, again, for your consideration. I apologize for the length of these comments and our
prior submissions. I hope you can understand our concerns about the process, input parameters,
and recommendations of the consultant’s report. Our company invests millions of dollars in your
community in our ongoing efforts to create great family wage jobs, create millions and millions of
dollars of new tax base, and bring in premier retailers that pump massive amounts of sales tax
revenue into the city coffers. We have brought a valuable colleague and made him available to the
discussion at no cost to the city, Jim Warjone, one of the state’s most knowledgeable resources on
Growth Management and master planned communities. I hope you can understand our frustration
when new city staff and ‘consultants’ are hired that seemingly have no respect for what we have
accomplished for Moses Lake and little or no respect for the knowledge base that we have
developed and are always willing to share. These proposed changes will likely have a catastrophic
effect on our ability to continue to recruit and retain our industrial employers and will create
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 274 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
millions of dollars in damage to our portfolio value. We feel completely disenfranchised, our
efforts and years of investment and ‘partnership’ with the city all for naught. It falls on deaf ears.
And for no apparent reason.
I want to reiterate that we support revitalization efforts for the downtown core but why does that
have to come at the expense of our larger scale master planned communities in the Mae Valley
area?
I would ask that you leave the North Mae Valley UGA Area 5 in the Comprehensive Plan so
that we can continue our efforts to attract new employers and develop new housing that
employees and employers actually want. It is costing the city nothing.
Sincerely yours,
Kim Foster
Corporate Counsel
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 275 of 883
Fiscal and Economic Impact Study for Wi k b R h M tPl dWickenburg Ranch, a Master-Planned Community in Wickenburg, ArizonaPrepared by Taylor Mammen, Principal, RCLCO | March 17, 2014Robert Charles Lesser & Co. Real Estate Advisors | rclco.comMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 276 of 883
KEY FACTS ABOUT RCLCO•Founded in 1967 in Los Angeles, California•RCLCO is the leading knowledge solutions provider to the real estate industry•RCLCO provides real estate economics, strategic planning, management consulting andimplementation services to real estate investors, developers, financial institutions, publicagencies, and anchor institutions•Headquartered in the Washington, D.C. area, with offices in California, Florida, and TexasWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20142Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 277 of 883
RCLCO ADVISORY GROUPSCommunity and Resort Advisory• Master-Planned CommunitiesSi lFilT hPublic Strategies• Local, State, and Federal GovernmentRi lPl i O iti•Single-Family, Townhomes• Active Adult Communities• Independent, Assisted Living, CCRC• Second Home Communities•Regional Planning Organizations• Redevelopment Authorities• Transit Agencies• Chambers of Commerce• Conservation Communities• Beach, Mountain, Lake Resorts• Casino, Marina• Economic Development Organizations• Business Improvement DistrictsUrban Real Estate AdvisoryStrategic Planning• Capital Formation Strategies• Corporate, Business Unit, Portfolio, or Asset Level Strategies• Apartments, Condominiums•Office• Retail• R&D/Industrialg• Performance Audit• Litigation Support ServicesInstitutional Advisory• Mixed-Use • Lifestyle/Entertainment Centers• University/Medical CampusInstitutional Advisory• Asset Portfolio Strategy• Sector Strategy• Manager SelectionManagement & MonitoringWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 2014•Management & Monitoring3Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 278 of 883
CONSULTING TO THE PUBLIC SECTORFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedThDl tCt tiFiscal Impact Analysis and SupportingMktAlifMltiSelected Engagements (2013)• RCLCO has unsurpassed experience withfiscalandeconomicimpactstudiesforTownhomeDevelopment;CatoctinCircle, Leesburg, VA (Loudoun County)Revenue and Economic Analysis forHampton Inn and Suites; CarolinaBeach, SCMarketAnalysisfor aMultiuseDevelopment; Loudoun County, VAFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis ofCity Place Mall RepositioningFiscalImpactAnalysisforMarketSquarefiscalandeconomicimpactstudiesforlocal governments, school districts, privatedevelopers, etc.• Local governments are often interested inFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis fora Mixed-Use Development; Falls Church,VAFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedRehabilitation Hospital; Chesapeake, VAFiscalImpactAnalysisforMarketSquareat Potomac Station; Leesburg, VAFiscal Impact Analyses for BraddockSouth Village, Wildwood Active AdultCommunity, and Lexington 7 TownhomeDevelopment; Loudoun County, VAthe potential future fiscal impact of thegrowth coming to their area and theeconomic impacts generated.FiscalImpactStudies:EstimaterevenuesDirect and Indirect Economic andRevenue Analysis of Planned JBGDevelopment Activity; Fairfax County, VAEconomic and Fiscal Impact Analysis ofJBGDevelopmentActivityinSelectedFiscal Impact Analysis Whole FoodsAnchored 132,000 Square FootShopping Center; Huntsville, ALFiscal Impact and Proffers Analysis ofWaltonwoodAshburnContinuingCare•FiscalImpactStudies:Estimaterevenuesand expenditures to be generated by thegrowth and development. The projectednet fiscal impact is calculated to determineJBGDevelopmentActivityinSelectedWashington Metropolitan Area Sub-MarketsSupplementary Direct and IndirectEconomic and Revenue Analysis ofPlanned Fort Totten SouthWaltonwoodAshburnContinuingCareFacility; Ashburn, VAFiscal Impact Analysis of PlannedMultiuse Development; Leesburg, VA(Loudoun County)cost-benefit to the jurisdiction.•Economic Impact Studies: Utilize marketanalysis data and projections for individuallandsecategoriestoestimateeconomicDevelopment; Washington, D.C.Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis ofNuckols-Rhodes Tract; Henrico County,VAFi lItAlifPl dFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis ofRedevelopment of the Old Post Office;Washington, D.C.landusecategoriestoestimateeconomicimpact in terms of direct, indirect, andinduced effects on the economy.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 2014FiscalImpactAnalysisfor aPlannedOutlet Center4Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 279 of 883
PROJECT OVERVIEW•Wickenburg Ranch is a master-plannedcommunityjustnorthoftheTownofcommunityjustnorthoftheTownofWickenburg.•The community would contain 3,125residential units:o~1,800 age-restricted homeso~1,300 primary homeso24 rental casitas to be marketed as“Stay and Play” units•Non-Residential Uses:oGolfCourseoGolfCourseoClubhouseoRestaurantoFitness CenterSoSpao120-room resortWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20145Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 280 of 883
PROJECT OVERVIEW (CONT.)()•Home would be sold over the course of 10 years – approximately 310 homes per yearo180age-restrictedhomesperyearo180agerestrictedhomesperyearo130 primary homes per year•This sales pace should be achievable given the following development characteristics:oVarietyofproduct segments rangingfrom conventional homes to large lots in both age-ypgggggrestricted and primary home settingsoFull amenity program – golf course, club house, spa, fitness, activities, etc.oPartnership with and sales to well-respected and recognized regional and national homebuildersparticularlyfortheagerestrictedhomesbuilders,particularlyfortheage-restrictedhomes400 450 500 es150200 250 300 350 nnual Home SalePrimaryAge-Resticted-50 100 150 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10AnWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20146Source: Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 281 of 883
OBJECTIVESThe objective of RCLCO’s fiscal and economic impact study is to project the revenues and costs totheTownofWickenburgasaresultofthedevelopmentofWickenburgRanchundertwotheTownofWickenburgasaresultofthedevelopmentofWickenburgRanchundertwoscenarios: 1) Wickenburg Ranch is annexed into the Town and 2) Wickenburg Ranch remains inunincorporated Yavapai County. This process included the following analyses:•Determine the net fiscal impact that theproposed WickenburgRanch development wouldpppgpprovide to the Town of Wickenburg (revenues minus expenditures):oEstimate the future revenues to be generated by Wickenburg Ranch for the Town ofWickenburg’s general fund, including sales tax, property tax, building permits, andmiscellaneous sources of revenue. In addition, estimate projected revenues for theWickenburg # 9 School District.oProject the future expenses to be incurred bythe Town of Wickenburg and the Wickenburg#9 School District as a result of the development of Wickenburg Ranch.•Assess the change in total economic activity (direct, indirect, and induced) in the Town ofWickenburg and in broader Maricopa County generated by the development and operation ofWi k bRhWickenburgRanch.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20147Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 282 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT – METHODOLOGYDetermine Fiscal Impact CategoriesReview Wickenburg Ranch DevelopmentReview Wickenburg Ranch Development Plans and Pro FormaReview Fund BudgetsCalculateRevenuesCalculateRevenuesGeneral Fund• Property Tax• Sales Tax/TPTSchool District• Property Tax•Impact Fees• Building Permit Fees• Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public ServicespCalculate ExpendituresGeneral FundSchool DistrictDetermine Net Fiscal Impact (Revenues Minus Expenditures)WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20148Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 283 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)TYPES OF IMPACTSTYPES OF IMPACTSWICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXEDCOSTSNEUTRALREVENUES●Town Services●Utilities●General Fund Property Tax●School District Services●Sales Tax/TPT●Building Permit Fees●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public Services●School District Property Tax●School District Impact FeesWICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXEDCOSTSNEUTRALREVENUES●Town Services●Fire District Property Tax●School District Services●Sales Tax/TPT●Charges/Fees/Revenues from Public ServicesServices●School District Property Tax●School District Impact FeesWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 20149Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg #9 School District; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 284 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTSSUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS$6,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $, ,RevenuesExpenditures$3,000,000$3,500,000 $0$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 Net Impact$0 •Duringtheconstructionperiod(2014-2025)WickenburgRanchwouldgenerateageneralfund•Duringtheconstructionperiod(2014-2025),WickenburgRanchwouldgenerateageneralfundsurplus: $16 million or average $1.4 million per year.• After build-out, the net fiscal impact is less clear: the Town states its intention to manageexpendituresaccordingtonewincrementalrevenuesofapproximately$6million/yearWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201410expendituresaccordingtonewincrementalrevenuesofapproximately$6million/year.Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 285 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)WICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXEDWICKENBURG RANCH IS ANNEXED•Miscellaneous Revenues ($45 million):GtdftiflGeneral Fund Revenue CategoriesFY 2014–FY 2033oGeneratedas afunction ofalargerpopulation and employment base.oIncludes administrative charges, fees, useofpublicfacilities(library)etcProperty TaxFY 2014 –FY 2033ofpublicfacilities(library),etc.•Sales Tax/TPT ($24.1 million): Resultingfrom increased spending in Wickenburg.Building Permit Fees$14,500,000 Property Tax$9,000,000 •Contracting Tax and Building Permit Fees($36.7 million): Generated by construction ofhomes and community facilities.PtT($9illi )RbdMiscellaneous Revenues$45,000,000 Contracting Tax$12,200,000 •PropertyTax($9million):Revenuesbasedon the value of the homes and communityfacilities.Note:doesnotincludeproposeddeveloperSales Tax/TPT$ , 00,000•Note:doesnotincludeproposeddeveloper-financed and subsidized water andwastewater treatment facilities.Tax/TPT$24,100,000 Total Revenues - $104,800,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201411Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 286 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)WICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXEDWICKENBURG RANCH IS NOT ANNEXED•$61.4 million less than if Wickenburg Ranchisannexed.General Fund RevenuesFY 2014–FY 2033isannexed.•Sales Tax/TPT ($15.8 million): Generated bynew household and visitor spending in theTown.Miscellaneous Revenues$2,500,000 FY 2014 –FY 2033•Fire District Tax ($25.1 million): Secondaryproperty tax to fund fire services for thecommunity (Wickenburg Ranch is located inthe Wickenburg Rural Fire District).•Miscellaneous Revenues ($2.5 million):Revenues generated by increased activityFire District Retail Sales Tax$15,805,000 from the population living in WickenburgRanch.Tax$25,100,000 Total Revenues - $43,405,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201412Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 287 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)ANNEXATION COMPARISONANNEXATION COMPARISON$8,000,000 Estimated Comparison of Wickenburg General Fund Revenues by Type, with and without $6,000,000 $7,000,000 yyAnnexation, FY 2014 – FY 2033WITH ANNEXATIONWITHOUT ANNEXATIONSales Tax Revenues$4,000,000 $5,000,000 Retail Sales Tax$16,900,000 $15,800,000Hotel/Motel Tax$3,600,000 $5,000Real Estate Rental Tax $2,400,000-Telecommunications Tax $1,200,000-Contracting Tax$12,200,000-$2,000,000 $3,000,000 gSub-Total$36,300,000 $15,805,000Property Tax Revenues$9,000,000-Fire District Tax$0 $1,000,000 456789023456789023Fire District Tax Revenues- $25,100,000Building Permit Revenues$14,500,000 -FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020FY 2021FY 2022FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028FY 2029FY 2030FY 2031FY 2032FY 2033Revenues (with Annexation)Revenues (without Annexation)Miscellaneous Revenues$45,000,000 $2,500,000Total Wickenburg General Fund Revenues$104,800,000 $43,405,000WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201413Source: Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOGeneral Fund RevenuesMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 288 of 883
FISCAL IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)SCHOOL DISTRICTSCHOOL DISTRICT$14,000,000$16,000,000 $18,000,000 $2 000 000$4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 RevenuesExpenditures$0 $2,000,000 •Wickenburg Ranch is located in the Wickenburg #9 School District.•Property Tax Revenues: $172.5 millionItF$660000Fhtit dhdldthdlill•ImpactFees:$660,000–Foreachnon age-restrictedhomedeveloped,thedeveloperwillpaya one-time $500 impact fee.•School district operating expenses would increase moderately—the majority of new homeswouldbeagerestrictedandnotincludeschoolagechildrenwouldbeage-restrictedandnotincludeschoolagechildren.•At build-out, we estimate the community would add 587 students to the school district creatingthe need for 57 additional teachers and staff.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201414Source: Wickenburg #9 School District; Town of Wickenburg; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 289 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT– METHODOLOGY•RCLCO utilized IMPLAN software in order to project the economic (employment) impacts of theproposedWickenburgRanchDevelopmentproposedWickenburgRanchDevelopment.•IMPLAN is a widely employed and respected software tool that creates a localized model toinvestigate the consequences of projected economic transactions in specific geographicregions.regions.•Based on the developer’s plans and pro forma, RCLCO estimated construction costs, consumerspending, and overall economic activity as inputs to the IMPLAN model.Directeffectsaredeterminedbyan“Event”asdefinedbytheuser(iea$10milliondollar•DirecteffectsaredeterminedbyanEventasdefinedbytheuser(i.e.a$10milliondollarconstruction budget has a $10 million dollardirecteconomic effect).•Theindirecteffects (impacts of local industries buying goods from other local industries) aredeterminedbytheamountofthedirecteffectthatisspentwithinthestudyregiononsuppliesdeterminedbytheamountofthedirecteffectthatisspentwithinthestudyregiononsupplies,services, labor, and taxes.•Inducedeffects measures the money that is re-spentin the study area as a result of spendingfromtheindirecteffect.Eachofthesestepsrecognizesanimportantleakagefromtheeconomicfromtheindirecteffect.Eachofthesestepsrecognizesanimportantleakagefromtheeconomicstudy region spent on purchases outside of the defined area. Eventually these leakages willstop the cycle.WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201415Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 290 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)EMPLOYMENTEMPLOYMENT1,400Projected Total Jobs Generated as a Result of Wickenburg Ranch’s Development800 1,000 1,200 1,400 School Jobs200 400 600 Indirect and Induced JobsOn-site - Construction JobsOn-site - Operations Jobs-•On-site (direct) EmploymentoPeak:– Operations – 120Construction480•Indirect & Induced Jobs oPeak – 660oAfter Build-Out – 170–Construction –480– Home Sales – 30oAfter Build-Out – 120WICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201416Source: IMPLAN Group; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 291 of 883
ECONOMIC IMPACT (FY 2014 – FY 2033)LABOR INCOME VALUE ADDED AND OUTPUTLABOR INCOME, VALUE ADDED, AND OUTPUTLabor IncomeOutputValue AddedInducedInducedInducedIndirectIndirectIndirectDirectDirectDirect-500 1,000 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpending- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpending- 500 1,000 1,500 MillionsOperationsConstructionSpendingWICKENBURG RANCH FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES | MARCH 17, 201417Source: IMPLAN Group; Wickenburg Ranch; RCLCOMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 292 of 883
Tl MTaylor MammenPrincipalPhone: (310) 282-0437tmammen@rclco.comRCLCO233 Wilshire Blvd.Suite 370Suite 370Santa Monica, CA 90401Tel: (310) 914-1800Fax: (310) 9141810Fax: (310) 914-1810www.rclco.comMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 293 of 883
Prepared By:
Transpo Group
11730 118thAvenue NE, Suite 600
Kirkland, WA98034-7120
(425) 821-3665
August 2009
Grant County
Moses Lake Crossing Study
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 294 of 883
August 2009
1
Executive Summary
Moses Lake has seen steady growth in the past decade thereby resulting in urban-type of congestion
issues. In addition regional transportation infrastructure has been built out resulting in additional highway
capacity along SR-17. However, key bottlenecks remain in the transportation system due to a singular
lake crossing and connection between SR-17 and I-90. In order for the region and surrounding areas to
continue strong economic growth, it is critical that a sufficient transportation infrastructure be provided
that would reduce the amount of “circuitous and out of the way” travel that results in additional costs to
motorists, freight haulers, and the public in general. This document summarizes a study conducted to
assess the feasibility and necessity of a second lake crossing.
Although near-term needs in and of themselves do not justify the construction of a second lake crossing,
the benefits of having a second bridge crossing to the north of Moses Lake sometime in the next 15 to 40
years are numerous. Time savings for freight and commuters to the current economic growth areas to
the north of the city would greatly benefit from the added access. Residents and emergency personnel
wound no longer be limited to only one available bridge crossing. Tourist would have greater access to
surrounding area activities and have a better perception of the central business district due to decreased
freight movement thru the area. Businesses would capitalize on the added route options surrounding the
added west side access and opened areas. Eastside residents would gain traffic relief along SR-17 thru
town and city maintenance costs would drop due to the reduction of heavy vehicles on local roads.
Although a demonstrated “need” cannot be quantified in the very near term, it is important for the area
representatives, residents, and businesses to continue to move forward toward the design and
implementation of a second bridge crossing. The next steps towards the goal of a new bridge crossing
include the development of an Environment Impact Statement, public and private outreach for route
development and support, and the continued identification and mediation of project obstacles that may
delay this essential area improvement.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 295 of 883
August 2009
2
What is the Purpose of this Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route
Feasibility Study?
The Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route Feasibility Study has been conducted in response to
regional business concerns about access to the west side of Moses Lake and I-90. Local representatives
and residents have observed increased congestion and safety issues associated with the current single
connection between the east and west sides of Moses Lake.
This planning level study evaluates the why, what, where, and potential benefits in the long-term (20 to 50
years) of a potential second lake crossing location. The study identifies alternative locations and the
feasibility of those lake crossings. Local stakeholders involved in this study provided input and direction
in development of alternatives intended to provide connectivity and circulation in and around Moses Lake,
SR 17, and I-90 and identification of issues.
The purpose of an additional lake crossing is to improve the movement of people and goods
across Moses Lake between the northern area of the city and I-90 on the west side of the lake. A
potential new connection would eliminate the added travel distance, time, and cost associated with the
current routing of vehicle south on SR-17 to I-90.
Is a Second Lake Bridge Crossing Needed?
In the context of near term funding and infrastructure needs, a second lake crossing does not have high
likelihood and need. However, this study is intended to lay the groundwork such that corridors can begin
to be preserved and locations identified for a long-term bridge crossing location and its associated
improvements. The City of Moses Lake and the surrounding areas have continued to grow and pressure
the existing transportation infrastructure. Growth in the area has resulted in congestion and economic
costs for the area which will only continue to grow without additional transportation infrastructure. As the
area continues to develop it also becomes more difficult to preserve a corridor for any potential future
transportation infrastructure.
Without additional circulation
alternatives in the future,
existing intersections along SR
17 will become increasingly
congested while attempting to
serve a mix of local, through
and freight traffic. Delays
currently identified on SR-17
thru Moses Lake are a result of:
• At Grade Rail Crossings
• Seven Traffic Signals
• Reduced Speeds in the
Urban Area
• Future Congestion
Pinch Points Due to
Lack of Viable North
Bypass
Existing and Future Delays for SR 17 to 1-90.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 296 of 883
August 2009
3
In addition to delays, as a result of a singular lake crossing several other negative impacts on area
activities exist including:
• Increased City road maintenance costs
• Limited future economic development opportunities on the east side due to congestion
• Decreased tourist appeal for Central Business District due to limited connectivity throughout town
• Lack of emergency access redundancy
This feasibility study outlines the benefits, challenges, and path forward to a new lake crossing which
would minimize and reduce the costly delays, congestion, safety concerns, and missed economic
opportunities that exist with a singular lake crossing.
Several key economic area leaders were contacted to receive input on the potential for a second lake
crossing. The following is a summary of those leaders comments regarding the issue.
Areas that would benefit from the Moses Lake bridge crossing.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 297 of 883
August 2009
4
Perspectives on Why a Second Lake Bridge Crossing is Needed from
Regional Economic Leaders?
“The Port of Moses Lake believes that a future outer bridge crossing of the Lake is extremely
important for purposes of freight mobility and economic development, and recommends that a
corridor be preserved for routing of this crossing. Currently all freight coming into and out of the
Port industrial properties has to come through downtown Moses Lake, with no alternate bypass.
This crossing would allow for freight to be moved from I-90 to SR 17 via a more direct route,
eliminating the truck traffic on city streets. This would also enhance economic development, as
three items are important to prospective businesses: air service, rail service and highway
access.”
Craig L. Baldwin
Executive Manager
Port of Moses Lake
“The proposed north lake crossing and lake loop road is a much needed component of the
greater Moses Lake area transportation infrastructure. The project has the potential to produce
tremendous economic and social benefits for this region of Grant County for the remainder of
the 21st Century.”
Terry L. Brewer, CEcD
Executive Director
Grant County Economic Development Council
“As a Port Manager, there is absolutely no way to “sell” manufacturing growth in this area
without both a current strong logistics path in and out of the Ephrata/Moses Lake area as well
as a long term plan for sustaining that path. This project must establish the intended corridor so
that it may be preserved for our future growth, safety and economic development.”
Michael Wren
Manager
Port of Ephrata
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 298 of 883
August 2009
5
Where Could a New Bridge be Located?
Preliminary planning for a new bridge
crossing location has centered on the
northern area of Moses Lake. Focus
has been given on a connection that
would allow southbound vehicles and
freight on SR-17 to gain access to I-90
without the costly delays associated
with travel through the city center and
surrounding developed areas.
Existing roadway infrastructure and
right-of-way on the west side allows
for several crossing alternatives that
would reduce overall project costs.
Direct access to the Port of Moses
Lake is desirable due to the current
amount of economic growth in the
area that would benefit from the
added access.
What are the Other
Possible Roadway
Connection
Improvements Associated with a New Lake Crossing?
Several options are available for potential arterial connections to a possible new bridge sites. The west
side of Moses Lake has several existing roadway facilities that either currently, or with minor upgrades,
would be able to connect to the various possible bridge crossing locations. Each possible arterial
improvement would benefit a variety of important stakeholders and as such a key step in the bridge
crossing location would be to link arterial improvement/right-of-way/corridor preservation with the bridge
crossing. Potential north/south connecting arterial routes on the west side include:
• Hiawatha Road
• West Shore Drive
• Road E NE
It is recommended that any of the designated arterial connections be designed to a more urban standard
and sufficient right-of-way be set aside to accommodate all modes of travel including bikes and peds. It is
anticipated that no more than one travel lane would be required in each direction to accommodate future
travel demands. However, to facilitate efficient traffic flow, it is recommended that turn lanes be provided
at each key intersection.
Several locations have been identified, including alternatives
to reduce overall project costs.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 299 of 883
August 2009
6
What Land Use Changes Could Result From a New Crossing?
Improved connectivity and access to the west side of Moses Lake would make the area more desirable
for residential and commercial activities. Businesses wishing to capitalize on the future growth of the
west side and the availability of better access around the city will want to take advantage of the
connectivity that a new bridge would provide. Due to improved connectivity, it is likely that the urban
growth area would change and the land uses surrounding such an improvement project would intensify
due to the added access provided by a new bridge crossing.
The development of the opened areas to the west would result in future utilization of the new bridge. Trip
generation projections developed for the future economic development area would add to the utilization of
the new bridge and give added justification for the bridge crossing. Future long –term (30+ years from
2009) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) projections for the new bridge amount to 11,500 total vehicle trips.
This volume is typically supported by a two lane structure presented in this study report with potential for
Each possible bridge route would provide benefits for the variety of stakeholders.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 300 of 883
August 2009
7
a third lane for passing with grade issues given the anticipated freight activity on the bridge. This
projected volume was developed using surrounding area growth estimates and reasonable long term
planning assumptions to develop a high level planning bases for trip generation figures. It is important to
note that without the commitment to future development of the west side of Moses Lake that the feasibility
of a new bridge crossing to the north would be difficult to justify.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 301 of 883
August 2009
8
What Would a New Bridge Potentially Look Like?
How the new bridge crossing Moses Lake may ultimately look and function will be influenced by several
factors including:
• Lake crossing location
• Number of lanes
• Pedestrian and bicycle amenities
• Steepness of grade
• Height above the water
• Bridge approach conditions
• Type of construction materials
• Number of bridge piers/columns
• Lake and shoreline uses
• Environmental factors
• Aesthetics
• Budget
Lake Crossing Location
Location of the new bridge will be greatest single factor ultimately affecting how the bridge looks. Bridge
location influences other variables such as height, approach conditions, grade, material type, adjacent
uses, aesthetics, and environmental impacts. The most influential factors affecting bridge location are
quite often length, width, height, cost, and economic benefit. For a new bridge constructed at Randolph
Road / SR 17, the estimated bridge length would be approximately 3,100 feet.
A new crossing would accommodate traffic, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 302 of 883
August 2009
8
Number of Lanes
Although no formal travel demand modeling has been completed, a review of forecast traffic volumes
suggests that the required capacity for a new bridge crossing would most likely be two 12-foot lanes –
one in each direction. It is possible for alternate bridge locations to generate more or less traffic based on
adjacent land use and connecting destinations; however in any event it is likely that one lane in each
direction would provide sufficient capacity. Other factors influencing the number of lanes may include
steepness of grade; with any steep grade a second through lane in the uphill direction would facilitate
improved operations especially in light of the fact that freight would be a key user of a new bridge.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
The type, number, and width of pedestrian and bicycle amenities across the new bridge significantly
influences bridge width/cost, and may also significantly affect the perceived benefit of the bridge to the
surrounding community and businesses. Pedestrian sidewalks located on both sides of the bridge are
normally a minimum of 6 feet in width, and are not intended to support bicycle traffic. Bicycle lanes on
each side of the bridge are normally at least 5 feet in width and are constructed at-grade with adjacent
vehicle traffic – separated by the fog line. As an option to separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
each side of the bridge, a multi-use path a minimum of 12 feet wide may be considered on one side only
– separated from vehicle traffic by a solid barrier. It would be very important to provide for pedestrian and
bicycle amenities as these would help improve the overall connectivity of the trail, bicycle, and pedestrian
systems.
Grade Issues
Long steep upward grades at locations where significant heavy truck traffic is anticipated may require an
additional outside lane for trucks to climb in; allowing lighter vehicles to travel past them at normal
speeds. This would likely be the case for a new bridge constructed at Randolph Road / SR 17 where the
northern bluff overlooking Moses Lake is approximately 140 feet higher than the southern Lake shore,
causing sustained upward grades of 5% to 6%. In general, steep grades are less favorable to traffic
conditions, causing vehicles to slow down going up hill; and are more difficult to travel and maintain
during cold periods of snow and ice.
Height Above Water
Bridge height above water significantly affects the length and cost of vertical bridge columns/piers on
which the bridge superstructure rests. The height, type, diameter, geometry, and spacing of piers
significantly influence bridge cost and aesthetics. Height above water is most directly affected by
connecting elevations from one side of the Lake to the other. Other factors influencing bridge height may
include requirements to pass vehicles below the bridge at one or both Lake shores, or minimum vertical
clearances needed for boats to pass under the bridge. For bridges with very low clearance to the water, it
may be possible to extend a road base partially across the Lake, which causes the length of the bridge to
be shorter. This approach was used for the existing I-90 Bridge crossing Moses Lake.
Bridge Approach Conditions
Bridge approach conditions refer to the roadway and topographic conditions approaching each end of the
new bridge. For instances where one end of the bridge is raised significantly above the Lake shore (for
whatever reason), the bridge approach is built up on a roadway fill slope which is sometimes 20 to 30 feet
high. Construction of significant bridge approach slopes costs significantly more, relative to bridge ends
which touch down close to existing elevations on both ends. For conditions where intersections are
located very close to one or both ends of the bridge, it may also ne necessary to widen the end of the
bridge to add left or right turn lanes approaching the intersection.
Type of Construction Materials
Construction material types can significantly affect the bridge geometry, bridge cost, and aesthetics. The
two most common basic materials which are compared in bridge construction are concrete and steel. For
steel bridge structures, concrete is often still used in the construction of bridge piers/columns and bridge
deck. The most noticeable difference in concrete and steel bridge construction is the maximum
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 303 of 883
August 2009
9
length/span of bridge superstructure occurring between bridge piers/columns. For concrete bridge
structures, the normal span length between columns is in the range of 150 feet to 200 feet. For steel
bridge structures, the normal span length increases to the range of 250 feet to 300 feet. One potential
advantage to using a steel bridge superstructure crossing Moses Lake is a reduction in the number of
costly bridge piers/columns which must be constructed within the lake. Concrete bridge superstructures,
on the other hand, may be constructed at less cost (not factoring in pier construction), and require less
maintenance/painting over time.
Number of Bridge Piers / Columns
Total number and location of bridge piers placed within the Lake significantly affects environmental
impacts and associated mitigation measures/costs. The necessity to place more or less piers is highly
affected by the selection of bridge superstructure material type (discussed above). A reduction in the
number of piers may significantly reduce environmental impacts and potential impacts to Lake recreation
associated with the new bridge crossing.
Lake and Shoreline Uses
Existing and planned lake and shoreline uses may most directly affect factors including bridge location,
bridge height, pier spacing, and aesthetic requirements. Shoreline uses may cause one or both ends of
the bridge to be elevated above grade to allow continuous access to the shoreline. This may be the case
if a trail is established along the Lake shore. Significant on-water use (fishing and boating) at some
locations may require bridge piers to be placed higher or further apart to facilitate such uses in a safe
manner. If a bridge is established at a location where significant residential and/or business use exists
close to the bridge, where the bridge becomes more visible, then aesthetics may become more of a
consideration.
Environmental Factors
There are several environmental factors which may ultimately affect the location and geometry of the
proposed bridge crossing Moses Lake. Several factors may include impacts to wetlands and waters of
the US (falling under jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers), fish and wildlife considerations,
cultural/archaeological resources which may exist, air quality considerations, noise generated from traffic,
lake and shoreline uses, and many other potential factors.
Aesthetics
Bridge architecture/aesthetics may be built into any bridge type, in many different ways, at any location.
The extent of bridge aesthetics is most influenced by the perceived desire/need for aesthetics in
combination with available project budget. For bridges located at locations where they are less visible,
aesthetics may be less important. For bridges located in highly visible areas closer to downtown where
they may be seen as more of a “gateway”, aesthetics may be assigned a high level of importance.
What would be the overall cost of a new lake crossing?
Ultimate project cost/budget is affected by each of the factors discussed above. Each of these factors will
need to be defined, weighed against one another (trade-offs), and considered in the context of
community/regional benefit in determining the appropriate bridge/project cost. A planning level cost
estimate developed for this study revealed a total estimated planning level 2010 project cost of
$215,000,000, with a future 2030 estimated cost of $390,000,000. These estimates were based off a
bridge crossing location at Randolph Road and direct connecting new roadway to the existing Hiawatha
Road.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 304 of 883
August 2009
10
What Are The Potential Lake Crossing Benefits?
Based on review of transportation data, interviews with stakeholders, and review of forecast travel
demands, several potential regional benefits are associated with the addition of a second lake crossing:
Freight Mobility
Freight mobility would benefit from the connection, particularly those bound to/from the west.
Westbound truck routes to/from the Port of Moses Lake would be shortened by approximately 8
miles, and would no longer be required to travel along SR 17 through Moses Lake where delays may
be encountered. This becomes even more important with the expectation of “just-in-time” delivery for
some of the Port industries to maintain competitiveness.
Travel From SR-17 (Randolph Rd.) to I-90 (Hiawatha Rd.)
Existing Route 24.5 min/trip
Estimated New Bridge Route 12.5 min/trip
Potential Time Savings New Route 12 min/trip
The Port of Moses Lake Access
Industrial areas provide jobs to many residents of the Cities of Moses Lake and Ephrata. The Port of
Moses Lake area is continuing to grow, and the new transportation corridor will help facilitate future
economic growth within this area. Prospective businesses will see the port as a viable development
alternative with its air service, rail service, and enhanced highway access.
Access Redundancy
SR 17 through Moses Lake would no longer serve as the only transportation route to the north side of
the City, Port of Moses Lake, and Big Bend Community College, and would likely experience some
future traffic relief from the alternate western route. Based on Transpo’s 2002 Moses Lake city-wide
circulation study, the eastbound and westbound SR 17/I-90 ramps are anticipated to fail (LOS F) by
year 2022 without future capacity improvements.
Transportation Redundancy and Security
Security and reliability would be enhanced by the redundancy afforded by the new route. If an
incident occurs on I-90, or if the I-90 bridge crossing of Moses Lake is unavailable, then an alternate
transportation route from I-90 would exist across/around Moses Lake to serve the Port of Moses
Lake, the City of Moses Lake, and I-90 through traffic.
Future Urban Growth:
Anticipated growth occurring within the City and County west/south of Moses Lake would benefit from
the new road alignment and bridge connection directly to the City/Port of Moses Lake. The new
corridor would most likely facilitate economic development within this area.
Commuter Access
With anticipated expansion of Big Bend Community College, the new connection will provide benefit
and convenience to staff and students. Many students commute from Quincy and George along I-90.
Emergency Access
Emergency access from the west of the City of Moses lake is now limited to one bridge structure.
With a second bridge crossing the City of Moses Lake would have a second emergency access
option. With future development to the south and west of the city this additional emergency access
route would allow for faster response times and route options which may save lives.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 305 of 883
August 2009
11
City Road Maintenance Cost
Road maintenance would be decreased from the re-routing of heavy vehicles around the cities
existing infrastructure. In simple terms, one fully loaded 80,000 pound truck causes the same
pavement wear and damage as 10,000 automobiles. By eliminating a good share of the heavy
vehicle traffic, existing roadway structures will last much longer and require significantly less funds to
maintain.
Enhanced Tourism Opportunities
Additional access to the tourist activities surrounding Moses Lake would bring increased revenues to
the city and area businesses. The added connections would also reduce the amount of freight
activity around the central business district and make the eastside more inviting to tourist activities.
Added Resident Access and Circulation
Area residents would have additional circulation options to access recreational and business areas
through the new connection. Additional access to the airport, community college, north lake parks,
and other activities would no longer need to purely navigate through the only current corridor
available (Stratford).
Corridor Preservation
Existing urban arterials and collectors would gain relief from congestion due to only one lake crossing
and allow for the new corridor to be preemptively protected before future interested access
stakeholders become entrenched in developing areas to the west. This corridor preservation would
allow for sustained future industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural growth throughout the
surrounding area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 306 of 883
August 2009
12
What Are The Next Steps?
Development of and Environmental Impact Statement
One of the first steps towards permitting the bridge would be the development of an environmental impact
document that would meet requisite permitting and funding requirements. The EIS could potentially
evaluate the alternatives identified in this study with the purpose of identifying a “preferred” alternative.
Public Outreach
In order for any of the possible bridge locations and route options to be accepted and funded they will
need the support of local officials and residents. In order to develop the support of these essential
stakeholders, efforts should be made to include their input in the selection and future development of
crossing alternatives. The following are ways to promote and advertise the potential benefits and
possibilities of a Moses Lake crossing:
• Project Web Site
• Project Newsletter (see attached example)
• Public Open Houses/Workshops
• Solicitation for Letters of Support from business, residents, and other local stakeholders
• Route Alternative input and consensus.
Overcoming Obstacles to Project Implementation
Some potential important obstacles which need to be addressed include the following:
• Addressing west side residents concerns
• Identifying funding sources and opportunities
• Addressing impacts to City activities
o Boat Races
o Recreation on the lake
Attached Figures:
• Existing Issues Map
• Economic Growth Areas Map
• Bridge Crossing Locations Map
• Routing Option 1 Map
• Routing Option 2 Map
• Routing Option 3 Map
• Sample Mailer/Newsletter
• Planning Level Cost Estimate
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 307 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
16
,
0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
(4
%
)16,00015,000(<1%)20,000
17,000
9,000(3%)
90
17 L NE7 NE
3 NE171 17
NJ NE4 NE
F NEK NEEAST NEI NE2 NE
5 NE
1 NEWESTSHORE DR NE
CHEROKEE RD E
WHEELER RD NE
E5 NE67 NE
CANAL
STRATFORD RD NEN FRONTAGE RD E
N FRONTAGE RD W
MAE VALLEY RD NE
MCCONIHE RD NE
56 NE
65 NE
WILSON RD W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLV
D NE
BASELINE RD E
S FRONTAGE RD EW PENINSULA DR W BROADWAY AVE OLD FRONTAGE RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
MAPLE DR NE
R
D
MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD HARRIS RD NE
S PI
ONEER WAY VALLEY RD NED5 NEP
A
T
TON
B
LVD
M NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR NORTH NE22ND AVE NES CLOVER DR 37 NE
W 3RD AVE DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FAIR W AY DR N ERANDOLPH RD N E
E HILL AVE
NELSON RD NE
KITTLESON RD NE L9 NEBOLLING ST NE
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NES GRAND DR HANSEN RD SA
ND DUNES RD S
EW LAKESHORE DR CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE17
S
ATWOOD RD
S
JUNI
PER DR 21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR BRAD ST NEE
L
G
IN RD NE
E NELSON RD
BROAD ST NE
E BROADWAY AVE
ANDREWS ST NE
POTATO HILL RD NEVIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE DUNN ST NE
S ALDER ST GRAPE DR NEW IVY AVE W WAPATO DR NE
P
P
E
L
R
D
N
E
DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR GO ODRICH RD SE
N CRESTVI
EW DR
K
A
R
L RD NE
SHARON AVE E
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
D NEE 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NEE LARK AVE
SCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE
E WHEELER RD ALMA RD NEF5 NEBELL RD NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD 6 NE
WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD PAXSON DR W LEE ST
42 NE
S WANAPUM DR I5 NENE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
K5 NEORCHARD DR NEM SEYOUNG RD NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
54 NE
K SEN
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
TEAL RD NE
A R LINGT O N D R CALVERT RD NEWENATCHEE DR NECOX ST 19TH AVE
NEDALEY DR
BROADWAY NEW LAKESIDE DR JOEY RD NEBLUFF RD NEW BASIN ST BACON LN NERAY RD NEADMIRAL RD NEC R E STVIEW DR K7
SEMCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E CRAIG ST
DOOLITTLE
D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1 L NE RD N BLOCK S
T LO
W
RY ST
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEFIVE NE
S SKYLINE DR L2 NEE AGLE D R NEGRACE LN NE
FERGUSON RD NED
OG
WOOD S
T HERITAGE LN SEW KNOLLS VISTA DR K7 NEBLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD N
E N BUELL DR ASTRO LN NES
CHI
LLING DR F4 NEW C
R
AIG S
T
JU
D
Y
R
D
N
E
S BATT
E
R
Y
R
D
M
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEE HAYDEN DR W GEM AVE N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NENORTH SEPETTIGREW RD NE
K8 NEW
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BASELINE2 RD SE
GROVE RD NE
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN MA
R
C
H
S
T
CRAW LN
E OLIVE AVE
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
E
CITATION RD NENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NES HERMIT RD CAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR RAMM RD NEN DANIEL ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD S JEFFERSON AVE E PL
U
M
S
T
DUSTY ST 24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWA
T
E
R
L
N STEWART RD NES C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
KUTTLESON RD
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
ROBIN LN NES PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
WISER LN NE
PARK DR
S POMMER ST
FORRESTA
L
L
N W TOEVS AVE CIND
I
E
L
N
N
E M NE3 NE
N FRONTAGE RD EK NEF NEEAST NE1 NE1 NE
6 NE
WESTSHORE DR NENORTH NEM NEL9 NE5 NE5 NE NORTH NE5 NE
4 NE M NEI NE
NORTH NEWESTSHORE DR NE37 NE
65 NE
VALLEY RD NE2 NE
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Existing Issues
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Growth_Areas.mxd
FIGUREX
Legend
Signals
Key Bottleneck Locations
2007 Average Daily Traffic
Traffic Growth (Annual Rate over 5 years)
Estimated Year 2025 Volumes
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
XXX(X%)XXX
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 308 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
FutureEconomicGrowthArea(Ind, Ret, Res)
EconomicGrowthAreaAdded Freight Mobility/Resident Access
Traffic ReliefArea
90
17 J NE4 NE
L NE3 NE
10 NE
7 NE NORTH NE17
N
8 NE M NEF NEK NE9 NE
N FRONTAGE RD WB NEA NENEPP
E
L
R
D
N
E
N FRONTAGE RD E EAST NE5 NE STRATFORD RD NED NEI NE2 NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
DIVISION RD N78 NE
9
N
W
OLD M
O
S
E
S
L
A
K
E
H
W
Y
HIAWATHA RD NEMOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD WHEELER RD NE
1 NEWESTSHORE DR NED5 NEWHITE TRAIL RD
17
S
CHEROKEE RD E
CANAL
1 SEE5 NETHREE NE
67 NE
C NE65 NE
RAND
OLPH R
D NE
S FRONTAGE RD E
3 NW
2 NW
4 NW
5 NW
H8 NE
MCCONIHE RD NE K7 NE
OLD FRONTAGE RD
56 NE
W PENINSULA DR WILSON RD
P
AT
T
ON BL
VD N
E
BASELINE RD E
K SEA SEM SECANAL 20 W6 NE
R
D
K4
N
E
HARRIS RD NE K5 NEH NEBASELINE 5 RD SE
S
AND DU
NES R
D SEC SE RD 22ND AVE NE14 NE N2 NE37 NE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FAIRW AY DR NE
NORTH SELAKE VISTA DR NE
L9 NEDICK RD NE
W LAKESHORE DR WALKER RD HANSEN RD H ONE TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
G O OD R ICH RD SE N9 NE21ST AVE NEN4 NENE ROAD POTATO HILL RD NEVIKING RD NEARN
O
LD D
R N
E
KAR
L RD NE M3 NEKONISHI RD NE
BELL RD NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE H FOUR POTATO HILL RD SEI5 NENE D EIGHT DIVISION RD SYOUNG RD NENE H SIX 97 NE
54 NE
DAHL RD NE
85 NE
S
T
O
N
E
C
RE
ST RD N
E
32ND AVE NEARLINGT
O
N D
R C4 NECOX ST DALEY DR
SCENIC DR SEBACON LN NEK7
SENE M TWO STONERIDGE RD NEA NW
D O O L IT TLE DR L NE RD FIVE NE
GRACE LN NE
FERGUSON RD NEHERITAGE LN SE
BLUE GOOSE ST NED2 NEASTRO LN NESCHILLING DR F4 NEW CRAIG ST JU
D
Y
R
D
N
E
F
8
N
E
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE
UNION RD IDANO RD NEDUSTY ST
18 NEHIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NEB NECANAL 20 WK NENORTH NEC NEL NE10 NE
4 NE
7 NE
6 NEK5 NENORTH NEHARRIS RD NE
F NE1 NE
5 NE 5 NED NE5 NE
NORTH NEA NE65 NEEAST NEEAST NE2 NE M NE3 NE
D NEM NEK
5
N
E
9 NE 9 NE
N FRONTAGE RD E
10 NE
2 NE
I NE
N FRONTAGE RD W B
NEDIVISION RD NA NE5 NE
M NEC NELegend
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 1 20.5
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Growth Areas
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Growth_Areas.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 309 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LA
KE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNOLLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F
8
N
E
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWA
T
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Possible Crossing Locations
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Bridges.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 310 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway
Existing Roadway
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 1 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option1.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 311 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway/ROW
Existing Roadway/ROW
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 2 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option2.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 312 of 883
Grant CountyAirport
90
17
4 NE
3 NEB NEJ NE171 F NEA NEEAST NEN FRONTAGE RD E D NEN FRONTAGE RD W I NEMAE VALLEY RD NE
5 NE
HIAWATHA RD NEWESTSHORE DR NE
7 NE
STRATFORD RD NEE5 NE67 NE
65 NE D5 NEC NEMCCONIHE RD NE
W MARINA DR PA
T
T
ON BLVD NEW BROADWAY AVE THREE NE MOSES LAKE STRATFORD RD AIRWAY
DR
NE
W VALLEY RD
WHITE TRAIL RD HARRIS RD NE
MAPLE DR NE
NEPPE
L
R
D
N
E
VALLEY RD NEW PENINSULA DR PAT
TON
B
LVD
RANDOLPH RD NES DIVISION ST N GRAPE DR 22ND AVE NE1 NE
14 NE
W 3RD AVE
DOVER ST NE
SAGE RD FA IR W AY DR N EOLD MOSES LAKE HWY
BOLLING ST NE
S PI
ONEER WAY
DICK RD NE26TH AVE NE37 NE
HANSEN RD TYNDALL R
D
N
E
CHANUTE ST NE
OTTMAR RD NE21ST AVE NEW LOOP DR
EL
GIN R
D NE
BROAD ST NE
NE ROAD ANDREWS ST NE
VIKING RD NEKINDER RD NE
S A
LDER ST GRAPE DR NEA
RN
OL
D
D
R N
E
N STRATFORD RD W IVY AVE W WAPATO DR DIVISION ST N CENTRAL DR N CRESTVIE
W D
R
S B ST
MARKET ST NE
E 3RD AVE S A ST N JOHN ST EASY ST NESCOTT RD NE
KONISHI RD NE ALMA RD NEF5 NEPRICHARD ST SHORECREST RD WINESAP RD NE
S C ST N DALE RD LA
KE VISTA DR NE
E BROADWAY AVE PAXSON DR W LEE ST S WANAPUM DR I5 NES
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
N
E
NE D EIGHT STONE RD NE
ORCHARD DR NES
B
A
L
S
A
M
S
T
LAGUNA DR
N
F
I
G
S
T
DAHL RD NE
PRICHARD RD S MONROE ST E HILL AVE N EARL RD 32ND AVE NELYBBERT DR NE
MORGAN RD NE
TEAL RD NE
AR LINGTO N D R CALVERT RD NEC4 NEWENATCHEE DR NEPOTATO HILL RD NECOX ST 19
TH
AVE
NEDALEY
DR
W LAKESIDE DR W LAKESHORE DR W BASIN ST NEWELL ST RAY RD NEC R ESTVIEW DR MCLAUGHLIN RD NEG6 NEDOROTHY ST NE
BERTRAM WAY NE
RAINIER RD NE
E NELSON RD
S INTERLAKE RD
YONEZAWA
B
L
V
D
KOPP LN NES BELAIR DR S BEAUMONT DR STONERIDGE RD NEHILLCREST DR NE
E C RAIG ST
DOOLITTLE D
R SHORECREST DR NESUNPOINT RD NE 1
LO
W
R
Y S
T
TURNER RD NE
MILLER D
R NEATWOOD RD S SKYLINE DR EA GLE DR NEFERGUSON RD NES A
S
H
S
T
CARSWELL DR
D
OG
WOOD S
T W KNO LLS VISTA DR
BLUE GOOSE ST NE
KORY LN N
ED2 NECOLE RD NE N BUELL DR S
CHILLING DR F4 NE30TH AVE NEW CRAIG ST OWENS RD NEM
O
S
E
S
S
T
PAXSON DR NED9 NEKE
LLY PL NEW GEM AVE W MAIN ST N CLARK RD DENTON R
D
NEPETTIGREW RD NE
W
H
I
T
E
D
R
F8
NE
BEACON RD NE
GROVE RD NE
W MA
R
K
E
T
S
T
ONE7 NE
JONATHAN RD NE LONGVIEW ST NEEASTLAKE DR SS LOCUST LN
UNION RD
M
A
RC
H
S
T
CRAW LN
LINDEN AVE
TU
R
N
K
E
Y
R
D
N
ENE D THREE S B
E
E
C
H
S
T
ARROW ST NECAROL ST I4 NEW NELSON RD N VISTA DR W WILLOW ST GRANT ST S
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
WHITE RD DUSTY ST W NEPPEL ST 18 NE 28TH AVE NE24TH AVE NELEE DR NECAROLINE ST W EDGEWAT
E
R
L
N
S SYC
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
S PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
S
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
TERMINAL ST NE
COVE WEST DR
SPACE ST NE
CLINK RD NE
S PENN IVY
S
T
WINDY ST ELSIE RD NEW LUTA ST
BRET
T
S
T
PARK DR
S ATL
A
N
T
I
C
S
T
S VINE ST W TOEVS AVE CIN
D
I
E
LN
NE
E BROWN AVE W WALL ST 5 NE
3 NE
I NE
65 NE
A NEB N
E
A NE5 NE5 NE
F NED NEEAST NEC NEWESTSHORE DR NEWESTSHORE DR NEC NED NE
Legend
Bridge
New Roadway/ROW
Existing Roadway/ROW
Freeway
Highway
Local Streets
Railroad
Grant County International Airport
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Grant County Preliminary Route & Lake Crossing Feasibility Study
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Grant County Project Area - Option 3 Corridor Connections
M:\07\07421 Grant County Lake Crossing Feasibility\GIS\MXD\Option3.mxd
FIGUREXMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 313 of 883
Need AddressGrant County
Moses Lake Bridge Crossing
and Route FeasibilityStudy
Developing area excitement and ownership thru a
Public/Private Outreach initiative
In order for any of the possible bridge locations and route options to be accepted and funded they will need the
support of local officials and residents. In order to develop the support of these essential stakeholders, efforts
should be made to include their input in the selection and future development of crossing alternatives. The
following are ways to promote and advertise the potential benefits and possibilities of a Moses Lake crossing:
• Project Web Site
• Project Newsletter
• Public Open Houses/Workshops
• Solicitation for Letters of Support from business, residents, and other local stakeholders
• Route Alternative input and consensus
The Moses Lake Bridge Crossing and Route Feasibility Study was conducted in response to local resident and
business concerns about access to the west side of Moses Lake and I-90. Local representatives and residents
have for a long time noted the mounting transportation issues associated with the current single connection
between the east and west sides of Moses Lake.
This study is intended to evaluate bridge crossing alternative and the feasibility of those crossings around
Moses Lake. Local stakeholders involved in this study provided input and direction in order to develop viable
alternatives to mounting transportation issues in the area.
The Purpose of the project is to improve the movement of people and goods across Moses Lake between
the northern area of the city and I-90 on the west side of the lake. This connection would eliminate the added
travel distance, time, and cost associated with the current routing of vehicle south on SR-17 to I-90.
The City of Moses Lake and the surrounding urban
growth area has developed and out grown its existing
transportation infrastructure. Time and money have
been sacrificed due to a lack of effective connections
between trip producing areas around the city and
county. These increases and deficiencies have
caused congestion and economic losses for the area
which will only continue to mount unless a viable
infrastructure improvement is implemented. The
economic future of the area requires a preserved
corridor around the city to the north to allow for
enhanced freight and resident mobility. Without a
preserved corridor, existing facilities along SR 17
will become significantly saturated with a mix of
residential and freight vehicles.
What is the
Moses Lake Bridge Crossing
and Route Feasibility Study?
Why is a Second Bridge Crossing Needed?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 314 of 883
Where Will the New Bridge be Located and
What are the Possible Routes Associated with
a New Bridge Crossing?
What are the Potential Bridge Crossing Benefits?
Based on our conversations with local stakeholders, Transpo understands that study partners have been
reviewing this route together for roughly two years, and foresee several potential regional benefits:
• Freight Hauling Mobility
• The Port of Moses Lake Access
• Access Redundancy
• Transportation and Freight Security
• Future urban growth
• Commuter Access
• Emergency Access
• City road maintenance cost
• Enhanced tourism opportunities
• Added resident access
• Corridor preservation
• East Side Development Corridor Traffic Relief
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 315 of 883
Bridge CrossingBridge Length3,000.00 FTBridge Width65.00 FTTotal Deck Area195,000.00 SQ. FTUnit Cost$250.00 Per SQ. FTTotal$48,750,000.00IntersectionsMajor Intersections$500,000.00 EachNumber of Major Intersections4Minor Intersections$200,000.00 EachNumber of Minor Intersections5Total$3,000,000.00RoadwayCross Section:Width 40 FTROW Width 80 FTLength 50160 FTErosion Control/Soil Stabilization$40.00 Per LN FTPlanning Level Lake Crossing Estimate(Randolph Road to Hiawatha Road Bridge and Route)Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 316 of 883
Clearing and Grubbing$10.00 Per LN FTPavement:Depth 1 FTCost $300.00 Per LN FTSubgrade Preparation$20.00 Per LN FTGravel Base:Depth 2 FTCost $120.00 Per LN FTGrading$90.00 Per LN FTStrom Drainage:Collection/Culverts/Catch Basins $90.00 Per LN FTDrainage treatment/Detention $60.00 Per LN FTMajor Drainage Crossings $30.00 Per LN FTMinor Drainage Crossings $10.00 Per LN FTGuard Rail (50% of Length)$40.00 Per LN FTRetaining Walls$50.00 Per LN FTSub-Total Major Roadway Items$880.00 Per FTSub-Total Minor Roadway Items$260.00 Per FTTotal Basic Roadway Construction Cost $1,140.00 Per FT $57,182,400.00Right-Of-WayNew Alignment $200.00 Per LN FTMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 317 of 883
Existing Alignment Adjustment$120.00 Per LN FTTotal Right-Of-Way$8,342,400.00Project Cost SummaryBasic Bridge$48,750,000.00Basic Roadway$57,182,400.00Intersections $3,000,000.00Sub-Total $108,932,400.00Design/Construction Contingency (35%) $38,126,340.00Environmental Mitigation (10%) $10,893,240.00Sub-Total $157,951,980.00Project Development Costs (30%) $47,385,594.00Sub-Total $205,337,574.00Right of Way $8,342,400.00Total Estimated 2010 Project Cost$213,679,974.00Total Estimated 2030 Project Cost (3% annual Growth) $385,929,801.67Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 318 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
September 8, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Planning Commission
401 S Balsam
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Housing Element - Assumptions
Need for Robust Areas in UGA
Dear Commissioners:
To adequately address the “Assumptions” in Section 1 of the Housing Element, ASPI would
propose the following addition to the section. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely Yours,
Kim Foster
Corporate Counsel
HOUSING ELEMENT - ASSUMPTIONS
Grant County International Airport (GCIA) is located directly contiguous to the corporate limits
of the city. The GCIA is a 5300-acre facility operated by the Port of Moses Lake. The airport
infrastructure includes one of the longest civilian runways in the United States. This allows the
airport to accommodate any aircraft and has been designated as a spaceport capable of
accepting various NASA vehicles including the former Space Shuttle program. The United States
Air Force is a tenant and regular user of the facility. The former Larson Air Force Base boasts a
premier list of aerospace assets including multiple runways, a Federal Aviation Administration-
operated control tower, 24-hour U.S. Customs, a U.S. Foreign Trade Zone, regional TRACON,
and state-of-the-art aircraft fire and rescue services.
The lands immediately surrounding the airport are zoned heavy industry and benefit from the
Port of Moses Lake’s DOE-approved Industrial Wastewater Treatment System and further
benefit from designations as a U.S. Opportunity Zone and New Markets Tax Credit Zone. The
area has a governing Large Employer Environmental Impact Statement to accommodate fast
permitting. The aerospace and industrial lands at the airport also enjoy the benefit of the low-
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 319 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
cost, renewable, green, hydropower provided by the Grant County Public Utility District –
among the lowest electric power rates in the developed world. The combination of these assets
is unparalleled in communities across the region and make Moses Lake attractive to large
aerospace and industrial employers.
It is important to note that because of the positive economic impacts of the direct, indirect,
and induced employment created at the GCIA, the surrounding industrial employment center,
and supporting supply chain sectors throughout the state, this is a critical asset not only for
Moses Lake but for the county at large and the entire State of Washington. Because of these
exceptional attributes, the Washington State Department of Commerce, the Port of Moses
Lake, the Grant County Economic Development Council, and private industrial development
entities are engaged in continual efforts to recruit large global and multi-national aerospace
and industrial employers to the GCIA aerospace and industrial areas. These recruitment efforts
typically involve participation from Governors, our U.S. Congressional delegation, and state
and local elected officials. These combined efforts have resulted in premier employers locating
in Moses Lake including Boeing, General Dynamics, Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation, AeroTEC,
Aviation Technical Services, Green Point Technologies, Sonico, BMW/SGL Carbon Fiber,
Genie/Terex Aerial Work Platforms, Joyson Safety Systems (formerly Takata), US KDK
Chemicon Materials, Tama Chemicon/Moses Lake Industries, and Fuji Chemical/AstaReal.
The recruitment of major aerospace, alternative energy, technology, and industrial employers
can result in the immediate addition of hundreds of new high-paying jobs and significant new
population to the city. Because of the unique intersection of the aerospace and industrial
assets coupled with the industrial recruiting efforts being led by the Washington State
Department of Commerce, any population forecast predicated on classic prescribed-formula
methodology will fail to account for these sudden surges in direct, indirect, and induced
employment. They will fail to adequately forecast population growth and housing needs.
Lack of readily available and developable lands for workforce housing, predicated on
inadequate population forecasts, will act as an impediment to attract and retain aerospace and
industrial employers and will have critical adverse effects on city revenues. The failure to
account for surges in large employer aerospace and industrial employment has resulted in a
current dearth of available housing in Moses Lake.
While typical communities may be able to rely on classic formula methodology predicting a
linear population growth, the combined assets of the GCIA aerospace/industrial lands and the
state-wide recruitment efforts, demand that the city plan for sudden surges in employment
and population growth that a typical city and the Act did not envision. To maintain an ability
to attract large new industrial aerospace and industrial employers, the city must have a robust
inventory of readily available single-family residential lands that can be quickly and easily
developed to respond to these sudden surges. This sudden growth cannot be accommodated
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 320 of 883
1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220
Renton, Washington 98055
425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268
www.ASPIGroup.com
by concentration of ‘in-fill’ development that is largely disjointed, expensive, size constrained,
and slow to develop.
Aerospace and industrial workers demand single-family housing in developments with
significant amenities. Sudden surges in employment and population growth require the city to
maintain large areas of Urban Growth Area that allow production-scale residential developers
and homebuilders to quickly respond with large numbers of new single-family units in
developed subdivisions and master planned environments.
Because of geographic constraints posed by the Grant County International Airport and heavy
industrial development to the north of the city, heavy industrial and large parcel agriculture
uses east of the city, and large tracts of public lands, including the Sand Dunes state ORV park,
Potholes/Sullivan Dam recreation areas, and Columbia National Wildlife Refuge south of the
city, there are not a lot of options for single family residential development growth outside of
the current city limits on three sides of the city except the existing Dune Lakes area.
Given market demand for single-family product, the two existing golf course recreational
amenities, Blue Heron Park, existing trunk utilities, and large parcels of available lands, the best
option for fast-response, large-scale, single-family housing is in the Mae Valley Area and as
currently identified as Urban Growth Area extending from I-90 on the south to the lake north
of Moses Point.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 321 of 883
Postmarked October 19, 2020Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 322 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 323 of 883
.') - -- - -
n i,!-&(,im-r
k './l Q (5h -7,ff -i,po firs
J. /I \ Xa " -' /I
6'
%
3 l Ki!4SA - C!aak @4Ao f';2A-i 7;kf
:5
_j :%'rSvS'%?_ 4 _,4 . as,i.",4.='6t<
fl i% yb % ( '(' - /' H" 'l 1"[/k-"V/7""-" '
t
?I\lb\il.y< 6=yl( ,nHc Opc( ,"kb lp.4y3l(,sA'8#(,- ''J
('U
-4
%2
a- y ' - j - I v / - - ( I / a - - -
I
e
iZJ"/6yilitb-i4i=;,=
'(
/ /: ft'rr> ftop5 -fxpD&'j -'rop € *,ggJ ;
<i
'ak
a 4 y -t -'-a-
,/
l'
4 15 e;>,)(Q (;,,u ,sJ /} (-, ( K (WVJ&jf / ' ,bTo'[ 5'
2
CL /' /'
( __ i i
%-y
l_s_>)pMw'<' ?""vvl'-' -wsw[:>tr otrkssm' % *hti" gioii rvc ,5'qA
J
--/
(4 (:bbo Jh [;-,b PAS3g__S ' -/-/uv+x;slF;>Ay z,t,w
U'l
I
-!.1 f - '
lj! +'
i <a'7;o'&5 #16hf'!/7F" (,;o/51:s 7;A,'6J a
p a / / ' // ' - '-
/ *
l'%
H*-f, !tss -lt:gi+-[wi - (lmtr.o*[- -r:;b<lAtii4j
I
" -a @ lyl - a - r l -
j pt=ht-l-t_'c "'tick-* ;rA>tiit khrkxlGa' / -
A
-'St-4cJ'7pl"z4sis4 k4(*J -'93gCf a,zJd'i - C
_A / _
I t.A&.b wkrt ,lQs&tf-!';=vtreJ-';xvr '-/ - ' (l V l 'a - a- / ' " ' -' a /
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 324 of 883
5 II-lJ!'!
!
t
<! h.illl) r S\l>
!
"1 Ll]'lgJ,ili
u
!I
_),8_:!y._Qtof)
T('J)'-'I
/!Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 325 of 883
From:Michelene Torrey
To:nathan@sliderule.net; Eric Skaug; gmann1983@gmail.com; loretta_hepburn@yahoo.com; Anne Henning
Cc:Vivian Ramsey; Melissa Bethel
Subject:FW: Tonight"s Planning Commission Meeting, and an urgent request to add your consultant Berk
Date:Thursday, September 23, 2021 10:07:00 AM
Good morning,
Please see comment below. Berk will be doing a presentation this evening and will be available for
questions. The presentation should answer questions from the previous meetings.
Thank you!
Michelene Torrey
Community Development
Planning Permit Technician
509-764-3745
mtorrey@CityofML.com
From: Jim Warjone <jim.warjone@engelvoelkers.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 8:21 AM
To: Allison Williams <awilliams@cityofml.com>; Melissa Bethel <mbethel@cityofml.com>
Cc: Kim Foster <kfoster@aspigroup.com>; Vivian Ramsey <vramsey@cityofml.com>
Subject: Tonight's Planning Commission Meeting, and an urgent request to add your consultant Berk
Good morning Allison and Melissa, Would you please invite your consultant, Lisa Grueter (and whomever she wants to bring from her firm) at Berk Consulting, to attend (either by Zoom or in person
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.Allow sender | Block sender
sophospsmartbannerendGood morning Allison and Melissa,
Would you please invite your consultant, Lisa Grueter (and whomever she wants to bring from her
firm) at Berk Consulting, to attend (either by Zoom or in person) the Planning Commission meeting
tonight?
Since so much of your proposed Comprehensive Plan Update rests on their recommendations and
the fact that your Planning Commission and several of your Planning Commission members and
public attendees have been asking about critical things like:
1. The calculation of the "market factor” which assumes that 90% of the undeveloped properties in
the City (and specifically the core where the densities are projected to be the highest) will be
developed for multifamily housing
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 326 of 883
2. The assumption that LOS (level of service) F is a condition to be lived with in the core for the next
20 years
3. the infrastructure around the I-90/HWY17 intersection will require a large investment of City
Capital to achieve LOSF and that there are no alternatives to making the investment
4. That UGA area 5 should be deleted because it will cause the City to extend services at the /city’s
cost (inspite of the fact that the City already has extended services to UGA area 5 at the Moses Point
Golf Course including a City well).
5. Development in the UGA will not not contribute anything to the City. (And please forward the
Wickenburg, AZ study to Berk if they have not already received it)
These assumptions and the resulting questions from the attendees have not been directly addressed
in detail and are critical to the process of understanding the impacts of a plan that will if
implemented, dramatically change the prospects of the City to enjoy the benefits (and revenues)
from new industrial and manufacturing jobs. These new jobs are currently being actively recruited
by the Port, the EDC, the US and State Departments of Commerce and the industrial land owners
since they will not have any surge areas to accommodate the incoming families of the forecasted 3-
5000 employees reasonably expected to be employed in your industrial areas in the next 10 years.
Please forward a copy of this email to Berk Consulting and to the Planning Commission members
before tonight’s meeting.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thanks in advance!
Jim WarjoneLicense Partner | Real Estate Advisor ENGEL & VÖLKERS | Seattle EastsideLicensee of Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc. 1208 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98101
USA
Mobile: +1 206 295 0629
Internet:seattleeastside.evrealestate.com
Mail to:Jim.Warjone@evrealestate.com
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 327 of 883
HORIZON
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY
4,000 ACRES +/-
CITY OF MOSES LAKE UGA
(TAN COLOR)
CITY OF ML
CORPORATE LIMITS
(PURPLE COLOR)
GRANT COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CLUSTER
90 CONNECTOR
PROPOSED ROUTE
I-90 CONNECTOR
PROPOSED ROUTE
HORIZON
EXISTING CITY UGA AND LAND USE DESIGNATION
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 328 of 883
SEWER
FORCE
MAIN
WATER MAIN
FIRE HYDRANT
SEWER GRAVITY MAIN
Lakeridge
Homestead 4000
City of Moses Lake—Utility Locations
1 Mile
Property Lines are Approximate
Lakeridge Homestead 4000
Utility Proximity Map
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 329 of 883
From:Michelene Torrey
To:Michelene Torrey
Subject:Comment
Date:Thursday, September 23, 2021 2:15:38 PM
From: Jim Warjone <jim.warjone@engelvoelkers.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 11:52 AM
To: Allison Williams <awilliams@cityofml.com>; Melissa Bethel <mbethel@cityofml.com>
Cc: Vivian Ramsey <vramsey@cityofml.com>
Subject: A recommendation for an exhibit to be screen shared at the Planning Commission meeting
tonight.
Good morning again Allison and Melissa! Here is a map of the City’s current utility locations in UGA are 5 showing that the City already has extended services to area 5 and that the major landowners m
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.Allow sender | Blocksender
sophospsmartbannerendGood morning again Allison and Melissa!
Here is a map of the City’s current utility locations in UGA are 5 showing that the City already has
extended services to area 5 and that the major landowners might want to help the City improve
these facilities if a reasonable agreement could be negotiated between the City and the potentially
benefitting landowners.
Please share this with the Commissioners and BERK this evening as it bears directly on the
recommendation to delete UGA area 5 from the Comp Plan. It also shows the future location of the
I-90 Connector which will allow the City to easily circulate around the lake so that services can be
economically delivered if not directly sited in the UGA area themselves. Also note that the addition
of the Connector will allow the industrial traffic to reach I-90 without having to go through the City
which should relieve the future traffic congestion (LOSF) that is currently assumed in the Comp Plan
Update for the next 20 years. Obviously the occupants of the development in Area 5, which is
currently being planned for Area 5, could also access the new jobs in the industrial area without
having to drive through the HWY17/I-90 intersection which might also lessen the proposed heavy
capital investment by the City in that corridor. The plan should definitely address these suggestions
as it fits well into the policies 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you!
Jim WarjoneLicense Partner | Real Estate Advisor ENGEL & VÖLKERS | Seattle EastsideLicensee of Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc. 1208 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98101
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 330 of 883
USA
Mobile: +1 206 295 0629
Internet:seattleeastside.evrealestate.com
Mail to:Jim.Warjone@evrealestate.com
Michelene Torrey
Community Development
Planning Permit Technician
509-764-3745
mtorrey@CityofML.com
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 331 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 332 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 333 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 334 of 883
From:Vivian Ramsey
To:Planning
Subject:FW: City of Moses Lake 20 Year Plan
Date:Thursday, September 2, 2021 10:20:40 AM
From: Stephanie Morton <smorton3@asu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 PM
To: City Manager <citymanager@cityofml.com>; David Curnel <dcurnel@cityofml.com>; Melissa
Bethel <mbethel@cityofml.com>; Vivian Ramsey <vramsey@cityofml.com>
Subject: City of Moses Lake 20 Year Plan
Hello, I am a student going to school for business administration and environmental sustainability. I am reaching out because after looking at our cities plan for the future there was no mention
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.Allow sender | Block sender
sophospsmartbannerendHello,
I am a student going to school for business administration and environmental sustainability. I am
reaching out because after looking at our cities plan for the future there was no mention of any
green or sustainable upgrades to our area. Is this something that the city is looking into or has
thought about adding to the plan going forward? Are there currently any incentives for businesses
that make a smaller environmental impact? I would love to see more sustainable options in our
community. I have noticed that at the city parks there are no recycling bins, just general trash. I think
investing in the green sector could potentially bring new jobs and create more economic
sustainability in this area as that is what studies have shown that green-collar jobs do.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email, I appreciate any and all feedback!
Stephanie Morton
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 335 of 883
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mailing Address: 1550 Alder St. NW, Ephrata, WA 98823
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia WA
September 16, 2021
City of Moses Lake Community Development Department
Attention: Vivian Ramsey
P.O. Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Dear Ms. Ramsey:
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, DETERMINATION OF NON-
SIGNINIGANCE, CITY OF MOSES LAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE.
On behalf of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the Determination of Non-Significance regarding the proposed City
of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU). We understand that updating your
Comprehensive Plan to comply with state guidelines is a substantial undertaking and we
congratulate you on your success in getting to this point. We also appreciate the challenges faced
as you seek to balance competing interests.
WDFW’s role in review of CPUs is based on our agency’s mandate to perpetuate fish, wildlife,
and their habitat (RCW 77.04.012). We necessarily fulfill this mandate in partnership with local
jurisdictions who have the authority and responsibility to regulate land use and in partnership
with landowners who steward the land. In support of your CPU, our role is to provide science-
based technical assistance related to fish, wildlife, and their habitat. The advice we offer can help
you comply with the mandate to include the best available science” (RCW 36.70A.172(1) to
protect critical areas consistent with the No Net Loss standard (WAC 365-196-830(4)).
In keeping with our role as your technical advisor, we offer these observations and
recommendations:
Items We Support
We support the City of Moses Lake’s commitment to striking a balance between development
and the natural environment. We support your intentions to enhance Moses Lake’s
environmental stewardship while allowing for growth and providing for reasonable use of private
property. We recognize and support your commitment to regulate uses and development in and
near Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Policy 3.7.1, pg. 3-24). We acknowledge
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 336 of 883
WDFW Comments – Determination of Non-Significance, City of Moses Lake Comprehensive
Plan Update
September 16, 2021
Page 2
your intent to use creative solutions such as clustering to protect environmentally sensitive areas
Policy 3.7.4 (pg. 3-24).
Items for Which We Have Recommendations
Goal 3.7 provides a policy basis for designation and protection of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) and other critical areas. Accordingly, we recommend that this
goal (and its subgoals) reflect the standards provided in WAC 365-196-830(4) to provide for no
net loss of ecosystem functions in cases where harm to FWHCA functions and values cannot be
avoided. A second relevant FWHCA standard is in WAC 365-190-130(1) which says FWHCAs
are supposed to be sufficient to support viable populations over the long term and avoid creating
isolated subpopulations. As written, your Goal 3.7 calls for “reinforc(ing)” and “enhanc(ing)”
stewardship, while not providing a clear standard that specifies how much and what type of
“stewardship” is enough. We recommend this goal (and its sub-goals) be revised to include these
key concepts: (1) “protection” means (a) providing for no net loss of ecological functions and
values, and (b) supporting viable population and not creating isolated subpopulations, and (2) to
achieve no net loss, offsetting compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable impacts.
We appreciate the complexity of land use permitting and recognize that phrases such as “where
feasible” and “where possible” are often needed to deal with unforeseen complexities. However,
we also encourage you to clarify that while harm to critical areas may be unavoidable in some
circumstances, each project must, nevertheless, offset all harm with compensatory mitigation.
We are available to suggest specific language for this goal and its sub-goals if that would be
helpful.
To match wording in other elements, we suggest you add the phrase “Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas including the” before ‘Islands in the lake, shoreline and riparian areas ….’.
If more robust changes are not made, we recommend Policy 3.7.2 (pg. 3-24) be revised to state,
“Maintain the current functions and values of critical areas and existing travel corridors between
critical areas within the City of Moses Lake by avoiding impacts where feasible. Minimize and
mitigate adverse impacts when they cannot be avoided, with a preference for on-site, in-kind
mitigation.”
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the City of Moses Lake
Comprehensive Plan Update. I and other WDFW staff are available to provide technical
assistance to you when needed. If you have any questions, please call me at (509) 630-2729.
Sincerely,
Eric D. Pentico
Area Habitat Biologist
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 337 of 883
WDFW Comments – Determination of Non-Significance, City of Moses Lake Comprehensive
Plan Update
September 16, 2021
Page 3
cc: Carmen Andonaegui - WDFW Region 2 Habitat Program Manager
Amanda Barg - WDFW Region 2 Assistant Habitat Program Manager
Mary Huff – WDFW Land Use Conservation & Policy Section Manager
Keith Folkerts – WDFW Conservation Information Delivery Unit Manager
William Simpson – Department of Commerce Senior Planner, Growth Management Services
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 338 of 883
City of Moses Lake Planning Commission
401 S Balsam St
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Moses Lake Planning Commission,
On behalf of the Downtown Moses Lake Association, we would like to share our support of the City of
Moses Lake’s vision and draft of the Comprehensive Plan. We appreciate the City’s initiative,
momentum, and dedication to revitalizing our downtown area and taking care of our current assets
before we work on expanding.
The community support and interest in this plan illustrates how strong the desire is for such
updates/changes to be made. The Downtown Moses Lake Association had the opportunity to co-host
booths with the City of Moses Lake at the Farmers Market and Grant County Fair while obtaining input
for the Comprehensive Plan, including the downtown portion, waterfront activation, housing, and land
use. We have experienced firsthand the thoughtfulness and mindfulness our community exhibits while
participating in the visual preference exercises, engaging in focus groups, and filling out surveys
pertinent to the Comprehensive Plan. We were especially pleased with our younger demographic and
their willingness to contribute ideas and suggestions; this input is vital in creating opportunities that
encourage young people to stay Moses Lake.
Our community wants to see more activity in the downtown area, would like to utilize the amazing
waterfront space we have right in our downtown and would like to accommodate growth in a strategic
and well thought out manner. We’ve received similar feedback while being very active in the process of
applying for a Creative District in Moses Lake. A Creative District is a designated area that celebrates art,
history and traditions that are unique and authentic to our city. The mission and purpose underlying the
DMLA, Creative District and Comprehensive Plan each emphasize downtown as the civic, cultural, and
artistic center of Moses Lake.
The Downtown Moses Lake Association has also put a heavy focus on changing the perception of our
downtown; we want it to be considered a hub, the center of our community where people come to live,
work and play. The Comprehensive Plan lists “more downtown activity” as a key desire from our
community and the DMLA thoroughly supports that effort. We want to highlight and promote our
downtown in the most creative and strategic ways possible.
We appreciate the leadership at the City of Moses Lake and want to see the Comprehensive Plan thrive.
If you have any questions from the Downtown Moses Lake Association, please contact us! (509) 770-
1700.
Sincerely,
Lexi Smith
Executive Director | Downtown Moses Lake Association
P: (509) 770-1700 E: director@mlbacares.org W: www.mlbacares.org
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 339 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 340 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-1
Photo by City of Moses Lake
Ch. 1 Introduction
Introduction
People need a safe and secure place to live, an economy that
provides jobs, an efficient circulation network, alternatives to the private automobile, schools, and
recreational opportunities. In Moses Lake in 2020, the citizens who came together to comment on
this plan asked for the City to create a vision for the future and to implement it. Not only is it the
local government’s responsibility to provide public services and facilities, develop policies, and
adopt regulations to guide the growth of a city that meets the needs of its people, it is the
responsibility to ensure that the city has a vision and encourages investment in that vision. This
plan is for the people of Moses Lake now and for those who will make it home or visit it during the
life of this plan.
What is a Comprehensive Plan?
A comprehensive plan is a broad statement of community goals and policies that direct the orderly
and coordinated physical development of a city into the future. It is also a business plan that
identifies how the city is planning to ensure the community goals are enacted. It reflects current
community goals and needs, anticipates change, and provides specific guidance for future
legislative and administrative actions. It reflects the results of citizen involvement, technical
analysis, and the judgement of decision makers.
The goals and policies, and maps of this Comprehensive Plan provide the basis for implementing
regulations, programs, and services. The Plan serves as a guideline for designating land uses and
infrastructure development.
In this chapter…
Introduction 1-1
What’s in the Plan? 1-3
Plan Implementation 1-10
Roles & Responsibilities 1-13
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 341 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-2
Growth Management Act
The Growth Management Act (GMA), passed in 1990, seeks to provide a managed framework for
growth and development throughout the state. The GMA requires the state’s fastest growing
counties, and cities within those counties, to prepare comprehensive plans which guide
conservation and development of rural and urban lands respectively for the next twenty years.
GMA makes the comprehensive plan the legal foundation and guide for all subsequent planning and
zoning. The zoning must be consistent with and implement the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan must
be both internally consistent and consistent with plans of other jurisdictions which share either a
common boundary or related regional issues. Additionally, it introduces the concurrency
requirement. Concurrency means that appropriate public facilities and services must be in place, or
funds committed for their provision within six years, to serve new development.
The GMA requires counties, in cooperation with cities, to designate urban growth areas (UGA). All
cities are to be within an urban growth area, which is to include areas and densities sufficient to
accommodate urban growth expected to occur in the City over the next twenty years. The GMA
guidelines for defining urban growth boundaries state that urban growth is to be “... located first in
areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and service capacities
to serve such development, and second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be
served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed
public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources.” The UGA may
include “... territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by
urban growth or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth.”
The Growth Management Act established the following mandatory elements to be incorporated in
each local comprehensive plan: land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, and transportation.
Optional elements include solar energy, conservation, recreation, economic development and sub-
area plans. The Act also required each jurisdiction to designate and adopt regulations to protect
critical areas and resource lands. To comply with these regulations the city adopted interim
wetlands and critical areas ordinances in August 1993.
Grant County County-Wide Planning Policies
The GMA also directed counties, in conjunction with their cities, to prepare and adopt county-wide
planning policies. These policies were designed to help the cities and the County address growth
management in a coordinated manner. The policies were adopted by the Board of Grant County
Commissioners, and subsequently ratified by the cities, including the City of Moses Lake. Taken
together, the Countywide Planning Policies try to balance issues related to growth, economics, land
use and the environment. Specific objectives of the Countywide Planning Policies include:
▪ Designation of Urban Growth Areas;
▪ Promotion of contiguous and orderly development;
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 342 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-3
▪ Siting public facilities;
▪ Establishing transportation facilities and strategies;
▪ Providing affordable housing for all economic segments of the population;
▪ Promotion of joint county and city planning within the UGA;
▪ Encourage favorable employment and economic conditions in the County;
▪ Analysis of the fiscal impact;
▪ Encourage provisions for fully contained communities and master planned resorts;
▪ Monitor, review, and amend countywide planning policies as needed;
▪ Establish a method for distribution of state Growth Management funds;
▪ Development of Special-Purpose Districts;
▪ Policies to permit flexibility within local policy procedure; and
▪ Allocate population forecast distribution
Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan, however, is more than a response to the mandate expressed in
the Growth Management Act and the Grant County County-wide Planning Policies implementing it
regionally. It is an essential tool and guide to the preservation and enhancement of Moses Lake’s
long term economic growth and community viability and identity. It expresses the vision of the
community and how that vision may be realized.
What’s in the Plan?
This Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a functional document that will guide Moses Lake’s
development for the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan has the dual responsibility to meet the
goals and needs of Moses Lake’s citizens and the fulfillment of its regional responsibilities of growth
management.
Once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, all of the City’s land use related decisions must be
consistent with the Plan. Used this way, the Comprehensive Plan minimizes conflict in land use
decision making and promotes coordination among programs and regulations.
Plan Characteristics
The Plan has three general characteristics. It is:
▪ Comprehensive. The Plan includes all geographical and functional elements that have a
bearing on the community’s development.
▪ Long-range. The Plan looks beyond the present, anticipating pressing issues that will arise
so that the community can act to ensure the community is sustainable 20 years hence.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 343 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-4
▪ Flexible. The Plan will continue to evolve after it is officially adopted to reflect Moses
Lake’s actual experience and citizens’ concerns. This fine-tuning through annual Plan
amendments will ensure that this document remains a reflection of community values.
Plan Function and Purpose
Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan is intended to serve a range of functions and purposes,
including:
▪ To provide a vision. The Comprehensive Plan ensures that a vision is established for the
community based on an intensive public process that crossed generations, interest groups,
ethnicities, and elected leadership/staff.
▪ To promote the general welfare. The Comprehensive Plan serves to promote the general
health, safety, and welfare of the community by ensuring a forward thinking plan is in place
that also establishes guidelines for development by facilitating the adequate provision of public
services and by encouraging appropriate development.
▪ To encourage coordination. The coordination of private development, community goals
and necessary facilities, reduces costs for developers and the community as a whole. The
Plan tries to anticipate future development and needs, and coordinates development and
needs with existing and planned public programs, facilities, and services.
▪ To identify and review City goals and policies. Updating the Comprehensive Plan gives
the City the opportunity to involve the community to determine if existing goals and
policies are still appropriate and if new policies are necessary, This is a “refresh” that
allows the City to update current practices and policies.
▪ To communicate goals and policies. The Comprehensive Plan contains Moses Lake’s
goals and policies in a written form in one document. This aids City decision makers in
reviewing developments and directing programs. Written policies assist the public and
developers in identifying City requirements and makes the development process more
certain and more efficient.
Comprehensive Plan Elements
The Plan is organized into several chapters, or elements. Goals and policies, and in some cases maps
and/or implementation strategies, have been developed for each element. The goals and policies
are the planning guidelines and criteria that guide city decisions and actions. The implementation
strategies are the necessary steps that need to be taken to achieve the vision set forth in that goal.
Moses Lake’s new Comprehensive Plan, which looks ahead over the next 20 years, is made up of
primary elements and support chapters. These include the required GMA elements and other
elements identified as important to this community:
▪ Land Use
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 344 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-5
▪ Housing
▪ Utilities
▪ Transportation
▪ Capital Facilities. and
▪ Essential Public Facilities
Public Engagement in Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan
Update
This Comprehensive Plan is informed by a comprehensive public involvement process that
originally began in 1995 and culminated in a 2020 with an in-depth round of engagement for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment update process.
Previous engagement included public hearings, study sessions, and two citizen advisory
committees (CACs), and informed the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, which was ultimately adopted.
The City of Moses Lake updates the Comprehensive Plan periodically, which includes additional
public engagement to inform updated visioning, goals, and policies. By state law, the Plan can only
be amended once a year.
This Comprehensive Plan Update process included a public engagement and visioning process,
which consisted of interviews and group discussions, community focus groups, an online Story Map,
and an online survey. The engagement process was focused concurrently on the development of the
Moses Lake Housing Action Plan (HAP) and the Comprehensive Plan Update process. The goal of
the engagement process was to engage people in developing a community vision, assessing housing
needs, and identifying important community issues.
Public Engagement Activities
The following engagement tools and activities were held to gain community and stakeholder input
regarding the HAP and Comprehensive Plan Update:
▪ Interviews and Group Discussions – six discussions were held with thirteen housing
stakeholders.
▪ Community Focus Groups – nine focus groups were held virtually and included nineteen
participants; one group was held in Spanish.
▪ Story Map – An online visual Story Map was created to give community members and
stakeholders an opportunity to learn more about the Comprehensive Plan update and
concurrent HAP process. Participants provided comments related to community assets,
community needs, and future hopes; eighty-two comments were received.
▪ Online Survey – a survey was offered which identified housing needs in Moses Lake,
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 345 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-6
community assets, community concerns, and respondents’ vision for Moses Lake; forty-
three survey responses were received.
Key Topics from the public engagement process related to the Comprehensive Plan included:
▪ Increase activity in Downtown Moses Lake.
▪ Activate and make use of the Moses Lake Waterfront.
▪ Improve City relationship with businesses and foster a more supportive and welcoming
environment, especially for Spanish-speaking entrepreneurs.
▪ Plan for growth around Yonezawa Boulevard and on the Peninsula.
▪ Consider a long-term approach to the relationship with the Larson neighborhood.
▪ Build perception of a community that is welcoming to new businesses and residents.
▪ Improve lake water quality.
▪ Protect prime agricultural land.
▪ Smart Growth principles to accommodate growth, thoughtfully.
▪ More housing choices; and
▪ Opportunities for cooperation and partnership with Grant County, legislature, and
business community.
Community members and stakeholders who participated in the Phase I engagement also shared
their opinions on assets, concerns, and hopes and desires for Moses Lake. Key themes for each
category are detailed below.
Assets
Participants noted that Moses Lake has a great quality of life, including:
▪ Weather: four complete seasons with lots of sun
▪ Easy to get around by car
▪ Good manufacturing jobs
▪ Outdoor recreation, including the lake
Other assets expressed by participants include:
▪ Participants like the small town feel and sense of community.
▪ Central location within Washington and has good access to all parts of the state.
▪ Affordable electricity, fast internet, and excellent coverage.
▪ Large number of parks.
▪ New Downtown transit center which opened in 2017.
▪ Diversity of people.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 346 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-7
Key Themes Related to Concerns
Participants expressed several concerns as follows:
▪ Perception that civic institutions are unwelcoming and recalcitrant, including in relation to
new and existing businesses.
▪ Rising housing prices were expressed as a key concern.
▪ Participants expressed concern about lake water quality and continued deterioration.
▪ Lack of recreation opportunities for youth, include non-sports activities and indoor
activities.
▪ Increasing homelessness and lack of resources to address it.
▪ Population growth, sprawl, and strain on existing transportation infrastructure and
schools were identified as a concern.
▪ Decreasing aquifer water supply.
▪ Lack of daycare services and other childcare options; and
▪ Lack of high-quality healthcare services, including behavioral healthcare.
Other concerns expressed during the engagement process were related to perceptions of increasing
crime and lack of response by the City.
Hopes and Desires
In addition to assets and concerns, participants were given the opportunity to express their hopes
and desires for Moses Lake, as follows:
▪ Interest in Downtown businesses and parks orienting towards the lake as a key feature of
the Downtown.
▪ Smart investment to improve lake water quality and protect aquifer.
▪ More vibrant Downtown and investment in businesses.
▪ Better opportunities for safe, healthy, engaging youth activities, such as arts and sports.
▪ Better amenities, especially restaurants.
▪ Build a tourism economy around the lake.
▪ Improve transportation system with new bridge across the lake.
▪ Better community aesthetics.
▪ Enhance Patton and Broadway as a community gateways.
▪ Keeping Moses Lake’s small town feel.
▪ Jobs for community members, particularly young people who want to stay in the
community.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 347 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-8
Urban Design Visioning
and Visual Preference
Surveys
To gather additional feedback from
local residents regarding the
renewed vision for Moses Lake and
the direction of future
development in the community,
City staff attended community
group meetings and set up
information stations at public
events, such as at the Grant County
Fairgrounds. At these
engagements, staff answered
questions and accepted comments
from the public regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Update, the
Housing Action Plan, and the
updated Vision for Moses Lake.
Community members also had the
opportunity to participate in a
visual preference survey exercise,
in which they could vote on sample
architectural and urban design
image to indicate their preferences
for future development in Moses
Lake.
Visual preference survey poster showing examples of potential
development types for Downtown and waterfront areas.
Visual preference survey poster showing examples of potential
development types for major arterial transportation corridors in Moses
Lake.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 348 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-9
Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions and Hearings
The Moses Lake Planning Commission and City Council held a series of joint study sessions in the
Spring and Summer of 2021 on the various elements of the draft Comprehensive Plan, including the
Housing Action Plan, changes to the Future Land Use Map, land use and urban design policies,
transportation and capital facilities planning, and potential revisions to the City’s Urban Growth
Area (UGA) boundary. The Planning Commission held a series of study sessions and a public
hearing in August and September 2021, which included public testimony by local residents,
business owners, and community stakeholders. Following the Planning Commission process, the
City Council held deliberations and a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan in October and
November 2021. Information about the joint Planning Commission and City Council study sessions
is presented in Exhibit 1-1.
Exhibit 1-1. Planning Commission and City Council Comprehensive Plan Study Sessions
Date Session Type Topics
9/8/2020 Joint Session – Planning Commission and City Council Comprehensive Plan Update Process
Housing Action Plan Process
1/12/2021 Study Session – City Council Only Comprehensive Plan Visioning
4/13/2021 Joint Session – Planning Commission and City Council Comprehensive Plan:
Housing Element and Housing Action
Plan
Land Use Element
5/11/2021 Joint Session – Planning Commission and City Council Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities
Planning Process
6/22/2021 Joint Session – Planning Commission and City Council Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element
7/13/2021 Joint Session – Planning Commission and City Council Comprehensive Plan:
Land Use Element
Capital Facilities Plan
Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is a flexible document intended to respond to the changing conditions of
the community. However, the Growth Management Act stipulates that amendments to the Plan may
be considered no more frequently than once per year, with limited exceptions and requires each
jurisdiction to identify an amendment process. Extensive updates were completed in 2012
(Transportation and Capital Facilities Elements and the Vision Statement), in 2014 (Land Use,
Housing, and Utilities Elements), in 2016 (minor updates to the Transportation Elements and
Utilities Elements), and in 2017 (re-designation of 25 acres from Parks/Open Space to Public
Facilities).
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 349 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-10
Plan Implementation
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides a framework for how the City should continue to grow
and develop in the coming years. The Plan has developed out of the vision that the citizens and their
elected representatives hold for the future of the City. For the Plan to be successful, its
implementation must be a coordinated effort on the part of both the public and private sectors.
A number of specific implementation measures and actions should be taken immediately upon
adoption of the Plan update; others will be longer term priorities and will take several years to
complete.
Once the Plan is adopted all development regulations shall be made consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan within one year of plan adoption, including approval of rezones that match the
plan’s land use designation. The development regulations will include a concurrency ordinance.
Subsequent to this action, development regulations shall generally be adopted concurrently with
the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Where a new or major revision to the Comprehensive Plan is
adopted, new development regulations shall be adopted within a year of the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan revision. As required by state law, the City Planning Commission and City
Council shall review and approve the updated development regulations.
Functional plans shall be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. When new
Comprehensive Plans are adopted or amendments that affect a functional plan are adopted, the City
shall update the functional plan to make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan within two
years.
Long-term actions include securing resources to complete district planning and revitalization
efforts in the Broadway Corridor and Downtown Creative District and urban design and
transportation enhancement at major gateway locations along I-90, as well as expanding the city’s
water supply and development of a street master plan for the entire urban growth area. The City
will actively solicit grant funding to augment City funds. The Comprehensive Plan is supported by
the Capital Facilities Element and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), which is the overall financing plan
for the Comprehensive Plan. The pace of the schedule in the CFP will spur the City’s development in
the direction envisioned in the Plan and create momentum, assuring the success of this plan.
City Staff recognizes that a successful Plan is one that can respond to changed conditions. Long-
term changes in land uses, regional economic trends, and implementation of the community’s
vision may result in the need for reassessment. The Comprehensive Plan should be monitored
annually and amended as the community needs change.
The following table lists specific actions necessary to implement this plan and, in most cases,
identifies a general time frame for completion. A brief description of each action is provided
following the table.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 350 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-11
Exhibit 1-2. Plan Implementation Actions
Action
Department/Agencies
Involved
Task Time Frame
Start Date To be Complete By:
Unincorporated UGA
Development
Regulations
Com. Dev. Staff and Grant
County Com. Dev. Staff
To be determined Contingent on agreement
by City Council and Grant
County Board of
Commissioners
Development
Regulations Review and
Update
Com. Dev. Staff Upon Adoption of
Comprehensive Plan
Within 1 year of
Comprehensive Plan
Adoption
Update Permit
Procedures
Com. Dev. Staff Concurrent with Development
Regulations Review and Update
Parks and Recreation
Comp. Plan Update
Parks and Recreation
Department
Summer 2020 December 2021
Master Street Plan for
Corporate Limits
Municipal Services
Department – Engineering
Division
Upon Adoption of
Comprehensive Plan
Within 1 year of
Comprehensive Plan
Adoption
Master Street Plan for
Unincorporated UGA
Com. Dev. Staff and
Municipal Services Dept. in
coordination with Grant
County Public Works
To be determined
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Plan Update
Municipal Services Dept. –
Engineering Division
2021 December 2022
Comprehensive Water
System Plan Update
Municipal Services Dept. –
Engineering Division
2021 December 2022
Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan
Municipal Services Dept. –
Engineering Division
2022 December 2023
Unincorporated Urban Growth Area Development Agreements. Development and land use
activities occurring at urban densities adjacent to the city will have an impact on the city. It is
important that joint planning agreements are reached between the city and the county which
identify development standards, concurrency issues, development review procedures, etc.
Development should be required to meet city standards, so that if annexation occurs undue
financial burden is not placed upon the city at a later date. Concurrency standards, especially
relative to transportation issues, should adhere to the city’s LOS.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 351 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-12
Development Regulations. Existing development regulations should be reviewed and
updated as appropriate to incorporate the concepts contained in the Plan within one year of
Plan adoption. A concurrency ordinance, consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(6), shall be
developed and adopted which assures the provision of public facilities in accordance with
Level of Service Standards adopted within the Plan. In addition to the existing regulations,
there are several land use categories that may benefit from new review standards, design
guidelines, or other forms of documentation as they are implemented over time. These include
the following:
Existing Development Regulations
▪ MLMC Title 18 Zoning, including rezone approvals consistent with new land use
designations.
▪ MLMC Title 17 Subdivision
New Land Use Designations
▪ Downtown
▪ Gateway Commercial
Update Permit Procedures. RCW 36.70B requires jurisdictions planning under GMA to
establish integrated and consolidated project permit procedures. The City shall review the
permit processes and develop policies consistent with the RCW in conjunction with the
Development Regulations update.
Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update. The City’s Parks and Recreation Plan
was last updated in 2016. The Plan is currently being updated and is anticipated to be adopted
in 2022. The City shall use the annual amendment process to incorporate the Parks and
Recreation plan into the Comprehensive Plan.
Master Street Plan. The City does not have a Master Street Plan. A master street plan should
be developed consistent with the Land Use Element and the Transportation Element within
one year of Comprehensive Plan adoption. Additionally, a street plan should be created and
adopted for the unincorporated UGA. This action will require coordination between Grant
County and the City of Moses Lake and should be considered subsequent to the adoption of
UGA development agreements. In both cases consideration should be given to transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle facility plans.
Wastewater System Master Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Wastewater Plan was last
updated in 2015. The Plan provides details on the City’s existing collection system and
tributary summary reports. The City has two wastewater treatment facilities: Sand Dunes
Wastewater Treatment Facility, and Larson Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Comprehensive Water System Plan Update. Moses Lake’s Water System Plan was completed
in 2000 and updated in 2016. The updated plan identifies improvements for the distribution of
potable water and addresses water right issues. The Plan is based on the population
projections contained within the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and through
site visits and evaluation of existing wells, pump stations, and reservoirs in Moses Lake.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 352 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-13
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. As discussed in the Utilities Element (Chapter 5), the City
manages urban stormwater under a Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the
Washington Department of Ecology and has adopted a Stormwater Management Program. The
City should also establish a Stormwater Comprehensive Plan to address capital planning needs
for the stormwater utility. This comprehensive plan would include and inventory of existing
infrastructure, establish a level of service standard for future development, and document
future capital needs for system repairs and upgrades.
Roles & Responsibilities
Purpose
The other Elements of Comprehensive Plan focus on the natural and built environments, where the
City has a mandated and historic responsibility. These preceding goals and policies are concerned
with how lands are used and protected and the extent to which the physical environment and
design promotes positive human interaction, mobility, and a sense of community. However, the City
of Moses Lake and its citizens recognize the role and importance of individuals, the family
businesses, government, and public organizations in maintaining a safe, secure, and successful
community.
The Roles and Responsibilities Element deals with the social environment and aims to relate the
goals and policies described elsewhere in the Plan to the City’s role of compassion and support,
responsibility and involvement, and education and organization that are essential to a viable
community. It recognizes the importance of the individual and the need to provide for and support
individuals, families, and organizations; and, therefore, that planning is not just for the broad
community well-being, but for individual well- being as well.
The goal and policies of this element lay out the components of an approach to defining the roles
and responsibilities of the City of Moses Lake and how to implement them to achieve the
community envisioned in this Comprehensive Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 353 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-14
General Goals and Policies
The Government Program
Goal 1.1 Provide a service oriented government that works with all interests in the
community to implement their vision
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.
IMPLEMENTATION 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
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 354 of 883
Ch. 1 Introduction DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 1-15
▪ Strict enforcement of health and safety codes.
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 10-26-21, Page 355 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 356 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 2-1
Photo by City of Moses Lake
Ch. 2 Vision
Introduction
Between September and October 2020, and in
the midst of the COVID pandemic, City staff
worked diligently to gain the input of the
community through an online website
presence, the input of a stakeholder group with
broad representation and outreach which
included: nine online focus groups, meetings
with local businesses, carrying out an online
survey which informed the process,
participating in a walking tour around
downtown Moses Lake including a downtown
focus group meeting, and engaging a broad
range of community residents and stakeholders
in the Vision that will guide growth in Moses
Lake for the next 20 years.
Through this effort, the City learned about
community priorities and desires for the next
20 years. In addition, past plans and Vision
2020 documents were reviewed to evaluate if
those priorities still held for the next 20 year
planning horizon.
It is important to note, the community was very
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 357 of 883
Ch. 2 Vision DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 2-2
forthright about needing to establish trust in the City to carry out the desires of this comprehensive
plan. By adopting this plan, the City Council is committing to direct the work of the City staff and
Advisory Boards to ensure that the desires of the community are fulfilled through the
implementation of this planning effort.
The Stakeholder Group and City Council/Planning Commission, after reviewing the input received
through the outreach process, worked to develop the following vision statement which embodies
the desires and aspirations of Moses Lake’s residents and forms the foundation for the goals,
policies, and priorities established in this Comprehensive Plan.
A Vision for Moses Lake
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, abundance of sunshine, and
outdoor activities.
To carry out this vision, the following goals were developed:
Embrace the city’s diversity and foster inclusivity.
▪ Make Moses Lake a community for all ages and cultural backgrounds.
▪ Promote equal access to public services and amenities across the community and equal voice in
government for all.
▪ Foster artistic and cultural activities and celebrate Moses Lake’s cultural heritage.
Foster economic innovation and opportunity.
▪ Build economic opportunity by supporting local businesses.
▪ Foster a diverse economy that embraces new industries and technologies.
▪ Promote education and career training programs to create economic opportunity for residents.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 358 of 883
Ch. 2 Vision DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 2-3
Strengthen the character and
identity of Moses Lake.
▪ Revitalize Downtown as a creative,
civic, and cultural center oriented
toward the lake.
▪ Create an active, vibrant waterfront.
▪ Promote high-quality and aesthetically
pleasing development.
▪ Research and implement opportunities
to bring reinvestment into Downtown
Moses Lake through the exploration of
historic resources or creative industry
development.
Build upon the city’s
recreational amenities.
▪ Leverage the lake and outdoor
recreation to build a tourism economy.
▪ Protect the environmental quality of
the lake and other natural amenities.
▪ Build a network of parks, trails, and
recreational facilities that take
advantage of Moses Lake’s natural
setting.
Carry out long term planning to
ensure sustainability.
▪ Complete updated plans for the city’s utilities and emergency services and develop appropriate
financing plans.
▪ Participate in efforts to enhance lake health.
▪ Develop partnerships to preserve long term potable water availability.
▪ Encourage revitalization of the city’s commercial areas by adding a mix of uses and pursue
implementation funding.
Visual preference survey results for commercial centers and
public spaces.
Visual preference survey results for Downtown development
concepts.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 359 of 883
Ch. 2 Vision DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 2-4
Implementing the
Vision
To carry out these goals, several catalyst
projects were identified through the
planning process that would ensure
implementation of the city’s
Comprehensive Plan:
▪ Broadway District Revitalization
▪ Downtown Creative District Effort
▪ Industrial Water Reuse Facility
▪ The Transformational Campus
▪ I-90 Improvements (Exit 174 – 176)
Public feedback on potential Creative District concepts and
design elements.
Design concept for I-90 gateway signage improvements.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 360 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 361 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-1
Photo by Sarah Richie
Ch. 3 Land Use
Introduction
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element uses what we know about existing conditions and
expected growth to guide and plan for future land uses, infrastructure, and services while
protecting environmentally sensitive areas and community character.
Recognizing the interplay between urban and rural areas, this Land Use Element includes areas
inside the existing city limits as well as unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Area (UGA).
The city’s ability to provide sufficient housing and a livable urban community that meets the needs
of the area’s growing population is essential for the protection of agricultural areas outside the
UGA. Cooperation and collaboration between the city and county are essential for the success of this
plan.
Conditions and Trends
Moses Lake’s central location – on Interstate 90 and State Route 17 – and accessibility by highway,
rails, and air have made it the center for shopping, health care, social services, employment,
education, business, and industry in Grant County. Moses Lake is the home of the largest natural
body of fresh water in Grant County. The city attracts new residents and tourists alike with its
thriving economy, recreation opportunities, and arts and culture activities.
The city’s population is growing. The City’s adopted population growth target for the 2018-
In this chapter…
Introduction 3-1
Goals and Policies 3-15
Land Use Designations 3-28
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 362 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-2
2038 planning period is 7,917 new residents. Population growth in Moses Lake has averaged
2.4% annually since 2015. If this trend continues, the City’s population would exceed the
adopted population target, growing to approximately 35,626 residents by 2038.
More housing is needed to support this growth. Moses Lake has adequate land capacity to
accommodate 10,275 new residents within city limits and an additional 24,140 residents in the
unincorporated UGA. While there is adequate land capacity to accommodate projected growth,
the rate of housing production would need to increase to an average of 253 units per year to
provide enough housing.
The city’s ability to attract and retain business and industry is key to the economic
strength and employment diversity of the region. As of 2015, ten of the 15 largest
manufacturing employers in Grant County were located within the Moses Lake area.
Manufacturing is the largest job sector by employment within the Moses Lake area followed by
the education, healthcare, and retail trade sectors.
Moses Lake’s environmental resources are a critical asset that need protecting. Moses
Lake, the water body, is a key feature that attracts residents, businesses, and tourists to the city,
but the lake is being studied for remedies to toxic algae blooms that limit its use. Shoreline
treatments, lack of protection from run-off, and septic systems all directly contribute to the
conditions that impact the lake’s health.
A high-quality water supply is critical to Moses Lake’s future. Future population growth in
Moses Lake and the surrounding area will create additional demand for water and other
resources. The City is taking steps to expand its water supply and secure additional water rights
to serve current and future residents.
Population
Moses Lake’s population is both growing and changing. While the city, county, and state have all
been experiencing steady population growth over the past decade, the pace of growth in Moses
Lake exceeds the rate of growth in both Grant County and Washington State (Exhibit 3-1).
Exhibit 3-1: Population Growth and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR), 2000–2019
Sources: OFM, 2019; BERK, 2020.
Consistent with growth trends and Grant County’s adoption of OFM population projections, the City
of Moses Lake is planning for a projected population of 35,626 by 2038, an increase of 11,406
2010 2014 2015 2019
AAGR
2000–2014
AAGR
2015–2019
Moses Lake 20,366 21,600 22,080 24,220 1.5% 2.4%
Grant County 89,120 92,900 93,930 98,740 1.1% 1.3%
State 6,724,540 6,968,170 7,061,410 7,546,410 0.9% 1.4%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 363 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-3
people (Exhibit 3-2).
Exhibit 3-2. Historic and Projected Population in Moses Lake, 2010-2038
Sources: WA Office of Financial Management, 2019; BERK, 2021.
While most of the city’s population is working age adults, nearly one-fifth of the population is age
60 or older. (Exhibit 3-3) Population projections for Grant County indicate that the older adult
population is expected to increase faster than all other age groups in the next 20 years due to the
aging Baby Boomer generation. As Grant County’s largest city, it is reasonable to expect it will
attract aging adults who want to live closer to health care and other services and amenities.
Exhibit 3-3: Age and Sex Distribution, Moses Lake and Grant County, 2018
Sources: ACS 5-Yr Estimates, 2014-2018 (Table S0101); BERK, 2020.
20,366
24,220
35,626
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038Moses Lake Actual
Moses Lake Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 364 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-4
According to the U.S. Census, while most Moses Lake residents identify as white, people of color are
a growing component of the city’s demographic profile. As of 2018, people of color represented
24% of the local population, a slight increase from 23% in 2010. People of color make up a smaller
percentage of the population in Moses Lake than in Grant County as a whole (30%). Exhibit 3-4
shows a racial profile for Moses Lake compared to Grant County.
Over one-third of residents in Moses Lake identify as Hispanic or Latino and nearly one-quarter
(22%) of individuals speak Spanish. One-third of non-English speakers report that they speak
English less than “very well,” making multilingual communication essential. Since 2010, the
Hispanic population in Moses Lake has increased as a share from 31% in 2010 to 35% in 2018. See
Exhibit 3-5.
The American Community Survey (ACS) reports the 2018 median household income in Moses Lake
as $51,800, slightly below the Grant County median household income of $54,982 and
approximately 22% below the statewide household median income of $70,116. Compared to Grant
County, a greater share of households in Moses Lake have annual incomes less than $35,000, and a
lower share have incomes above $100,000.
A detailed discussion of the demographic characteristics, include race, ethnicity, and household
income, are include in the Housing Element (Chapter 4).
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 365 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-5
Exhibit 3-4. Racial and Ethnic Profile, Moses Lake and Grant County, 2018
* Less than 1% in both Moses Lake and Grant County
Sources: American Community Survey B02001 5-Yr Estimates, 2010 & 2018; BERK Consulting, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 366 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-6
Exhibit 3-5. Ethnicity and Race, Moses Lake and Grant County, 2018
Sources: American Community Survey DP05 5-Yr Estimates, 2010 & 2018; BERK Consulting, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 367 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-7
Land Use
This section describes existing land use and zoning within
the Corporate Limits and urban growth area (UGA) and
evaluates the capacity of the land for future development,
based on the amount and distribution of developed and
vacant land.
Existing Land Uses
The existing land use distribution in the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of the UGA is shown in Exhibit 3-6
through Exhibit 3-8. Existing land use locations are mapped in Exhibit 3-9.
Exhibit 3-6. Existing Land Uses – Incorporated and Unincorporated UGA
Agriculture 1,733 17% 4,216 29%
Commercial 1,129 11% 499 3%
Industrial 916 9% 559 4%
Residential 2,067 20% 2,565 18%
Single Family 1,657 16% 2,266 15%
Duplex 56 1% 178 1.2%
Multifamily 188 2% 31 0.2%
Manufactured Home Park 167 2% 90 0.6%
Port District 306 3% 4,389 30%
Public 1,377 14% 365 2.5%
Vacant 2,635 26% 2,060 14%
Total 10,162 100% 14,652 100%
Sources: Grant County Assessor, 2021; City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
“The discussion about food
doesn't make any sense
without discussion at the same
time of land, land use, land
policy, fertility maintenance,
and farm infrastructure
maintenance.”
Wendell Berry
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 368 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-8
Exhibit 3-7. Existing Land Use – City Limits
Sources: Grant County Assessor, 2021; City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Exhibit 3-8. Existing Land Use – Unincorporated UGA
Sources: Grant County Assessor, 2021; City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Agriculture,
29%
Commercial, 3%
Industrial, 4%
Single
Family, 15%
Duplex, 1.2%
Multifamily,
0.2%
Manufactured
Home Park,
0.6%
Port District,
30%
Public, 2.5%
Vacant, 14%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 369 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-9
Exhibit 3-9. Existing Land Use Map
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Grant County Assessor, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 370 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-10
Residential Uses
Moses Lake has capacity to accommodate approximately 10,275 new residents within city limits
and capacity for an additional 24,140 residents in the unincorporated UGA. The city has sufficient
residential land capacity within existing city limits to accommodate adopted population growth
target of 7,917 residents for the 2018-2038 planning period.
Population growth in Moses Lake has averaged 2.4% annually since 2015. If this trend continues,
the city’s population would exceed the adopted target and grow to approximately 35,626 residents
by 2038. This rate of residential growth would slightly exceed the available capacity within city
limits. To accommodate this level of growth, additional density within city limits would be
necessary. Incorporation of some portions of the UGA could also provide capacity to meet housing
needs, but annexation of unincorporated areas carries other additional costs to the City in the form
of infrastructure needs and public services; focusing development within existing urban areas is
also a core goal of the Growth Management Act.
To keep pace with the rate of population growth and maintain the existing ratio of housing to
population, housing production would need to average 253 units per year, a net increase of 4,803
units.
Commercial/Industrial Uses
Downtown is the primary retail, office, entertainment, arts, and
civic center of the community. As the historic center of Moses
Lake, Downtown can provide a unique mix of vibrant public
spaces and economic activity. Future lands for enhancing this
area of Moses Lake include revitalization of the Broadway
Corridor and establishment of a Creative District. The city also
has general commercial areas that accommodate land-
intensive retail uses and neighborhood commercial areas that
serve smaller-scale neighborhood needs.
Industrial land uses are primarily located along the Wheeler
Corridor in the eastern portion of the city and at the Port of
Moses Lake in the northwest portion of the city.
The demand for commercial and industrial land is driven by
forces external to anticipated population growth. Moses Lake’s
location on Interstate 90 and State Route 17 and accessibility
by rail and air make it an ideal regional location for
commercial and industrial development. Most manufacturers serve national and global markets
and do not serve solely Grant County.
General Commercial Areas
Moses Lake has four main general
commercial areas:
• Kittleson Corner/East Freeway
Interchange – developed with
restaurants, hotels, and gas stations.
• Pioneer Way – developed with
professional offices, restaurants, car
sales lots, medical clinics, hotels, and the
Grant County Mall.
• West Broadway – developed with land-
intensive uses such as manufactured
home dealers, auto repair shops, gas
stations, building supply stores, and
storage facilities.
• Stratford Business District –
developed with big box and standard
retail, restaurants, and a nearby ball
field complex to the west.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 371 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-11
The Moses Lake area is an attractive location for warehousing, distribution, and manufacturing
uses, which will drive continued residential growth. The current shape of the southeastern UGA
boundary creates an isolated “pocket” of rural land. The city should consider requesting an
expansion of the UGA in this location to regularize the boundary and build employment capacity by
rezoning these lands for industrial or commercial uses. To avoid expanding the UGA beyond a
manageable size, this boundary amendment should also include removal of areas with limited
development potential or where providing urban services would be difficult.
Economy
Grant County is part of one of the nation’s most productive and diversified agricultural regions as a
result of the Columbia Basin Project, a federal program that brought a system of irrigation canals to
the basin, utilizing the backbone of the Columbia River. While agriculture and food processing
remain the county’s leading employers and the largest component of the local economy, growth is
anticipated in the nonmetallic mineral, machinery, and food and beverage manufacturing sectors.
Much of this growth is expected to take place in Moses Lake.
Aerospace and other associated industries also form a significant portion of the local economy.
Much of Moses Lake’s historical growth was associated with Grant County International Airport,
formerly Larson Air Force Base. The conversion of the base to civil use and the foundation of the
Port of Moses Lake caused significant economic growth in the region during the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Aviation and the aerospace industry are firmly rooted in the community, both in economic and
cultural terms. The Port of Moses Lake continues to play an important role in the local economy,
and much of the industrial development in the UGA is concentrated near the airport. In 2015, Grant
County and the City of Moses Lake jointly established a SEPA Planned Action for the Grant County
International Airport Employment Center, designed to promote aerospace and manufacturing
development near the airport and foster industrial employment growth in the Moses Lake area.
As the population of Moses Lake and the surrounding region continues to grow, ongoing economic
development will be necessary to provide economic opportunity for area residents. Moses Lake has
a significant youth population who will reach adulthood during the lifetime of this comprehensive
plan. Approximately 31% of the city’s population is under 20 years of age, and 48% of the
population is younger than 30 years.
Moses Lake’s location on Interstate 90 and State Route 17 and accessibility by rail and air is ideal
for commercial and industrial development. In addition, low-cost electricity, a friendly regulatory
environment, and high-speed fiber optic internet access make Moses Lake attractive to new
development. The City of Moses Lake has long supported and encouraged commercial and
industrial growth as part of its economic and tax strategy. The agricultural and manufacturing
heritage of the local economy also provide opportunities for spin-off micro-industries that can
contribute to the rise of a creative district in repurposed downtown spaces. The city is actively
pursuing the designation of a Creative District in Downtown to foster a mix of innovative small
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 372 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-12
businesses, arts and culture, and live-work development.
Environment
To retain its unique character and identity as it grows, Moses Lake must balance the development
needs of the community with the needs of the natural environment. The city should seek to
minimize the susceptibility of environmentally sensitive areas to damage, maximize protection of
open space and habitat, preserve opportunities for recreation, and improve infrastructure systems
to support healthy living for people and wildlife.
Critical Areas
A key component of the Growth Management
Act (GMA) is designating and protecting
critical areas and natural resource lands (e.g.,
agricultural lands, forestlands, and mineral
resource lands) of long-term commercial
significance.
While there are no significant natural resource
lands within the UGA, there are critical areas
including:
▪ Approximately 610 acres of wetlands,
most of which are freshwater wetlands fed
by ground and surface water (palustrine
systems) but some of which are associated
with lakes and ponds (lacustrine systems).
▪ Critical aquifer recharge areas indicated in preliminary inventory.
▪ Approximately 12 acres of preserved wetlands at the Three Ponds Wetland Mitigation Bank in
Downtown Moses Lake, established by WSDOT in 2013 adjacent to the city’s Japanese Garden.
▪ Islands in the lake, shoreline and riparian areas, and other locations that provide critical fish
and wildlife habitat including habitat for three sensitive local species – the Burrowing Owl
(State Candidate Species and Federal Bird of Conservation Concern), Northern Leopard Frog
(State Endangered Species), and Washington Ground Squirrel (State and Federal Candidate
Species).
▪ Frequently flooded areas along Crab Creek in the upper reaches of Parker Horn and along the
Moses Lake shoreline where rising lake elevations from large-volume flood events or USBR-
initiated flow changes can inundate adjacent lands.
▪ Geologically hazardous areas identified through use of soil surveys and seismic zone maps.
Known Wetland Locations
Based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps
and aerial photographs it is estimate that wetlands
consume as much as 610 acres within the following
areas inside the city’s current limits and within
unincorporated portions of its UGA:
▪ Southwest of town in Laguna and Westlake area
▪ Northeast of town between Wheeler and Broadway
▪ Northern tip of Pelican Horn and along eastern
shoreline
▪ South of the old Sugar Beet Refinery
▪ West of the Municipal Airport
▪ Along the Crab Creek shoreline
The approximate location of know wetlands is noted on
the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 373 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-13
The City’s Critical Areas regulations were last amended in 2003, and the Moses Lake Shoreline
Master Plan was updated in 2014 (approved by the Department of Ecology in 2017). Additional
study is necessary to create a complete inventory of environmentally sensitive areas and delineate
critical aquifer recharge areas and geologically hazardous areas within the city.
Moses Lake
Moses Lake, the water body, is a key asset for the City of Moses Lake. This shallow warm water lake
covers approximately 6,800 acres (10.6 square miles) and is used for fishing, boating, and
swimming. The lake is regulated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) as part of the Columbia
Basin Project which supplies water stored behind Grand Coulee Dam to over 500,000 acres of
farmland.
Moses Lake has high levels of phosphorous and nitrogen. Improvements have been made over time
to help the health of the lake. For example, low-nutrient water has been added to the lake since the
1970’s to help to dilute overall nutrient levels, the Sand Dunes Wastewater Facility Plant has been
treating municipal wastewater since 1984, a small dam was constructed at the lower end of Rocky
Ford Creek in 1987 as part of a program to enhance water quality, and on-farm irrigation system
improvements in the Block 40 and Block 41 area of the Columbia Basin Project have decreased the
amount of nutrients reaching groundwater.
Despite these improvements, the lake continues to suffer from non-point source pollutants
generated by land uses throughout the watershed that makes its way to the lake through diffused
sources like stormwater, precipitation, atmospheric fallout, interflow, and groundwater. The prime
contributors to the lake’s pollution are agricultural runoff, urban stormwater, septic system
seepage, and air and dust pollution.
While water quality protection measures have led to improvements over time, continued emphasis
on mitigation of urban development impacts and on-farm irrigation water management is needed
to protect and improve the water quality of Moses Lake. Ongoing implementation of the Shoreline
Master Program and continued deployment of public sewer service as a means to reduce usage of
on-site septic systems can further protect and improve the lake’s water quality.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 374 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-14
Community History and Cultural Resources
The city now known as Moses Lake stands on the
traditional lands of the Sinkiuse tribe, who used the
shores of the lake as a summer encampment.
Centuries before the first ranchers and farmers
came here, generations of native peoples called the
region home, traveling seasonal migratory paths
between the Columbia River and Grand Coulee. The
Rocky Ford area was one of the most intensely used
encampments due to a year-round supply of fresh
spring water.
After European settlement of the area in the 1800’s,
ranchers and farmers occupied the area. The
community that would eventually become Moses Lake was founded in 1910 as the Town of Neppel
on the site of the present downtown area. The city was incorporated in 1938 and renamed Moses
Lake after a chief of the Sinkiuse who had lived in the area. kwitálx̌kn (Chief Moses) was a leader of
the Sinkiuse or Columbia tribe of Indians, born in 1829 near what is now Wenatchee. By the time of
his birth, his tribe had been reduced to only a few hundred souls due to smallpox and malaria. At
age twelve, his father sent him to Reverend Henry Spalding's Christian mission at Lapwai, Idaho. At
the mission, Moses received his Christian name, though he was never baptized. Moses became
known as a brave warrior and eventually rose to the leadership of the Sinkiuse.
Moses opposed non-native people taking the traditional lands of his people. Nevertheless, he
attended the treaty negotiations of 1855, and he emerged as one of the most influential tribal
leaders in the Columbia Plateau. He ultimately took up residence on the Colville Reservation, north
of his homelands, but he spent much of his time in his village on Rocky Ford near Moses Lake. Chief
Moses died in 1899 at the age of 70, recognized as a fierce warrior, skilled negotiator, diplomat, and
a powerful leader of his people.
The City that came to bear Chief Moses’ name boomed in the 1950’s as a result of the Columbia
Basin Irrigation Project, which opened up more than 200,000 acres of irrigated farmland for
cultivation. This increase in agriculture drew more businesses to the area. Larson Air Force Base,
established during World War II, also drove growth in Moses Lake during the 1940’s and 1950’s,
until it was converted to civil use in 1966 as part of the Port of Moses Lake.
Due to the relatively young age of buildings in the community and alterations made to the buildings
that remain from the early 1900’s, most sites have been determined to be ineligible for the National
Historic Register. Records of the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) show approximately 111 recorded historic structures in Moses Lake,
including houses, motels, a gas station, a water tower, and several airport-related buildings. DAHP
records also include several dozen historic irrigation canals, roadways, and railroad spur lines.
“My parents gave birth to me
here, and I fancy that this is my
country…let me remain in my
own country, and I shall die
contented.”
Chief Moses, 1870
kwitálx̌kn
1829-1899
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 375 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-15
Given Moses Lake’s history along Historic Route 10, the area contains additional buildings dating
from the 1950’s and 1960’s that may be eligible for local historic designation as part of the City’s
ongoing Downtown revitalization efforts.
Goals and Policies
This Land Use Element establishes an overall policy framework to guide land use and development
within the city and its Urban Growth Area (UGA). The future land use map, zoning map, and
regulations are the tools used to implement the following goals and policies:
Goal 3.1 Provide for coordinated, logical, orderly growth of the city.
Policy 3.1.1 Establish interlocal agreements with Grant County to address Countywide
Planning Policies and development in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area (UGA).
Needs include: information sharing, city review process, land use, zoning, development
standards, impact mitigation, and other relevant issues related to significant land use
actions under Grant County jurisdiction, but within the UGA.
Policy 3.1.2 Encourage annexation of contiguous areas within the unincorporated UGA
that already receive city water and/or sewer, focusing on lands closest to city
boundaries before areas further out.
Policy 3.1.3 Avoid irregular boundaries and islands of unincorporated land. City
peninsulas should be avoided unless needed to serve other areas.
Policy 3.1.4 Assign newly annexed properties zoning consistent with the
comprehensive plan and ensure properties assume their equitable share of the city’s
bonded indebtedness.
Policy 3.1.5 Encourage applicants for annexations to apply jointly with other interested
property owners to reduce application costs and increase efficiency of the city’s review
process.
Policy 3.1.6 Establish priority areas for future annexations based on land use
conditions, infrastructure availability, and project cost of urban services. Use these
priority areas to guide future decisions about timing and extent of annexations and UGA
expansions.
Policy 3.1.7 Adopt user-friendly development regulations that implement Moses Lake’s
land use vision while offering flexibility for creative solutions. Examples of this may
include:
▪ Use of simple language and easy-to-read charts and graphics in the development
code;
▪ Monitoring of development trends and refinement of the development code over
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 376 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-16
time to facilitate preferred development character and land use patterns; and
▪ Inclusion of flexible development standards and incentive programs that offer
multiple options for meeting development requirements. Menu-based options
provide choice and flexibility to developers while ensuring new development
meets the City’s policy goals.
Goal 3.2 Balance the pace of development with the ability to provide public facilities and
services.
Policy 3.2.1 Encourage development in and adjacent to urban areas where adequate
public facilities and services exist or can be provided in a timely and cost-effective
manner.
Policy 3.2.2 Coordinate the planned extension and improvement of public utilities and
services with projected development patterns.
Policy 3.2.3 Incentivize infill development scaled and designed to fit the surroundings
and revitalize corridors.
Policy 3.2.4 Ensure developments and annexations maintain Level of Service (LOS)
standards established for capital facilities, utilities, and transportation or provide for
timely mitigation that restores standards.
Goal 3.3 Maintain and enhance the health and vitality of residential neighborhoods.
Policy 3.3.1 Protect and preserve the character and quality of existing residential
neighborhoods. Specifically:
▪ Ensure that new development is compatible in scale and with added aesthetic
quality to enhance established neighborhoods.
▪ Prioritize the upkeep and improvement of streets, sidewalks, landscaping, parks,
utilities, and community facilities in established neighborhoods.
▪ Maintain neighborhood upkeep through strict City code compliance.
▪ Carefully review proposed land use designation changes to more intensive
residential designations. Specifically:
– Proposals should conform to locational criteria set forth for the desired
designation.
– The site should be physically suited for the proposed designation.
– The desired zone should be one of the implementing zones of the land use
designation.
– Avoid spot zones or similar changes that may create instability with the
surrounding neighborhood.
▪ Encourage the conversion of single-family detached structures to multi-family
structures consistent with the underlying zoning district.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 377 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-17
▪ Allow home occupations that would not generate excessive traffic, create
parking problems, or degrade the livability or appearance of the neighborhood.
Policy 3.3.2 Encourage a range of housing types, densities, and affordability levels to
meet the diverse and changing needs of the community.
▪ Accessory dwelling units (ADU). Allow for attached and detached ADU’s in all
residential districts provided size, design, and other provisions are included to
promote compatibility with surrounding uses.
▪ Standard single family. Continue to allow for detached single family dwellings in
residential districts.
▪ Small lot single family. To allow for small lot single family development,
establish provisions for reduced minimum lot sizes in single-family zones (R-1
and R-2), provided design standards are integrated to mitigate the impact of
garages and driveways on the streetscape:
– For large subdivisions (sites over two acres in size) in applicable zones,
allow reduced minimum lot sizes and/or density averaging, provided the
development incorporates traditional neighborhood design concepts or
residential clustering around common open space.
– On infill sites in the R-2 district. Consider reducing the lot size minimum for
small lot single family in the R-2 district to between 4,000-5,000 square feet.
▪ Cottage housing. Allow the development of cottage housing (a cluster of small
homes around a common open space) in all residential zones, provided special
design provisions are included to ensure a pedestrian-oriented design, inclusion
of common open space, and strict cottage size limitations.
▪ Duplexes. Continue to allow duplexes in appropriate residential zones and
adjust allowable lot sizes to enhance their viability. Adopt design standards that
emphasize a pedestrian-oriented design and the inclusion of usable open space.
▪ Townhouses. Consider the integration of townhouses in the R-2 zone (add
design standards and limitations on the number of attached units to provide
compatibility. Encourage the development of townhouses in the R-3 zones and
commercial zones that allow housing/mixed-use. Adopt design standards that
emphasize pedestrian-oriented design, façade articulation, and usable open
space in commercial and mixed-use zoning designations.
▪ Senior and assisted housing. Encourage these housing types in the R-3 zone and
commercial zones that allow housing/mixed-use. Adopt design standards that
emphasize pedestrian-oriented design, façade articulation, and usable open
space.
▪ Walk up apartments and stacked flats. Encourage these housing types in the R-3
zone and commercial zones that allow housing/mixed-use. Adopt design
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 378 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-18
standards that emphasize pedestrian-oriented design, façade articulation, and
usable open space.
▪ Live-work units. Promote opportunities to combine live and work spaces in
commercial zones that allow housing/mixed-use, with highest priority assigned
to the Downtown Creative District.
Policy 3.3.3 Allow appropriately scaled uses that support residential neighborhoods
such as schools, religious institutions, home occupations, small-scale neighborhood
commercial uses, parks, open spaces, day care facilities, and other appropriate uses.
Maintain standards in the zoning code for locating and designing these uses in a manner
that respects the character and scale of the neighborhood.
Policy 3.3.4 Create walkable residential neighborhoods with safe streets and good
connections to schools, parks, transit, and commercial services.
▪ Construct sidewalks along all new residential streets.
▪ Provide streetscape standards that create safe and walkable streets within
residential developments.
▪ Promote small block sizes to ensure good connectivity and reduced walking
distances between residences and schools, parks, and services. Specifically:
– R-1 zone and other large-lot neighborhoods (average lot sizes of 7,000
square feet or greater): Blocks between 400- 800 feet long are appropriate.
– R-2 and R-3 zones and other small-lot areas (average lot size less than 7,000
square feet): Blocks between 300-660 feet long are appropriate.
– Provide connections through large residential blocks to promote pedestrian
circulation.
▪ Provide for usable publicly accessible parkland within walking distance (1/2
mile) of all new residences.
▪ Provide standards and guidance for the proper selection and maintenance of
street trees.
Policy 3.3.5 Stimulate investment and revitalization through strategic use of
Residential Redevelopment Area designation that allows greater development
flexibility.
Policy 3.3.6 Look for opportunities to use available federal, state, and county programs
– as well as private and nonprofit options – to fund and coordinate public actions to
improve the quality of the environment, economy, or social/physical conditions of
redevelopment areas.
Policy 3.3.7 Implement new design standards for small lot single family, duplex, and
triplex developments to gracefully integrate these lot/housing types into existing
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 379 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-19
neighborhoods in ways that maintain general neighborhood scale and character.
Key concepts to consider in the design standards include:
▪ Provide a covered entry facing the street.
▪ Minimize the impacts of garages and driveways on the streetscape.
▪ Provide usable open space for each unit.
▪ Integrate a minimum amount of façade transparency to promote more “eyes on
the street” for safety and to create a welcoming streetscape.
Policy 3.3.8 Implement new design standards for new multifamily development to
promote neighborhood compatibility, enhance the livability of new housing, and
enhance the character of residential and mixed-use areas.
Key concepts to emphasize in the design standards include:
▪ Emphasize pedestrian oriented building frontages.
▪ Emphasize façade articulation consistent with neighborhood scale.
▪ Integrate high quality durable building materials and human scaled detailing.
▪ Provide for usable open space for residents.
▪ Provide compatible site edges and sensitive service area design.
▪ Provide for vehicular access and parking while minimizing visual and safety
impacts of vehicles.
▪ Integrate landscaping elements to soften building elevations, enhance
neighborhood compatibility, and improve the setting for residents.
Policy 3.3.9 Explore the development of zoning incentives to help meet housing
diversity and affordability goals. Examples could include residential density bonuses,
variations in allowed housing type, or flexibility in regulations, if a proposal meets
community goals for affordable, senior, size-limited or other types of innovative
housing. If not permitted outright or through discretionary review processes, consider
providing for these incentives through pilot programs or other innovative measures.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 380 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-20
Goal 3.4 Create an attractive and well-distributed system of commercial areas to serve
community needs.
Policy 3.4.1 Prioritize and enhance
Downtown as the center for civic,
retail, office, entertainment, arts,
and dining activity in Moses Lake.
▪ Encourage a mixture of uses
downtown, including
restaurants and taverns,
retail, office, civic, cultural,
lodging, and residential uses
to support day and evening
activities for all ages.
▪ Facilitate the establishment
of creative industries
downtown through flexible
zoning and development
regulations. Supportive
development types include
live/work units, “maker”
spaces, and mixed-use
developments that allow for
micro-manufacturing
combined with retail and
office uses.
▪ Facilitate more
opportunities for people to
live downtown through
regulatory changes and
proactive communication
with property owners and
the development
community. Key concepts:
– Integrate zoning
flexibility to allow single
purpose multifamily
residential on most side
streets.
– Consider increasing
Example of pedestrian-scale streetscape with outdoor
restaurant seating
(Image Source, MAKERS Architecture).
Example of mixed-use development pedestrian-oriented
streetscape features.
(Image Source, MAKERS Architecture).
Example of waterfront multifamily residential.
(Image Source, MAKERS Architecture).
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 381 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-21
flexibility for minimum parking requirements.
▪ Craft and apply design standards for downtown. Key concepts:
– Reinforce the storefront pattern on Third Street.
– Accommodate a variety of pedestrian-friendly building frontages on side
streets.
– Provide pedestrian-friendly building frontages facing the
waterfront/trail/park.
– Promote façade massing and articulation that complements the existing
context.
– Encourage high quality durable building materials and human scaled
detailing.
– Provide compatible site edges and sensitive rooftop and service area design.
– Locate and design off-street parking to minimize impacts to the streetscape
and pedestrian environment.
▪ Craft and maintain zoning and design provisions that emphasize a graceful
transition between downtown and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
▪ Continue to enhance and expand the Paver District.
▪ Emphasize Downtown roadways as “complete streets”, where the needs of all
applicable travel modes (motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians) are provided
in a balanced manner. Provide safe methods such as textured crosswalk paths
and bulb-outs where people can cross major streets at regular and convenient
intervals.
Policy 3.4.2 Enhance the character, function, and economic vitality of Moses Lake’s
gateway corridors (routes into/out of Downtown from I-90 and other high visibility
commercial corridors).
▪ Allow for a mixture of compatible land uses within designated gateway
corridors. This includes the integration of multi-family residential and office
uses with retail and service commercial uses. Provide zoning and design
standards to maintain compatibility between different uses and zones.
– Avoid placing land uses that create excessive noise, unless the noise level
can be mitigated, in locations that are close to residences or other noise-
sensitive land uses.
– Promote the integration of multi-family residential uses within designated
gateway corridors. This includes both vertical (housing over shops/office)
and horizontal (housing side by side with shops/office) mixed-use.
Freestanding multifamily should be allowed within the corridors except for
those areas directly adjacent to I-90 interchanges.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 382 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-22
– Update zoning and design provisions to promote compatibility between
different uses and zones. Examples include building setbacks, building
massing, landscaping buffers, fencing, service element location, and design
provisions, and vehicular parking and access provisions. Landscape buffers
are particularly important elements that can effectively mitigate impacts of
commercial uses on adjacent residential uses. Commercial development
adjacent to Low Density Residential designated areas warrant the greatest
compatibility design protections.
– Improve standards for public and private development to reduce noise and
keep light pollution out of residential neighborhoods.
▪ Craft and adopt design standards for Moses Lake’s designated gateway
corridors. Key design elements:
– Provide for pedestrian-friendly block frontages (i.e., entries visible from
street, pedestrian access, minimize blank walls, landscaping elements).
– Promote façade massing and articulation that adds visual interest and
reduces perceived scale of large buildings.
– Encourage high quality durable building materials and human scaled
detailing.
– Emphasize landscaping elements as a major character defining feature of the
City.
– Provide good internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
– Minimize impacts of service elements, mechanical equipment, and utilities
on the streetscape environment.
– Develop special standards and guidelines for large site development that
incorporate open space and landscaping as a unifying element, provide a
connected system of pathways, integrate safe internal vehicular circulation,
demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding context, and take advantage of
special on-site and nearby features.
– Integrate opportunities for flexibility in the design standards by allowing
multiple ways of achieving standards and allowing strategic design
departures provided the project meets the design intent.
▪ Prioritize streetscape improvements for the most visible gateway corridors and
centers. Possible improvements include lighting, landscaping, sidewalk,
underground utilities, bicycle, and pedestrian furniture. Emphasize landscaping
elements as one of the character-defining features of the City.
Policy 3.4.3 Focus commercial development in existing commercial areas first,
considering designation of new commercial areas only as part of an orderly outward
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 383 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-23
expansion of similar uses, an existing zone, or in a location that facilitates infill
development.
Policy 3.4.4 Adopt programs to redevelop, upgrade, and enhance commercial areas and
incentives to comply with current landscaping codes.
Goal 3.5 Encourage the development of diversified industrial and manufacturing activities
to provide employment and strengthen the economy and tax base.
Policy 3.5.1 Coordinate with the Grant County Economic Development Council, Port of
Moses Lake, Grant County Public Utility District, and other regional agencies’ efforts to
attract and retain industrial and manufacturing activities in the area.
Policy 3.5.2 Support recruitment efforts by designating an adequate supply of large,
open, and attractive industrial lands located in areas that maximize available and
planned infrastructure and have access to major transportation corridors.
Policy 3.5.3 Limit non-industrial uses to those that are complementary to industrial
activities in terms of access and circulation, public safety, hours of operation, and other
land use activities.
Policy 3.5.4 Protect industrial and manufacturing lands from encroachment by other
land uses, which would reduce the economic viability of industrial lands.
Policy 3.5.5 Develop industrial and manufacturing lands to minimize impacts on
surrounding land uses, especially residential uses.
Goal 3.6 Preserve and integrate open spaces that contribute to community character,
protect environmentally sensitive areas, and enhance recreational, educational,
and aesthetic opportunities.
Policy 3.6.1 Use a variety of tools to preserve and integrate open space such as:
conservation easements, mitigation measures, critical area regulations, clustering,
density bonuses, incentives for private preservation, and acquisition.
Policy 3.6.2 Preserve land where development would result in environmental damage
as natural, undeveloped open space including lands with:
▪ Unique natural features or resources;
▪ Exemplary ecosystems;
▪ Critical areas; or
▪ Exceptional scenic values.
Policy 3.6.3 Preserve and integrate open space as passive or active recreation open
space when lands would:
▪ Buffer resource lands or provide separation between urban and rural areas or
incompatible land uses;
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 384 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-24
▪ Contribute to the continuity of an overall trail or open space system; or
▪ Serve recreational and open space needs associate with new residential
development; or
▪ Provide recreation activities related to natural resources.
Policy 3.6.4 Consider public acquisition of open space when:
▪ The area is needed to link together key parts of the open space system;
▪ Public access or recreational use is desirable;
▪ The value is aesthetic; or
▪ Other methods do not promise permanent protection.
Policy 3.6.5 Allow and enhance public access to city-owned shorelines and critical
areas when both public safety and the health of the resource can be protected.
Policy 3.6.6 Pursue State and Federal financing, including grants and loans, available
for the acquisition, development, and maintenance of environmentally sensitive open
space.
Goal 3.7 Reinforce and enhance Moses Lake’s environmental stewardship by preserving
ecological function while allowing for growth of the city and reasonable use of
private property.
Policy 3.7.1 Identify and regulate use of, and development near, the following critical
areas:
▪ Wetlands;
▪ Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water;
▪ Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
▪ Frequently flooded areas; and
▪ Geologically hazardous areas.
Policy 3.7.2 Maintain ecological function of environmentally critical areas by avoiding
impacts from development where feasible. Minimize and mitigate adverse impacts
when they cannot be avoided, with a preference for on-site, in-kind mitigation. Off-site
compensatory mitigation may be permitted where such measures can provide greater
net ecological benefit.
Policy 3.7.3 Enhance and restore degraded critical areas where possible.
Policy 3.7.4 Encourage clustering forms of development that offer flexibility in lot sizes
and densities to protect environmentally sensitive areas as open space.
Policy 3.7.5 Encourage public and private partnerships to manage, maintain, and
enhance the long-term viability of critical areas. Embrace the city’s role as a
stewardship model for publicly owned critical areas.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 385 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-25
Policy 3.7.6 Inform landowners with critical areas on their property of Grant County’s
current use taxation program and advise them to contact the Grant County Assessor’s
office to obtain further information on the benefits of this program.
Policy 3.7.7 Recognize the significant water quality, flood prevention, and habitat
functions wetlands provide and scale allowable development near them to achieve no
net loss of these functions and to maintain wetlands acreage over the long term.
Policy 3.7.8 Adopt and implement an aggressive program to protect the municipal
water supply aquifer from degradation.
Policy 3.7.9 Cooperate with Grant County Conservation District and other local
governments and state agencies in developing Watershed Action Plans (basin plans)
and implementing applicable and reasonable recommendations.
Policy 3.7.10 Support public education to protect and improve surface and
groundwater resources by:
▪ Increasing the public’s awareness of potential impacts on water bodies and
water quality;
▪ Encouraging proper use of fertilizers and chemicals on landscaping and gardens;
▪ Encouraging proper disposal of materials; and
▪ Educating businesses on surface and groundwater protection best management
practices in cooperation with other government agencies and organizations.
Policy 3.7.11 Encourage retrofits to existing development and infrastructure to reduce
environmental impact. Explore providing incentives to residents and businesses that
improve building energy performance and/or incorporate on-site renewable energy.
Policy 3.7.12 Emphasize sustainable design/practice in public improvements and in
the design/use of public facilities and events. Key elements include:
▪ Update public works standards as necessary to emphasize best practice
sustainable design.
▪ Incorporate consideration of physical health and well-being into the location
and design of public facilities.
Goal 3.8 Protect archeological resources and significant historical and cultural sites and
structures.
Policy 3.8.1 Identify archaeological and significant historic sites and structures within
the UGA.
Policy 3.8.2 Encourage the conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the cultural
resources of the city, including places on or eligible for historic registers and properties
associated with the cultural practices or beliefs of the Columbia-Sinkiuse band, a living
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 386 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-26
community rooted in Moses Lake’s history, and important in maintaining the continuing
cultural identity of the community.
Policy 3.8.3 Ensure that archaeological and significant historic sites and resources are
not disturbed or destroyed through any action of, or action permitted by, the city.
Goal 3.9 Strengthen the city’s identity and livability through thoughtful design.
Policy 3.9.1 Create a gateway
effect at major entrances to the
city using attractive signs,
monuments, and landscaping.
Policy 3.9.2 Design public
facilities to support and
strengthen Moses Lake’s
community character and
identity:
▪ Recognize that the
character of public
rights-of-way plays a role in determining community character. Wherever
feasible, promote complete streets and incorporate streetscape improvements,
such as wayfinding signs, lighting, public art, enhanced landscaping, and street
furniture to enhance community character.
▪ Design public facilities to serve as a model of architectural and site design for
private development in the city through use of quality building materials, human
scale detailing, design character, and landscape materials.
▪ Locate and design public facilities and spaces that reflect and enhance Moses
Lake’s character and function as welcoming formal and informal gathering
spaces.
Policy 3.9.3 Adopt and administer user-friendly design standards and guidelines that
support small-lot single family, duplexes, and multifamily development and high
visibility commercial areas. Evaluate the effectiveness of adopted standards and
guidelines over time and adjust as necessary to achieve community design goals and
policies. Emphasize the concepts referenced in Policies 3.3.2, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.4.1, and
3.4.2.
Policy 3.9.4 Provide high quality and attractive parks and recreational areas
throughout the city.
Policy 3.9.5 Encourage location of parks, schools, religious institutions and other public
and semi-public spaces on sites that create a community or neighborhood landmark and
identity.
Example of interchange gateway signage improvements.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 387 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-27
Policy 3.9.6 Link major employment, residential, and civic centers with a robust transit
network to promote pedestrian activity and increase access and mobility for those who
cannot or choose not to travel by car.
Policy 3.9.7 Integrate crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
principles into new design standards and zoning regulations emphasizing the following:
▪ Provide natural surveillance of public and semi-public spaces.
▪ Emphasize the visual and spatial transition between the living area of a
residence and the sidewalk/street.
▪ Reinforce a sense of ownership and intolerance of unsafe activities by
maintaining clean and safe conditions.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 388 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-28
Land Use Designations
The comprehensive plan is a framework for future growth. The land use designations on the future
land use map evaluate existing uses, environmental constraints, and ownership as well as supply
and demand for various uses and the preferred long-range growth pattern for the city. Together
with the goals and policies in this chapter, the land use designations guide zoning and development
regulations to ensure coordinated development consistent with the community’s vision.
Exhibit 3-10 shows the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map. Exhibit 3-11 and Exhibit 3-12
show the current distribution of Future Land Use Designations in the incorporated City and the
unincorporated UGA.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 389 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-29
Exhibit 3-10. Future Land Use Map
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Grant County Assessor, 2021, BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 390 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-30
Exhibit 3-11. Future Land Use – City Limits
Sources: Grant County Assessor, 2021; City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Exhibit 3-12. Future Land Use – Unincorporated UGA
Sources: Grant County Assessor, 2021; City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Industrial,
33.0%
General
Commercial,
7%
Gateway
Commercial,
14%
Port of
Moses Lake,
2%Low Density
Residential,
17%
Medium Density
Residential, 7%
High
Density
Residential,
7%
Downtown,
1.0%Public
Facilities, 8%
Parks &
Open
Space,
3%
Environmentally
Sensitive, 0.6%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 391 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-31
Residential Land Use Designations
Residential Land Use Designations are described below, including intended densities, locational
criteria, and implementing zoning districts.
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Purpose: This designation provides for low-density residential development in neighborhoods
already characterized by one- and two-family dwellings or is not suited to more intense residential
development.
Locational Criteria: If undeveloped, this designation should apply to areas located near existing
single-family neighborhoods.
Principal Uses & Density: Single family detached homes, accessory uses, public and semi-public
uses are the principal land uses at densities of 4-6 units per acre. Attached housing types may be
allowed under certain circumstances, such as duplexes or triplexes on corner lots in compliance
with design standards. For new subdivisions in the LDR designation, flexibility should be provided
for a range of lot sizes, provided overall density standards are met.
Implementing Zones:
▪ R-1
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Purpose: This designation provides for moderate density residential uses in a mix of housing types
and styles.
Locational Criteria: This designation should apply in areas characterized by a mix of detached and
attached single-family residential uses. If the area is undeveloped, it should be proximate to a
neighborhood with a mix of one- and two- family dwellings, a variety of services and amenities,
and/or is not suited to more intense residential development.
Principal Uses & Density: Principal land uses should consist of a mixture of single-family
residential uses and a variety of “missing middle” housing types, such as duplexes, triplexes, and
townhomes. Residential densities should range from 6-10 units per acre, and development
regulations should include optional density bonuses and lot size flexibility to encourage housing
variety.
Implementing Zones:
▪ R-2
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 392 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-32
High Density Residential (HDR)
Purpose: The HDR designation provides multifamily residential uses in more urbanized areas of
the City in a range of styles, including limited opportunities for mixed-use development. This
designation also provides transitional areas between lower-density residential neighborhoods and
non-residential areas.
Locational Criteria: This designation should apply in areas characterized by one or more of the
following:
▪ Existing multifamily residential development or a mix of residential and commercial uses.
▪ Residential land abutting a non-residential zone or adjacent to a major arterial route.
▪ In proximity to existing or planned public facilities and services adequate to serve higher-
density residential uses.
▪ Within walking distance to commercial services, community facilities, or amenities.
▪ Located adjacent to downtown or has convenient access to local employment centers.
Principal Uses & Density: Townhouses, apartments and other forms of multifamily residential
uses should predominate, though a limited range of other uses may be permitted, such as small-
scale professional offices or services (i.e., day cares, beauty salons, etc.). Residential density should
be at least 8 units per acre.
Implementing Zones:
▪ R-3
Commercial and Mixed-Use Designations
Commercial and Mixed-Use Designations are described below, including intended residential
densities (as applicable for mixed-use areas), locational criteria, and implementing zoning districts.
Downtown (DT)
Purpose: The Downtown district is a mixed-use area that integrates retail, office, and higher-
density residential uses with arts, culture and entertainment. Downtown serves as a place for
residents to both live and work and attracts people throughout the day and into the evening.
Downtown is characterized by strong bicycle and pedestrian connections, particularly to recreation
opportunities, such as the adjacent lakefront. Local institutional uses, including City government
offices, have a strong presence, emphasizing Downtown as the city center. Lake frontage should be
enhanced and integrated into the downtown theme.
Locational Criteria: The Downtown designation should apply to the existing central business
district, as well as intensely developed adjacent areas that have transitioned into permanent
commercial, high-density residential, or mixed-use development consistent with the character of
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 393 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-33
Downtown.
Principal Uses & Density: Principal uses include retail, office, higher-density multifamily
residential, arts and cultural institutions, recreation and entertainment uses, and government
offices. Minimum density for multifamily residential development should be 15 units per acre or
more.
Implementing Zones:
▪ Downtown
▪ Mixed Use
General Commercial (GC)
Purpose: The General Commercial designation promotes economic activity in Moses Lake by
facilitating commercial development in a variety of forms and locations.
Locational Criteria: This designation should apply to areas that meet one or more of the following
criteria.
▪ Located within or adjacent to existing commercial development.
▪ Located along an arterial, easily accessible by an arterial, or within a commercial street
network.
▪ Visible and accessible locations that can serve surrounding residential neighborhoods.
▪ Adjacent to industrial areas with permanent commercial uses with little or no remaining vacant
land appropriate for industrial uses.
Principal Uses: The general commercial category includes retail, wholesale, business, and office
land uses. Within this category are professional offices, hotels, motels, restaurants, recreational and
entertainment uses; grocery stores, hardware supply, garden supply, repair, and maintenance
services. Other uses include residential uses not to conflict with commercial floor space, accessory
uses, automobile-related uses, manufactured home sales, and uses that normally require outdoor
storage and display of goods. Mixed-use commercial development may be appropriate in locations
near established residential neighborhoods; mixed commercial/office development may be
appropriate on larger, campus-sized properties suitable for business parks and larger employment
centers.
Implementing Zones:
▪ C-2 General Commercial
▪ C-1A Transitional Commercial
Gateway Commercial (GW)
Purpose: The Gateway Commercial district welcomes visitors to Moses Lake and provides for
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 394 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-34
aesthetically pleasing commercial development at major gateway locations and entry corridors to
the community.
Locational Criteria: This designation should apply to areas that meet one or more of the following
criteria.
▪ The area is an existing commercial area located adjacent to Downtown.
▪ The area is characterized by existing commercial or industrial development and is located along
a major transportation route into Downtown.
▪ The area is at a major access point to the City (I-90 or other major highway).
Principal Uses & Density: Promoted land uses include retail, recreation-oriented commercial uses,
and multifamily residential. Small-scale offices, restaurants, and hotel/motels uses are also
appropriate, though urban design and maintaining an appealing design character should be
prioritized. Residential development in the Gateway Commercial designation should achieve a
minimum density of at least 10 units per acre.
Implementing Zones:
▪ Gateway Commercial
▪ Mixed Use
Industrial Land Use Designations
Industrial Land Use Designations are described below, including designation criteria and
implementing zoning districts.
Industrial (IND)
Purpose: The Industrial designation supports the industrial, manufacturing, and transportation
sectors of the Moses Lake economy and provides opportunities for land uses requiring large tracts
of land and outdoor facilities. This includes the Moses Lake Municipal Airport, which provides
general aviation services to the city and surrounding areas.
Locational Criteria: This designation should apply to areas that meet one or more of the following
criteria.
▪ Characterized by existing uses that are predominantly industrial in character.
▪ Located near corridors for the transportation of goods, such as highways, arterial streets and
railways.
▪ Existing or planned public facilities are adequate to support industrial uses.
▪ Located outside existing or planned residential neighborhoods.
Principal Uses: Principal uses in the Industrial designation include light and heavy manufacturing,
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 395 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-35
fabrication, processing, warehousing, indoor and outdoor storage, and essential public facilities.
Office uses are limited to accessory uses that support these primary uses. Limited supportive uses
are allowed. It also includes natural resource-based industries that require land consumptive
wastewater treatment methods, such as spray fields. In deciding which uses should be allowed, the
protections provided by performance standards, permit conditions, and sensitive areas regulations
should be considered.
Implementing Zoning:
▪ Light Industrial (LI)
▪ Heavy Industrial (HI)
Port of Moses Lake (PML)
Purpose: These properties are owned by the Grant County Port District #10 (Port of Moses Lake)
and developed according to the Grant County Airport Master Plan.
Locational Criteria: The Port of Moses Lake is located at the Grant County Airport in the northern
portion of the unincorporated Urban Growth Area. The Port of Moses Lake designation does not
include the Municipal Airport that is owned by the City and designated as a public facility.
Principal Uses: The Master Plan emphasizes the development of aviation related industries, or
industries compatible with the airport operation.
Implementing Zones: Zoning in the unincorporated UGA is administered by Grant County.
Public Land Use Designations
Land Use Designations for lands in public use or set aside due to environmental concerns are
described below, including location criteria and implementing zoning districts.
Public Facilities (PF)
Purpose: The public facility category contains public and institutional uses including facilities
operated by state, county, municipal, or other government agencies; public educational institutions;
public libraries, hospitals, and a municipal airport. Public utilities, both privately and publicly
owned, are included in this category.
Locational Criteria: The designation should be applied to sites that meet any of the following
criteria.
▪ Existing public owned and/or operated facility.
▪ Permanent facilities operated or owned by state, county, municipal, or other government
agencies.
▪ Future sites essential to the provision of privately and publicly owned utilities.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 396 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-36
Principal Uses: Public and institutional uses and utilities operated by public agencies.
Implementing Zones:
▪ Public (P)
Parks/Open Space (OS)
Purpose: The OS designation provides for the recreational needs of Moses Lake residents and
visitors by accommodating parks and open space.
Locational Criteria: The designation should apply to the following types of properties.
▪ Existing public and privately owned parks and recreation facilities.
▪ Future sites reserved for park development.
Principal Uses: The Parks/Open Space category includes public and privately owned parklands or
open spaces. Commercial activities may be allowed as accessory uses in support of recreational
facilities (concession vending, pro shops, etc.).
Implementing Zoning:
▪ Public (P)
Sensitive Areas Open Space (SA)
Purpose: The purpose of this designation is to protect environmentally sensitive lands that may
have limited development potential due to the presence of significant environmentally features on
site, or land intended to remain in its natural state as long-term undeveloped open space.
Locational Criteria: The designation should be applied to properties that meet any of the following
criteria.
▪ Delineated and partially delineated public and privately owned wetlands.
▪ Significant wetlands identified on the NWI maps.
▪ Conservation areas (below 1050').
▪ Important priority habitat and species sites as identified by the Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
▪ Sites designated as Natural or Conservancy under the Shoreline Master Program.
Principal Uses: Due to the environmentally sensitive nature of these sites, relatively little
development is envisioned. Uses would be regulated by the underlying zoning and other applicable
regulations (Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, etc.).
Implementing Zoning: A particular zoning district does not implement this designation. However,
the Critical Areas Ordinance does protect these properties.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 397 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-37
Overlay Districts
The following overlay districts highlight subareas in the city with special considerations for future
development. These overlays establish a common set of design principles and development
priorities, regardless of the underlying land use designation.
Downtown Creative District
The purpose of the Creative District is to promote revitalization of Downtown Moses Lake through
targeted investments that will promote a unique sense of place, increase the vitality of Downtown
by adding housing and mixed-use development, and reinforce Downtown’s role as a civic center for
the community. Anticipated projects in the district include:
▪ Library expansion with meeting spaces and maker/artist spaces;
▪ Moses Lake Chamber incubator spaces to support small business start-ups;
▪ Stormwater improvements along Broadway and Third Avenue to support lake health;
▪ Construction of a mixed-use housing project to meet the needs identified in the City’s Housing
Action Plan; and
▪ Enhancements at McCosh Park and Sinkiuse Square to honor tribal relationships.
Broadway Revitalization District
The purpose of the Broadway Revitalization District is to improve the overall viability of
development in this important gateway corridor into Downtown Moses Lake through
infrastructure investments, public-private partnerships, and land use regulations to promote infill
development. Transportation upgrades, including improved pedestrian and bicycle access and
transit improvements, will transform Broadway into a multimodal transportation corridor.
Improved sewer and stormwater infrastructure will benefit lake water quality, and updated land
use policies and regulations will promote infill development on vacant and underutilized properties
in the corridor.
EPA Groundwater Institutional Control Boundary
The former Larson Air Force Base site (currently the Grant County Airport) and surrounding areas
have been designated as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site due to soil
and groundwater contamination resulting from past industrial activity. The EPA has documented
two groundwater contamination plumes, and clean-up activities in the area are ongoing. In addition
to technical cleanup and remediation measures, institutional controls, such as zoning and
development regulations, may be necessary to ensure the safety of residents and businesses in the
area. The Institutional Control Boundary delineates the area where such controls may be necessary,
as determined by the EPA.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 398 of 883
Ch. 3 Land Use DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 3-38
References
▪ Countywide Planning Policies:
https://www.grantcountywa.gov/GCDS/Planning/Comp_Plan/GrantCompPlan_Final_June2018
.pdf
▪ Buildable Lands Analysis
▪ Activity Trails Master Plan
▪ Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
▪ Environmentally Critical Areas inventory
▪ Historic and Cultural Resources inventory
▪ Appendix A – Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 399 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 400 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-1
City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Ch. 4 Housing
Introduction
Moses Lake is a growing community, and demand for housing will continue to increase as the
population increases. In the City’s vision for the future, all people have access to housing that is safe,
clean, and affordable. This element describes Moses Lake’s existing housing conditions, projected
future trends, and constraints and opportunities to:
▪ Ensure City plans and regulations offer opportunities for a range of housing styles and prices to
fit a range of household needs and incomes.
▪ Enhance residents’ quality of life by investing in existing neighborhoods through improving
walkability and access to destinations such as parks and stores.
The Housing Element is supported by the 2020 Housing Needs Analysis adopted by reference as
Appendix B and the 2021 Housing Action Plan, adopted by reference as Appendix C. A summary of
this information, including a brief inventory of population and household characteristics, existing
housing units, affordability, and future trends is included in the following sections. A summary of
the City’s housing strategy, based on the Housing Action Plan, is shown in Exhibit 4-1.
In this chapter…
Introduction 4-1
Conditions and Trends 4-3
Goals and Policies 4-16
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 401 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-2
Exhibit 4-1. Moses Lake Housing Strategy Implementation
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 402 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-3
Conditions and Trends
Population
Moses Lake’s population is growing and changing, with higher concentrations than county averages
for both its youngest and oldest age groups (under 10 years and 70 years or over). Overall rates of
growth in the city exceeded Grant County and the State overall across the past decade (2010-2019),
particularly over the last five years (Exhibit 4-2).
About one-fifth (18%) of the city’s population is currently age 60 or older (Exhibit 4-3), and more
than a quarter of the households include an adult age 65 or older (28%). Population projections for
Grant County indicate that the older adult population is expected to increase faster than all other
age groups between 2020 and 2040 (see the Future Projections section).
Exhibit 4-2: Population Over Time and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR), 2000–2019
Sources: OFM, 2019; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 4-3: Age and Sex Distribution, Moses Lake and Grant County, 2018
Sources: ACS 5-Yr Estimates, 2014-2018 (Table S0101); BERK, 2020.
Over one-third of residents in Moses Lake identify as Hispanic or Latino and nearly one-quarter
(22%) of individuals speak Spanish. One-third of non-English speakers report that they speak
2010 2014 2015 2019
AAGR
2000–2014
AAGR
2015–2019
Moses Lake 20,366 21,600 22,080 24,220 1.5% 2.4%
Grant County 89,120 92,900 93,930 98,740 1.1% 1.3%
State 6,724,540 6,968,170 7,061,410 7,546,410 0.9% 1.4%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 403 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-4
English less than “very well,” making multilingual communication essential. Since 2010, the
Hispanic population in Moses Lake has increased as a share from 31% in 2010 to 36% in 2018.
Areas of the city with higher proportions of Hispanic residents are primarily located alongside State
Route 17 in the north and central areas of the city. In the southern end of the city, higher
concentrations of Hispanic residents live on the eastern side of the Broadway Avenue thoroughfare
bounded by I-90 to the south.
Household Characteristics and Income
Households
As of 2018, OFM estimates there are 8,245 households in the City of Moses Lake, with an average
household size of 2.61 people per household. About half of all households are owner-occupied
(53%) and about half are renter-occupied (47%). Two-person households are the largest market
for owner housing and single-person households are the largest market for rental housing. Overall,
nearly two-thirds (61%) of households have one or two members (Exhibit 4-4).
Exhibit 4-4: Owner- and Renter-occupied Households by Household Size, 2018
Sources: ACS 5-Yr Estimates, 2014-2018 (Table B25009); BERK, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 404 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-5
More than a quarter of households include an adult age 65 or older (28%), up from 23% in 2010.
Non-family households have also become a larger share of the city’s population since 2010
(increasing from 33% in 2010 to 36% in 2018). Even as these demographics shift, Moses Lake
remains a community of families; households with one or more children have remained a steady
36-37% of total households since 2010.
Household Income
The American Community Survey (ACS) lists 2018 median household income for households
residing inside the City of Moses Lake as $51,800, compared with a slightly higher median
household income of $54,982 in Grant County and $70,116 statewide. Relative to Grant County, a
higher proportion of residents in Moses Lake have annual incomes less than $35,000 and a lower
proportion of residents have annual incomes above $100,000. However, between 2010 and 2018,
Moses Lake saw an increase in the share of residents making above $100,000 per year and a
decrease in the share of residents making less than $35,000 per year, reflecting similar trends in
Grant County.
Household incomes vary by race and ethnicity within Grant County. A higher proportion of Hispanic
households make less than $35,000 a year and a significantly lower proportion make more than
$100,000 a year relative to Grant County overall. Households who identify as non-Hispanic White
reflect overall county trends, with roughly one-third of the population earning less than $35,000
per year, one-third earning $35,000- $74,999, and one-third earning $75,000 or more per year. See
Exhibit 4-5.
Lower income households are generally located in south and central areas of the city alongside the
Broadway Ave thoroughfare and bounded to the south by I-90 – these areas typically overlap those
with a higher proportion of Hispanic residents. Wealthier communities are most commonly located
northwest and west of Parker Horn as well as east of SR 17. These areas have higher proportions of
White residents compared to lower income parts of the city.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 405 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-6
Exhibit 4-5: Household Income by Race and Ethnicity in Grant County, 2016
Sources: ACS 5-Yr Estimates, 2012-2016; BERK, 2020
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides data on household income
breakdowns relative to Grant County area median income (AMI). HUD calculations and groupings
are based on HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI), a calculation that takes into account
household size while AMI is based on the median income for a four-person family household. The
2018 HAMFI for Grant County was $60,100.
Renter households are more likely to be low-, very low-, or extremely low-income than owner
households in Moses Lake, where 45% of total households are above HAMFI. Low-income
households are likely to struggle with housing affordability and may qualify for income-subsidized
rental units that cap monthly payments at 30% of income. See Exhibit 4-6.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 406 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-7
Exhibit 4-6: Income Level Relative to HAMFI in Moses Lake, 2016
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 5-Yr Estimates, 2012-2016); BERK, 2020
Homelessness
In 2019, counts of homelessness in Grant County were reported to be 148 persons, with 66
sheltered individuals and 82 unsheltered individuals. An increasing number of local K-12 students
in the Moses Lake School District are also reporting they are homeless or in insecure housing
situations. During the 2018-19 school year, 287 students reported homelessness compared with
just 68 students in 2007-08 (an increase of 313%). Most of these students report living in doubled-
up homes, reflective of the high rates of cost burden experienced among Moses Lake households.
This may indicate a growing number of families on the brink of homelessness who need support to
access local affordable housing options.
Housing Inventory
In 2018, there were 9,882 housing units in Moses Lake. The housing stock in the city has increased
by a little over 1,500 units since 2010.
Type, Age of Housing Stock, and Production
Moses Lake has almost twice as many single-family units as multi-family, though both types of
residences have grown over time. As of 2018, about two-thirds of housing units are single family
and just over one-quarter are duplexes or multi-family units. About 11% of all units are mobile
homes. See Exhibit 4-7.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 407 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-8
Exhibit 4-7: Housing Inventory by Type, 2018
Sources: OFM, 2018; BERK, 2020.
About 25% of existing units in Moses Lake were built since 2000 while 30% were built prior to
1960. Older housing stock can be a source of naturally occurring affordable housing if it is well-
maintained but requires on-going investment that may be affected by the degree of cost-burden
experienced by property owners. The need to rehabilitate structures will continue to increase in
coming years given the significant amount of older housing stock.
An average of 197 housing units were constructed each year between 2010-2018. Housing
production has shown a diversification of housing types in recent years with an increased number
of multifamily units and mobile homes coming to market. As discussed in the 2020 Housing Needs
Assessment, home builders and developers report that Moses Lake is considered a “price conscious
market,” meaning that relatively small changes in home costs, interest rates, or other factors can
strongly influence new home sales. While Moses Lake remains a good market for single-family
home production, builders need space to produce standardized housing at volumes that the market
can absorb.
Housing Unit Size
There is a mismatch between household size and existing housing unit sizes. About 61% of
households have one or two members, whereas only 39% of housing units have two or fewer
bedrooms. This misalignment is particularly pronounced for one-person households; nearly 30% of
households are one-person households yet only 17% of housing units have one bedroom or less.
Conversely, 61% of housing units have three or more bedrooms, while only 39% of households
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 408 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-9
have three or more members (Exhibit 4-8). This kind of misalignment can result in higher housing
cost burdens among smaller households who cannot find available housing that meets their needs.
Exhibit 4-8: Household Size vs. Housing Unit Size in Moses Lake, 2018
Sources: ACS 5-Yr Estimates, 2014-2018 (Tables DP04 & B25009); BERK, 2020.
Community and stakeholder interviews conducted as part of the 2020 Housing Needs Assessment
(Appendix B) identified several areas of mismatch between housing supply and demand. Providers
of affordable and subsidized housing reported the greatest demand and longest waiting lists for one
bedroom units. Smaller unit types are difficult to find for couples and small families, particularly for
those just entering the housing market or older adults looking to downsize. A few smaller units
exist in the community, but there are almost no available ownership units (e.g., condos,
townhouses, or cottages). Additionally, there are few single-family housing options for people
looking to move beyond their first home into a larger unit or into a unit that offer more amenities.
This mismatch reduces market fluidity – people stay in the same housing because they lack the
ability to upsize, downsize, or otherwise change housing units according to need.
Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates in Moses Lake are slightly higher than the state average (11% versus 9%). The ACS
estimates that of the total vacant units in the city, about 35% of those are for rent, 9% are for
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 409 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-10
seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, and 30% are simply listed as other vacant.
Affordability
Cost-burdened Households
Cost-burdened households spend more than 30% of their monthly income toward housing costs,
and severely cost-burdened households spend more than 50%. High rates of cost-burdened
households signal a lack of affordability in the housing market. These households must make
difficult choices in prioritizing purchases for other necessities such as food, healthcare, and
childcare to make ends meet. Cost-burdened households are also at higher risk of displacement and
housing instability with rising rents, property tax increases, or other life circumstance changes.
Cost burden in Moses Lake is most common among low-income, renter, and older adult households,
as well as among households with disabled members:
▪ About 80% of extremely low-income and 65% of very low-income households experience
either moderate or severe cost-burden, compared with 38% of those with a moderate income.
▪ Nearly 40% of Moses Lake renter households experience moderate or severe cost-burden,
compared with 26% of homeowner households.
▪ Over 500 older adult (62+) households in Moses Lake are both cost-burdened and low-income,
and older adult households account for 38% of all extremely low-income households in Moses
Lake.
▪ Rates of cost burden are particularly high among Moses Lake’s older adult households,
especially those who live alone; 40% of older adult households (age 62+) who live alone are
cost-burdened.
▪ Many older adults who live alone may develop disabilities or other medical issues, and
households with members living with a disability in Moses Lake are at high risk for cost-burden.
This is a countywide issue, and studies have shown that shortages of accessible housing and
limited access to transit combine to create housing challenges for older and disabled adults.
Home Ownership
Since 2012, housing costs have risen at a faster pace than incomes in Moses Lake – home prices
increased by 47% from 2012 to 2018, while median family income in Grant County has increased
by 19% (Exhibit 4-9). This trend puts a squeeze on household finances and limits access to home
ownership for first time home buyers. Home prices in Moses Lake are also higher than in Grant
County, despite higher median household income in the County, with the gap widening in recent
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 410 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-11
years (Exhibit 4-10). Prices are impacted by limited supply and the lack of fluidity in the housing
market. Real estate professionals report that choices are limited for those looking to buy a home in
Moses Lake.
Exhibit 4-9: Percent Change Since 2010 in Average Home Value, HAMFI, and Average Rental
Rates
Sources: Zillow, 2020; ACS 5-Yr Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 4-10: Average Home Price in Moses Lake and Grant County, 2010-2018
Sources: Zillow, 2020; BERK, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 411 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-12
While homeowners are generally less cost burdened than renters, low-income households are more
likely to be cost-burdened than those with moderate or above median income. Monthly payments
for an average priced home in Moses Lake are considered affordable to households earning about
$56,000 or more annually (a little under half of households). Lower market homes, identified as
those within the 5th-35th percentile of values, are affordable to households earning more than
about $39,000 annually (about two-thirds of households). Both scenarios assume households have
access to a 10% down payment.
Rental Housing
Average rental rates have tracked consistently with growth in median family income for the County
(Exhibit 4-9). However, many renters are cost-burdened and average rent is unaffordable for a little
over half of Moses Lake renter households. As of 2018, the average rent in Moses Lake was $1,061
which required a household income of about $42,500 to be considered affordable.
Renter households are also more likely to be low-income compared with owner households – 62%
of renter households are low-income by HUD standards compared with 34% of owner households.
Hispanic residents are also more likely to be in low-income and/or renter households, both strong
indicators of being cost-burdened, relative to all households.
Subsidized Housing
HUD evaluates household income eligibility for housing assistance programs at the regional level.
Based on regional thresholds, 2,184 low-income renter households in Moses Lake could potentially
qualify for income-subsidized housing, either through income-restricted affordable units or
market-rate rental housing vouchers (more than 60% of renter households; Exhibit 4-6). There are
a variety of programs that support subsidized housing, including the Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and HUD Section 2020 programs.
Subsidized housing in Moses Lake is available but limited. The city currently has a total of 184 units
of income-restricted subsidized housing units and 206 vouchers for subsidized units. Vouchers can
be used in subsidized units or in market rate housing, so estimating the total number of subsidized
units in Moses Lake is challenging. Given these numbers and the limited amount of subsidized
housing available, many qualified households still cannot receive housing.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 412 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-13
Future Projections
Population Growth
Consistent with growth trends and Grant County’s adoption of OFM population projections, the City
of Moses Lake is planning for a projected population of 35,626 by 2038, an increase of 11,406
people (Exhibit 4-11).
Regionally, the following changes in population composition by age are projected for the 2020-
2040 timeframe:
▪ The share of older adults (65+) is expected to increase from 15% to 19% of the population. This
is likely due to the Baby Boomer generation aging into retirement. As Grant County’s largest
city, Moses Lake may also attract aging adults who want to live closer to health care and other
services and amenities.
▪ The older segment of the working aged population (45-64 years) is projected to remain
constant (about 22% of the population). This is likely due to aging of the large Millennial
generation (despite the Baby Boomer generation aging into retirement).
▪ The younger segment of the working aged population (20-44 years) is projected to decrease
from 33% to 30% of the population. This is likely due to the large Millennial generation aging
into the older working aged population segment.
▪ The share of school-aged children (19 and under) is projected to decrease from 32% in 2020 to
29% in 2040.
Exhibit 4-11: Historic and Projected Population in Moses Lake, 2000-2038
Sources: WA Office of Financial Management, 2019; BERK, 2021.
20,366
24,220
35,626
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038Moses Lake Actual
Moses Lake Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 413 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-14
Housing Capacity
The City of Moses Lake performed a buildable lands analysis to determine housing capacity both
within city limits as well as in the UGA. According to this analysis, there are 787 acres of residential
land available for developing with a capacity to accommodate an additional 3,939 housing units
(Exhibit 4-12). This developable land can accommodate approximately 10,275 new residents
within city limits and an additional 24,140 residents in the unincorporated UGA. This is more than
sufficient to accommodate the city’s remaining growth target of 6,957 residents within existing City
boundaries, and a remaining target of 7,711 residents in the unincorporated UGA. Most of this
capacity exists in areas zoned for multifamily residential development, but some capacity is still
available in lower-density areas zoned for single-family and low-density attached development.
As shown in Exhibit 4-11, residential population in Moses Lake is anticipated to increase beyond
the City’s adopted growth targets during the planning period, reaching 35,626 by 2038 (net growth
of 10,819 residents). This projected residential growth slightly exceeds the available capacity
within city limits, but the unincorporated UGA also contains substantial developable lands that
could potentially be tapped in the future to meet housing needs.
Exhibit 4-12. Residential Unit Capacity in Moses Lake and Unincorporated UGA, 2020
City Limits
R-1 Single Family
Residential
259 678 937 2,613
R-2 Single/Two-Family
Residential
116 921 1,037 2,891
R-3 Multifamily
Residential
402 1,406 1,808 5,042
C-2 General
Commercial
10 147 157 437
Total City 787 3,152 3,939 10,983
Unincorporated UGA
Urban Reserve/Rural
Residential 1
148 1 149 414
Urban Residential 2 7,027 1,428 8,455 23,589
Urban Residential 3 361 526 887 2,473
Urban Residential 4 605 430 1,035 2,895
Total UGA 8,141 2,384 10,525 29,369
Source: Grant County Assessor, 2020; City of Moses Lake GIS, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 414 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-15
Housing Production
Moses Lake needs an average of 253 units per year to meet estimated household growth by 2035
(Exhibit 4-13). The rate of housing unit production has increased in recent years (averaging 197
units per year from 2010-2018) but falls short of the needed rate to meet this estimated growth.
Even in years with large multifamily housing projects, such as from 2015 to 2017, the city has fallen
short of the annual production rate needed to achieve growth targets. Higher rates of production
across a range of housing types are needed to meet estimated household growth by 2035.
Exhibit 4-13. Housing Units Needed by 2038, Moses Lake
Sources: Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, 2015; BERK, 2020.
Production in recent years has shown both an increase in housing units as well as diversification of
housing types with an increased number of multifamily units and mobile homes coming to market.
However, even in years with large multifamily housing projects, such as from 2015 to 2017, the City
has fallen short of the annual production rate needed to achieve growth targets. Higher rates of
production across a range of housing types are needed to meet estimated household growth by
2038.
8,365
10,199
15,002
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Housing Actual
Housing Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 415 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-16
Goals and Policies
Goal 4.1 Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet the needs of all members
of the community.
Policy 4.1.1 Maintain an adequate supply of single family and multi-family housing for
all economic segments of the population.
Policy 4.1.2 Support equal access to housing throughout the City for all people
regardless of race, color, sex, marital status, religion, national origin, physical or mental
handicap. Encourage the responsible state and federal agencies to enforce federal and
state civil rights and fair housing laws.
Policy 4.1.3 Use innovative land use regulations to enable construction of affordable
and attractive housing which include attached single-family units, modular or
manufactured housing, duplexes, townhouses, clustered housing, mixed-use
developments, group homes, assisted living facilities, self-help housing, cooperatives,
etc.
Policy 4.1.4 Allow geographically distributed housing opportunities for special needs
populations that accommodate a continuum of care levels – such as emergency housing,
transitional housing, extensive support, minimal support, independent living, family-
based living or institutions –in locations adequately served by public services.
Policy 4.1.5 Support the development of accessory dwelling units and other types of
housing that accommodate an aging population.
Policy 4.1.6 Allow development, rehabilitation, and adaptation of housing that
responds to the changing physical needs of residents (e.g. lower parking requirements
and smaller lot sizes for senior housing).
Policy 4.1.7 Preserve the character, stability, and integrity of existing neighborhoods by
designing infill development to be compatible with surrounding residential densities,
housing types, and other characteristics. See related policies under Goal 3.3 in the Land
Use Element.
Goal 4.2 Encourage affordable housing.
Policy 4.2.1 Integrate affordable housing units that are compatible in design and
quality with other units within market rate developments.
Policy 4.2.2 Use available federal and state aid to support and assist in planning for
subsidized housing opportunities for households that cannot compete in the market.
Policy 4.2.3 Review existing and proposed regulations to ensure that they do not
unnecessarily restrict the supply or variety of housing or increase its cost.
Policy 4.2.4 Consider incentives – such as fee waivers, expedited permits, density
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 416 of 883
Ch. 4 Housing DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 4-17
bonuses, and innovative land use regulations – to build more below-market rate units
for renters and first-time home buyers. See related Policy 3.3.9 in the Land Use Element.
Goal 4.3 Maintain existing housing stock in a safe and sanitary condition.
Policy 4.3.1 Continue to work with non-profit agencies to maximize the receipt of
Federal and State housing resources used to provide low and moderate-income
residents with housing assistance to maintain or improve owner- and renter-occupied
housing units.
Policy 4.3.2 Consider applying for Community Development Block Grants to increase
the quality of affordable ownership housing.
Policy 4.3.3 Expand housing inspection and code enforcement programs to ensure
adequate maintenance of the housing stock and compliance with all applicable codes
concerning junk and debris, noxious weeds, and other unsafe or unsanitary conditions.
Policy 4.3.4 Encourage voluntary housing rehabilitation and preventative maintenance
programs.
Policy 4.3.5 Coordinate public infrastructure investments in areas where such
improvements will support and encourage rehabilitation of substandard housing and
other neighborhood improvements.
Policy 4.3.6 Prioritize rehabilitation or replacement of substandard mobile and site-
built owner-occupied housing units.
Policy 4.3.7 Target the rehabilitation of low or very low income dwelling units if
federal, state, or private funds are made available for rehabilitation purposes.
Policy 4.3.8 Demolish substantially dilapidated structures that are beyond
rehabilitation or reuse in compliance with state and local laws.
Policy 4.3.9 Provide relocation assistance to any dislocated household.
References
▪ American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2014-2018)
▪ Appendix B - City of Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment (2020)
▪ Appendix C - City of Moses Lake Draft Housing Action Plan (2021)
▪ Grant County Assessor parcel database (2020)
▪ Grant County Plan to End Homelessness (2017)
▪ Washington State Office of Financial Management GMA Population Projections (2019)
▪ Zillow Home Price Index Database (2020)
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 417 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 418 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-1
City of Moses Lake, 2021
Ch. 5 Utilities
Introduction
Utilities are the basic building blocks of urban living. While we may take these services for granted
– not thinking much about the electric lines that make it possible to turn the lights on, pipes that
bring drinking water to our faucets, wastewater treatment facilities that clean the water we send
down the drain, natural gas that heats our homes, and the phone, cable, and internet infrastructure
that we enjoy from our couches – utilities make living in cities possible.
Regulatory Context. Utilities have several layers of State and Federal regulations that pre-
empt local controls. Nothing in this element is intended to interfere with compliance with
applicable regulations or policies of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the National Gas Policy Act
(NGPA) or Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Title 80.
Concurrency. The Growth Management Act (GMA) calls for facilities and services needed to
support development – such as wastewater, water supply, solid waste, electrical service, and
other urban facilities and utilities – to occur concurrently with the development and consistent
with local plans and growth projections. This requires local jurisdictions to make facilities
available as demand develops and achieve and maintain Level of Service (LOS) standards that
keep up with demand from new development.
Public and Private Providers. Utilities in Moses Lake and its UGA are a combination of City-
managed and non-City-managed utilities. City-managed utilities are governed by functional
plans which are adopted by reference (see “Service Providers” in the Capital Facilities Element).
In this chapter…
Introduction 5-1
Conditions and Trends 5-3
Goals and Policies 5-24
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 419 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-2
Planning for privately managed utilities is recognized as the primary responsibility of the utility
provider – requiring them to manage infrastructure needs and repairs in aging systems,
respond to growth, respond to consumer needs, and adapt to new technologies. Exhibit 5-1
summarizes the utilities, providers, and applicable plans that further guide the agencies.
Exhibit 5-1: City-Managed and Non-City-Managed Utilities
Utility Type Provider(s) Description Applicable Plans
City Managed
Wastewater City of Moses Lake Public
Works Department and the
Port of Moses Lake
Provides facilities used in
collection, transmission, storage,
and treatment or discharge of
domestic wastewater within the
city and UGA. (Some private and
community systems exist in both
the City and UGA.)
2015 Wastewater System
Master Plan
Water City of Moses Lake Public
Works Division
Provides supply of potable water
to the city and UGA.
Water System Plan
(2016)
Grant County Coordinated
Water System Plan (1982,
updated 1999)
Stormwater City of Moses Lake Public
Works Division
Provides facilities used in
collection, storage, and treatment
or discharge of stormwater
runoff within the city.
Moses Lake Stormwater
Management Program
NPDES Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit
Solid Waste City of Moses Lake Provides refuse collection to
residential customers.
Grant County Solid Waste
Management Plan
Non-City Managed*
Electric Grant County PUD Provides supply of electrical
power through transmission
lines.
2020 Integrated Resource
Plan Update
Natural Gas Cascade Natural Gas Provides supply of natural gas
from interstate pipelines.
2020 Cascade Natural Gas
Integrated Resource Plan
Telecommunications ▪ Northland Communications
(Vyve Broadband)
▪ CenturyLink (telephone)
▪ Cellular services are
provided by a variety of
national and regional
carriers.
▪ Grant County PUD owns a
fiber backbone and provides
wholesale internet access to
local telecommunications
providers.
Provides transmission of
information through telephone,
radio, cellular telephone, cable
television, and internet.
* Non-City managed utilities operate within City limits through local franchise agreements.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 420 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-3
This Element establishes an overall strategy for providing adequate utility service to serve the
growth projected in the Land Use Element. This element works together with the Land Use and
Capital Facilities elements to make sure Moses Lake will have adequate utilities to serve existing
and future growth in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Conditions and Trends
Wastewater
The City of Moses Lake owns and operates two independent collection, treatment, and disposal
systems:
▪ The Sand Dunes System serves most of the service area except for the former Larson Air Force
Base.
▪ The Larson System serves an area corresponding to the old Larson Air Force Base in the
northern portion of the City and the UGA.
The Port of Moses Lake operates an industrial wastewater treatment system to serve industries
near the airport and industrial park. The Port facility has a storage capacity of approximately
59 million gallons and can accept up to 400,000 gallons of effluent daily. Current industries are
expected to expand production, and to accommodate their growth and provide capacity for new
users, the Port will continue to expand the size of the system. Monthly and annual reports are
provided by the Port to the State Department of Ecology on the facility’s operation.
The components of city’s wastewater flow are:
Sanitary Flow: wastewater discharged to the sewer from residential, commercial/industrial,
and institutional flows.
Infiltration: groundwater that enters a sewer system through fractured or defective pipes,
leaking pipe joints, leaking manholes, leaks in service connections, and other defects.
Inflow: surface water (primarily stormwater runoff) that directly enters the sanitary sewer
system from sources such as a roof, street and area drains, and leaking manhole covers.
The topography in the Moses Lake area does not allow a gravity sewer system to be effective
without assistance from pump stations.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 421 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-4
Existing Conditions
Sand Dunes System
Collection
The Sand Dunes collection system serves the bulk of the city’s service area including the Peninsula,
Westlake, Montlake, Wheeler, Knolls Vista, Wheeler Corridor, and downtown. This system currently
accounts for 87% of the total wastewater flows. A portion of the Sand Dunes system is located in
unincorporated Grant County and is maintained under a franchise agreement with the County. The
system includes 24 pumping stations plus a Central Operations Facility (COF) that pumps flow to
the Sand Dunes Treatment Plant. Most wastewater collected in this system passes through the COF
for attenuation and grit removal before being pumped to the Sand Dunes treatment facility. Flows
collected at the Nelson lift station do not pass through the COF but instead go directly into the force
main.
The city recently completed a program to line all concrete sewer mains to reduce infiltration and
exfiltration and significantly increase the life span of the mains. In 2011, the city constructed a 1.2
million gallon emergency storage basin at the COF. The city has partially constructed a parallel
force main from the COF to the Sand Dunes Treatment Facility. Completion of the parallel line is
critical to reduce the likelihood of a sewer overflow to the lake. Currently, the COF has only a single
force main across Pelican Horn; if this line fails, the sewage it carries would enter the lake.
Similarly, additional redundant force mains should be constructed at the Sage Bay lift station and at
I-90.
Exhibit 5-2 shows the location of major sewer infrastructure, including collection lines.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 422 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-5
Exhibit 5-2. Moses Lake Sewer Infrastructure Map
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 423 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-6
Treatment
The Sand Dunes Plant was designed for a capacity of 2.3 mgd and expanded to a capacity of 4.41
mgd in 2006. It currently serves a population of about 20,640. The plant treats and disinfects
wastewater before discharging into one of the eight infiltration basins where the treated water
seeps into the ground and operates under State Discharge Permit ST-8012. The plant also includes
adjacent agricultural land irrigated with treated effluent and application of biosolids. The site
includes four monitoring wells that are used to sample groundwater conditions and ensure
groundwater is not being degraded by the effluent from the treatment plant. The plant was
designed with provision for future expansion toward the east that can double the capacity. A
complete description of the system’s treatment and disposal facilities can be found in the
Operations and Maintenance Manual for the plant. Wastewater flow characteristics for the Sand
Dunes Plat are presented in Exhibit 5-3.
Exhibit 5-3. Wastewater Flow Characteristics
Sand Dunes Plant Larson Plant
Average Daily Flow 2.064 mgd 0.312 mgd
Residential Sewage 1.512 mgd 0.235
Residential Population 21,600 3,351
Per Capita Residential WWF 70 gal. per capita/day 70 gal. per capita/day
Peak Daily Flow - August 2.537 mgd 0.342 mgd
Peaking Factor 1.24 1.35
Source: City of Moses Lake Wastewater System Master Plan (2015)
Larson System
The Larson collection system was installed initially for the old Larson Air Force Base. The city
assumed ownership, operation, and maintenance in the late 1960's when the Base was
decommissioned. Because a portion of the system is located in unincorporated Grant County, the
City operates and maintains the sewer facilities under a franchise agreement with the County.
Collection
As is the case with the Sand Dunes system, pump stations are necessary to transport flow to the
Larson Treatment Plant. The Larson collection system has five pumping stations that transport flow
to the Larson Treatment Facility.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 424 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-7
Treatment
The Larson Plant was upgraded in 2003 to 0.75 mgd capacity. It currently serves a population of
about 3,351. It consists of a headworks facility where grit removal and mechanical screening is
performed on all raw wastewater before treating, disinfecting, and discharging to one of three
infiltration basins and seeping into ground. The biosolids at this plant are stored in one of the two
Long Term Sludge Digestion Basins (LTSDB) where they remain until they are put to beneficial use
as a nutrient supply for agricultural crops. The site includes four monitoring wells that are used to
sample groundwater conditions and ensure groundwater is not being affected by the treatment
plant. A complete description of the system's treatment and disposal facilities can be found in the
Operations and Maintenance Manual for the plant.
See Exhibit 5-3 for wastewater flow characteristics specific to the Larson STP.
Level of Service
The service area for the City of Moses Lake sewer system corresponds to the UGA. However, not all
areas within the service area have sewer service. The 2015 Wastewater System Master Plan does
not identify Level of Service Standards, but it describes areas where deficiencies exist due to
exceeding peak capacity and where future deficiencies are projected to occur. The Department of
Ecology (DOE) recommends, “Treatment plants designed to serve existing sewerage systems should
be designed on the basis of characteristics of sewage obtained from the operating records of the
treatment works,” (Criteria for Sewage Works Design, DOE, G2-2, G2.1.2.3). The city relies on DOE
recommendations, as noted in the Criteria for Sewage Works Design Manual, for planning purposes.
The Level of Service standard is the level which allows collection of peak wastewater discharge plus
infiltration and inflow.
Future Growth and Recommendations
System Improvements
The 2015 Plan identifies system improvements necessary to accommodate growth and system
expansion within the study area boundary using a 3% annual growth rate, but analyzed by
tributary, so that timing of growth in each area is predicted based on current trends and
expectations while maintaining the overall 3% population growth projection for the city and UGA.
The schedule of improvements has been adjusted to adequately support growth. All improvements
recommended in the Plan are aimed at maintaining adequate service standards. However, major
industrial developments proposed in the future will require independent flow estimates and
evaluation of the impact upon sewer flows, the collection system, and treatment facilities.
The City has identified the following wastewater capital improvement projects needed to address
deficiencies and meet the demands of future growth through the first 6 years:
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 425 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-8
▪ Wheeler Lift Sta. Submersible Pumps & Modify Above Ground ($250,000)
▪ Wheeler Lift Sta. Extend Force Main to 6th and Beech ($250,000)
▪ Install new force main from Division lift station to 6th and Beech ($100,000)
▪ Carswell, Patton, Castle, Lift St. 1 ($1,250,000)
▪ Finish 20th Parallel force main ($1,000,000)
▪ Replace 25,000 LF 20-inch AC force main ($3,000,000)
▪ Sewer Main Replacement ($2,000,000)
Most lift station generators were replaced in 2015, so no generators should need to be replaced in
the next 6 years. A significant upgrade of the sewer mains in Westshore Drive and replacement of
the Montana Lift Station were completed in 2016, increasing capacity in this portion of the system.
Additional expansions and maintenance will be needed as the city continues to grow and age over
the 20-year planning period, including the following identified specific needs:
▪ Sewer Main Replacement ($12,000,000)
▪ Bio Solids Management Dunes, Larson WWTP ($300,000)
▪ Sand Dunes Expansion ($15,000,000)
▪ Sand Dunes Connection ($15,000,000)
▪ Water Reuse Facility ($30,000,000)
▪ Cascade Valley Force & Gravity Main Extension ($1,250,000)
▪ Cascade Valley New Lift Station ($500,000)
Additional future improvements will be identified as part of the next wastewater system plan
update and through other planning efforts in city. In particular, revitalization efforts like the
Broadway Corridor or Downtown Creative District (described in Chapter 3 – Land Use) may include
utility improvements to incentivize urban infill development, and future industrial development in
the Wheeler Corridor will require a bypass of the COF to connect the area directly to the Sand
Dunes treatment facility.
Septic Systems
Known septic areas within city limits include the old town of Westlake and some portions of West
Broadway. Individual homes throughout the corporate limits still retain septic systems in areas
where construction occurred prior to the availability of city sewer. It is not known how many
systems are in use within city limits.
Known septic areas within the unincorporated UGA include Cascade Valley, Westshore Drive,
residential development north of the corporate limits and west of Stratford Road, and the area
south of I-90, including Pelican Point. A comparison of the residential sewer accounts to the
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 426 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-9
number of dwelling units indicates that over 1,500 on-site septic systems are in use within the
unincorporated area.
The City should require new development to connect to sewer systems and encourage connection
of existing developments where feasible. Use of on-site septic systems near the lake has contributed
to degradation of surface water quality, and connection of these properties to the public sewer will
help restore lake health. The City can develop programs with public and private partners to
incentivize property owners to connect to sewer.
Water
In addition to the policies in this element, the City of Moses Lake Water System Plan (2016) and
Grant County Coordinated Water System Plan (1982, updated 1999) guide water utilities. The
Utility Service Review Procedure (USRP) in the Coordinated Water System Plan - designating water
service areas and minimum design standards – is particularly relevant for new development
permits and private water system proposals in the UGA. Public water facilities are constructed in
accordance with community design standards which exceed requirements of the USRP.
Existing Conditions
The city’s water system service area is consistent with the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary,
with most properties within city limits receiving public water service. Since the early 1940's
groundwater has been the source for the municipal water supply. The area is divided into two
systems:
▪ Upper aquifer system (Wanapum). Water is hard with low sodium and fluoride levels.
▪ Lower confined system (Grand Ronde aquifer). Water is soft with high sodium and fluoride
levels. The city regularly issues public notification about the fluoride level, associated problems,
and how to get additional information.
Groundwater in the northern areas of the city near Grant County International Airport has been
affected by the presence of the EPA Superfund site at the former Larson Air Force Base.
Groundwater remediation efforts are ongoing, and the City is studying the potential for future reuse
of the water sources in this area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 427 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-10
Exhibit 5-4. Moses Lake EPA Superfund Groundwater Contamination Area
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 428 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-11
The city has mostly deep wells with the upper 200 feet or more sealed off so that all water is
extracted from either the upper or lower aquifer levels; to prevent cross-contamination, the same
well is not allowed to draw from multiple aquifers. Declining future groundwater levels in both
aquifers will require the city to begin withdrawing groundwater from the shallow alluvial aquifer
(commonly known as “surface water” or unconfined aquifer) with new wells. Water from different
wells tastes differently and has different characteristics that affect various industrial processes;
depending on whether the end use is for potable or industrial purposes, the hardness of the water
can require increased levels of treatment. Water Division staff takes that into account when
determining how much water from each well to pump into the system. The city has not had an
unsatisfactory bacteria sample result since full-time chlorination began in 1998. Chlorination began
to mask secondary contaminants (taste, color, odor), and so by federal standards, all wells are now
chlorinated.
The city’s water system is supplied by groundwater from a series of wells and associated pump
stations with standpipes for equalizing storage, emergency flows, and fire flows and electronic
control valves for additional flexibility. The distribution system consists of approximately 170 miles
of pipe. Pipe materials in the existing distribution system include ductile iron, cast iron, steel,
asbestos cement (AC), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The system is divided into seven pressure
zones, which operate under separate hydraulic grade lines under normal conditions. The pressure
zones are interconnected by distribution system piping and control valves or booster pumps used
to distribute water to an adjacent zone.
Water demand is expected to increase by 3% per year, the same rate as population growth, and
without accounting for new unknown industrial demands; however, average daily demand per
household is expected to continue to decrease with better efficiency, leak detection and
conservation measures that have been enacted.
The City's existing water rights stipulate the total quantity of water that can be withdrawn from the
municipal wells as 14,521.5 acre feet per year. This total includes quantities recently awarded to
the city as a result of litigation and the purchase and successful transfer of irrigation rights to City
sources. Currently the municipal water system meets commercial, industrial, and residential needs.
Water rights and claims combined are likely to be adequate until the year 2049. The City is
currently working with the Department of Ecology on the purchases and transfers of additional
projected 802 acre-feet of water rights to insure an adequate future water supply and additional
points of withdrawal.
Staff reviewed the water supply capacity in 2015 and determined that the City of Moses Lake had
sufficient overall water supply capacity but that three pressure zones needed new wells by 2020
and all six zones would require one new supply source between 2020 and 2034 to have sufficient
capacity to meet projected future demands and provide a comfortable level of redundancy. As of
2021, the newly installed upgraded telemetry system provides adequate system control and flexible
operation.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 429 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-12
While the City is the largest water purveyor in Grant County, many small water purveyors are
adjacent to or near the service area. Many of these purveyors are mobile home parks that have
developed their own wells for the water supply. However, several larger systems exist within the
unincorporated UGA to serve residential areas such as Cascade Valley Water District, Basin Water
Sources, Skyline Community Water System, and the Pelican Point System. It is possible that these
smaller systems may eventually be abandoned for city-provided water service; because these
systems are located within the City’s identified water service boundary, in the event of failure, they
should upgrade or request to be added to the City’s system. Such requests would be reviewed by
the Moses Lake Utilities Technical Review Committee.
See Exhibit 5-5 for system service area and water infrastructure locations.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 430 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-13
Exhibit 5-5. Moses Lake Water Infrastructure Map
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 431 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-14
Level of Service
The following criteria apply for the purposes of a water level of service standard:
Maintain adequate water supply by ensuring that the water system has one well (with
approximately the same capacity as the largest well in the pressure zone) in standby reserve
under maximum daily demand conditions in each pressure zone.
Require usable storage volume for the City of Moses Lake water system equal to the sum
equalizing, operational, standby, and fire suppression storage components as defined in
Chapter 9 of the DOH’s Water System Design Manual.
Ensure distribution system can meet peak hour demands with a minimum pressure of 30 psi
while also providing fire flows during the maximum daily demand with a minimum fire flow
pressure of 20 psi.
Future Growth and Recommendations
Well capacity for the year 2034 is projected to be 29,975 gpm; as of 2021, maximum daily demand
has exceeded 22,926 gpm. The City intends to meet these future needs by using water associated
with the city’s water right claims, existing water rights, acquiring existing water rights from other
owners, and through applications that have been submitted to the DOE for new water rights.
City Staff have determined that adequate capacity exists for an annual 3% service population
increase in conjunction with scheduled improvements. The following is a list of identified water
capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth through the next
six years:
▪ Water main replacement (Est. Cost $3,000,000)
▪ Upsizing Mains (Est. Cost - $3,000,000)
▪ New Source Central Zone (Well 34) (Est. Cost - $350,000)
▪ Rebuild 5 Wells (8, 12, 21, 28, and 29) – (Est. Cost - $2,500,000)
▪ Moses Pointe Tank (Est. Cost - $2,500,000)
▪ Meter Replacement (Est. Cost - $1,190,400)
▪ Irrigation System – Larson Recreation Complex (Est. Cost - $400,000)
▪ Well Field (Est. Cost - $1,500,000)
▪ Maintenance – Recoating and Painting Reservoirs (Est. Cost - $900,000)
▪ New booster stations (Est. Cost - $1,000,000)
Several projects have been identified beyond the six-year planning period, however more capital
projects may be identified based on the need for improvements to service growth and the ability of
the city to finance them. Implementation of improvements will be planned as part of an overall
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 432 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-15
finance plan for all City-owned utilities and capital facilities. The following projects have thus far
been identified:
▪ Water main replacement (Est. Cost $6,000,000)
▪ Upsizing Mains (Est. Cost - $6,000,000)
▪ Water Treatment Plan R/O Plant (Est. Cost - $25,000,000)
▪ Cascade Valley Water Main Extension ($1,250,000)
▪ Cascade Valley New Well and Wellhouse ($1,000,000)
The improvements described above will address deficiencies resulting from growth for the first six
years. Additional improvements will be identified by the City for the future. However, until
additional water sources are identified to support industrial development the City should carefully
consider the impact of both industrial and commercial developments and take active steps to both
increase available water supply and reduce water consumption through water conservation and
water efficiency programs.
The City has begun an analysis to look at future options with regard to augmenting potable water
supply through the use of irrigation water availability and water reuse in areas where it may be
effective (i.e. industrial use). There are partnerships that can be developed with the US Bureau of
Reclamation and the Moses Lake Irrigation and Reclamation District. These discussions are
ongoing through the development of the Moses Lake Watershed Plan with the Grant County
Conservation District.
Stormwater
Existing Conditions
The City of Moses Lake operates a stormwater utility under a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. The conditions of the permit
direct the City to implement measures for the reduction of pollutant discharge; meet state
standards for prevention, control, and treatment of stormwater runoff discharges; and protect
water quality.
The City’s stormwater system includes 22 infiltration basins, 54 stormwater outfalls, and 31.39
miles of collection and conveyance piping. The City has ongoing plans to reduce or eliminate
outfalls that discharge to Moses Lake. Inventories of infiltration basins and outfalls are presented in
Exhibit 5-6 and Exhibit 5-7.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 433 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-16
Exhibit 5-6. Stormwater Infiltration Basins
Facility ID Location Type
R003 Wren St. Storm Drainage Pond
R004 Towhee St. Storm Drainage Swale
R005 710 East Broadway Avenue Bio-Infiltration Swale
R046 Rd. N Retention Pond
R058 Sun Terrace No. 6 Storm Drain Pond
R059 3530 West Sage Road Bio-Infiltration Swale
R060 W Peninsula Dr. at S Interlake Rd. Natural Drainage Area
R061 Towhee St. at Fairway Dr. NE Infiltration Pond
R062 W Peninsula Dr. at S Wanapum Dr. (NW) Natural Drainage Area
R063 Broadway at I-90 On-ramp WB Natural Drainage Area
R064 S Wanapum Dr. between Lakeshore Ct and Broadway Natural Drainage Area
R065 South of S Wanapum Dr. at Lakeshore Ct. Natural Drainage Area
R066 W Peninsula Dr. at S Wanapum Dr. (SE) Natural Drainage Area
R067 1200 Rd F.2 NE Evaporation Pond
R068 101 Rd F NE Evaporation Pond
R069 Broadway at I-90 On-ramp EB Natural Drainage Area
R070 Shrike St. at Fox St. Infiltration Pond
R071 Division St. at Yonezawa Blvd. Natural Drainage Area
R072 Central Dr. at Daniel St. Natural Drainage Area
R073 Clover Dr. at Pioneer Way Swale
R074 2903 W Lakeside Dr. Infiltration Swale
R079 500 N Stratford Rd. Infiltration Basin
Source: City of Moses Lake Public Works, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 434 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-17
Exhibit 5-7. Stormwater Outfalls
Outfall ID Location Subtype
O-001 800 Camas Pl. 12" PVC
O-002 905 Sand Dunes Rd. 12" PVC
O-003 701 Lupine Dr. 12" PVC
O-004 600 S Lupine Dr 12" PVC
O-005 407 Sand Dunes Rd. 12" PVC
O-006 3801 Sage Rd. 12" PVC
O-007 500 S Sandalwood Pl. 12" reinforced concrete
O-008 550 S Sandalwood Pl. 12" reinforced concrete
O-009 811 S Laguna Dr. 8" PVC
O-010 1008 Laguna Dr. 8" PVC
O-011 1036 Laguna Dr. 10" PVC
O-012 1029 Laguna Dr. 10" PVC
O-013 1064 S Laguna Dr. 12" PVC
O-014 1053 Laguna Dr. 12" PVC
O-015 4094 Cove West Dr. 12" PVC
O-016 4204 Lakeshore Dr. 10" PVC
O-018 718 Gaylord Pl. 10" concrete
O-019 728 Tamarack Ln. 10" concrete
O-020 831 Winona St. 10" concrete
O-021 2413 Lakeside Dr. 10" corrugated metal
O-022 2313 Lakeside Dr. 8" PVC
O-023 2203 Lakeside Dr. 12" reinforced concrete
O-024 1303 Lakeside Dr. 12" reinforced concrete
O-025 825 Mackin Ln. 12" reinforced concrete
O-026 820 Sycamore Ln. 12" reinforced concrete
O-027 805 Pennivy St. 30" concrete
O-028 2900 Marina Dr. 8" overflow
O-029 1300 Marina Dr. 36" concrete
O-030 Ash St. 24" concrete
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 435 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-18
Outfall ID Location Subtype
O-031 Alder St. 8" overflow
O-032 999 Dogwood St. 8" PVC
O-034 700 Division St. 54" concrete
O-035 802 Division St. 12" reinforced concrete
O-036 Division St. 10" corrugated metal
O-037 956 Division St. 36" concrete
O-038 1202 Eastlake Dr. 10" concrete
O-039 1322 Lakeway Dr. 10" concrete
O-040 1632 Beaumont Dr. 36" ductile cast iron
O-041 Linden Ave. 8" PVC
O-042 311 Northshore Dr. 8" concrete
O-043 697 Edgewater Ln. 24" concrete
O-044 1027 Edgewater Ln. 10" PVC
O-045 Stratford Rd. 10" corrugated metal
O-046 Stratford Rd. 10" ductile cast iron
O-047 Stratford Rd. 10" ductile cast iron
O-048 Stratford Rd. 10" ductile cast iron
O-050 619 Stratford Rd. 12" ductile cast iron
O-051 510 N Fig St. 27" concrete
O-052 802 S Division St. 10" PVC
O-054 1438 Marina Dr. 10" overflow
Source: City of Moses Lake Public Works, 2021.
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal LOS standard for stormwater facilities. Planning for the
stormwater utility is currently guided by the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), which
was adopted in 2007 pursuant to the conditions of the NPDES Phase II permit. The SWMP includes
action plans and implementation measures for the following topic areas:
▪ Public Education and Outreach;
▪ Public Involvement and Participation;
▪ Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination;
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 436 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-19
▪ Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control;
▪ Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment; and
▪ Pollution Prevention and Operation and Maintenance for Municipal Operations.
The SWMP is regularly updated, and the City files annual progress reports with the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Future Growth and Recommendations
In accordance with the conditions of its Phase II permit, the City conducts ongoing repair and
upgrade operations to ensure the existing stormwater infrastructure continue to function
adequately. In addition, the City has begun implementation of an outfall replacement program to
reduce runoff to Moses Lake and improve lake water quality.
The City should also establish a Stormwater Comprehensive Plan to address capital planning needs
for the stormwater utility. This comprehensive plan would include and inventory of existing
infrastructure, establish a level of service standard for future development, and document future
capital needs for system repairs and upgrades.
Solid Waste
The City of Moses Lake and Grant County have jointly adopted the Grant County Solid Waste
Management Plan (SWMP) to guide the short and long term management of the solid waste system
within the planning area. The SWMP documents the existing solid waste program and facilities,
describes the opportunities for improvement to the existing solid waste system, evaluates
alternatives, recommends programs that will help the County achieve its goals, and describes the
strategy for implementing the recommended programs.
Existing Conditions
The city contracts with Lakeside Disposal Inc. to provide solid waste disposal and curbside
recycling and composting services to residents within city limits. Solid waste from residents and
business within the unincorporated urban growth area is collected by Consolidated Disposal
Service, Inc. (CDSI) or is handled individually by residents. CDSI also has a contract with the City
and provides service to areas for ten years after their annexation date.
All waste is transported to the Ephrata Landfill – a 120 acre site and 147 acre adjacent property
owned and operated by Grant County – either directly or from a transfer station. Residents can
recycle paper, plastic, aluminum, and food cans in one cart, and yard waste and vegetative food
waste in the yard waste cart. Recycling is sorted and baled by Lakeside Disposal and transported to
a materials recovery facility (MRF) where it is prepared for marketing to end-user manufacturers.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 437 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-20
Yard waste will be composted, and the City is currently developing plans for a composting facility;
cost estimates have not yet been developed.
The County’s landfill design consultant estimates the planned landfill expansion will have a total
waste disposal capacity of approximately 2.6 million tons and will last until between 2033 and
2046, depending on waste disposal rate per capita and population growth.
Level of Service
Within the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, a LOS was identified for solid waste facilities which
examines the availability of the system components including the number of disposal sites,
recycling facilities, and drop box collection facilities. This Comprehensive Plan adopts an A through
C level of service standard for the quality of service provided by the waste management systems.
Grant County adopts LOS B as the minimum standard for solid waste management system
components and is responsible for maintaining this standard.
Future Growth and Recommendations
The outstanding facility need for solid waste management is a composting facility to
process yard waste. This process is under study, but specific facility plans or cost estimates
are not yet available.
Electrical Power Supply
Electricity is the movement of "excited" electrons through material known as a conductor.
Electricity itself is created by using other forms of energy in a process called generation. Once
generated the electricity must be moved instantly to where it is needed. A transformer next to the
plant steps up the voltage. Networks of high-voltage or "high- tension" transmission lines (or
circuits) carry the load while the transmission substations distribute the "bulk power" closer to the
demand – routing the power to where it is needed and transforming it to lower voltages for
distribution lines that serve homes and businesses.
Existing Conditions
Grant County PUD is a consumer-owned electric utility responsible for supplying power to the city
of Moses Lake and Grant County since 1942. Their expansive service area covers 2,777 square miles
includes more than 450 miles of high voltage transmission lines, 2,700 miles of distribution lines,
and 1,000 miles of underground cables along with 53 substations.
Grant County PUD imports electrical energy from several generation sources:
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 438 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-21
▪ District-owned and operated Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams (36% of capacity available to
district)
▪ District-operated and maintained Quincy Chute Hydroelectric Project and the Potholes East
Canal (P.E.C) Hydroelectric Project (up to 100% of capacity available for purchase).
▪ Nine Canyons Wind Project owned by Energy Northwest near Kennewick (contract for a 12.5%
share from the wind project).
Purchases from The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the open energy market supply
remaining power obligations.
The focal points for electrical power serving Moses Lake are the Larson and Sand Dunes
transmission substations located outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) along Stratford Road and
Potato Hill Road. There is sufficient capacity for these stations to serve as the backbone for the
electrical needs of Moses Lake for 15 years at the projected growth rates. The system is built so that
one section of the transmission system can be out of service without reducing the system capacity
below the loads to be served.
Level of Service
The District is obligated to provide voltages to its customers within industry standard ranges
(Typically 126 to 117 volts on a 120 volt base but ANSI B range of 126 to 114 volts is allowed on
occasion). In addition to industry standards, the District has self-imposed reliability goals.
Future Growth and Recommendations
Utility providers need to be able to access a load from different directions to enhance the reliability
of service and reduce outage due to fallen trees or freezing temperatures. This requires more
substations, such as switching substations and circuit breakers, that can divert power flow around
an outage to the customer. An electric utility needs to have the back-up facilities and capacity in
place to cover a range of contingencies and enhance reliability.
Projected demand is based on growth rates, user trends, and economic trends. The completion of
these projects will create a loop that will protect consumers from power outages by creating more
diverting and load access points, reduce the District's emergency 15-hour response time, and
enhance the quality and reliability of electrical power. The location, capacity, and timing of these
improvements depend greatly on opportunities for expansion and on how quickly the city grows.
The City should continue to work closely with the PUD in planning for the future and encourage
Grant County PUD to address deficiencies resulting from growth or those needed for improved
reliability.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 439 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-22
Natural Gas
Existing Conditions
Natural gas is supplied from gas fields located in the U.S. Rocky Mountains and Southwest as well as
the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. Williams Pipeline owns and operates the
regional network that supplies gas to the region. Natural gas is stored in an underground aquifer
located in Jackson Prairie Gas Storage Field south of Chehalis and in a storage facility in Plymouth,
Washington. In case of a disruption to the pipeline from the main source, gas would be supplied
from one of these sources.
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation (Cascade) is an investor-owned natural gas distribution company
that has served the Moses Lake area since 1957. Its service area covers most of Moses Lake
incorporated area, though limited service is available in the lower peninsula area and the Westlake
Area is not served. Areas served in the UGA include the Wheeler Corridor intersecting with Road
"O" NE and extending to the Columbia Bean & Produce property.
Within the city, underground mains carry the gas to its destination with a series of regulators which
reduce the pressure to an appropriate level. Natural gas enters the city at pressures of up to 250 psi
through piping with diameters from 6 to 8 inches, travels through the distribution system at
pressures as low as 45 psi and finally reaches the customers through smaller service lines where
the pressure is further regulated to 1/4 psi for delivery to residential customers or to higher
pressures for delivery to commercial customers.
Level of Service
Cascade Natural Gas does not plan in advance for individual connections. Connections are initiated
by customer requests for new construction or conversion from electricity or oil. Cascade expects to
continue developing distribution systems and services in accordance with the Integrated Resources
Plan Guidelines set forth by the State. Cascade will continue to identify necessary reinforcement
and meet growth at the lowest possible cost by maximizing capacity of the existing distribution
system.
Future Growth and Recommendations
There are currently no deficiencies in the city’s natural gas supply and Cascade Natural Gas does
not foresee a need for major new distribution facilities in the Moses Lake area based on available
population projections. The existing system is projected to be adequate well into the 21st Century.
Cascade’s present pipeline systems are in excellent condition and, if properly protected from
corrosion, should be serviceable indefinitely.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 440 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-23
To accommodate future demand, however, Cascade Natural Gas will need to extend the natural gas
distribution system to new customers. Areas which may be considered cost prohibitive are those
that involve extending lines across the lake or main transportation corridors such as I-90.
The city should promote locating utility distribution lines together and using existing utility
easements whenever possible.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications is the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable,
electromagnetic, or other similar means. Telecommunication utilities include, but are not limited to,
telephone, cellular telephone, internet, microwave, and cable television.
Existing Conditions
Cable. Northland Communications (Vyve Broadband) provides cable television, VoIP phone,
and internet services in the city and most areas of the unincorporated UGA including Pelican
Point, Mae Valley, West Shore Drive, and the Larson Area. Northland has the capacity to serve
any anticipated new development in the city as well as any potential areas of annexation. The
franchise agreement between Northland and the City of Moses Lake requires that service be
extended to annexed areas within one year of annexation.
Standard Telephone. CenturyLink is a private for-profit corporation offering regulated and
non-regulated telecommunications services to the entire Moses Lake planning area. The local
exchange area is served by two Central Offices (CO): one located at Fourth and Alder and the
other in the Larson Housing area. Main routes leave the CO and lead to cable routes and then
branch feeder routes that extend into thousands of local loops that provide dial tone to every
telephone subscriber and lines for voice or data transmission. All major routes have been
converted to fiber optic while sub-routes remain copper.
Most lines are placed in existing communication corridors (primarily city streets) with many of
CenturyLink’s facilities co-located with those of the local electric power providers. All new
installation lines will be placed underground except for aerial cable in the distribution routes,
which will remain overhead. Currently no capacity constraints exist. CenturyLink can provide
for all foreseeable future growth and will update equipment and facilities as needed to keep up
with customer demand and technological advances.
Cellular. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses cellular companies with the
right to use a group of radio frequencies to provide this mobile telephone service. Moses Lake is
served by at least four cell phone providers. Cellular telecommunication permits wireless
transmission of messages on a network of strategically placed receivers at cellular
communication (“cell”) sites. These receivers may be located atop tall poles, lattice-type towers,
or on existing buildings or structures.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 441 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-24
As demand for cellular service continues to increase and expand, the industry will build more
transmission antennas. Siting and height of towers is regulated by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and local zoning authority, with requirements to protect environmental
and historic resources.
Fiber-Optic. Grant County PUD operates a high-speed fiber-optic network available for
consumer internet service. State law (RCW 54.16.330-340) grants public utility districts the
authority to to operate fiber networks and conduct telecommunications wholesaling but not
provide services directly to consumers. Local commercial service providers, including
Northland Communications (Vyve), Grant County PowerNet, iFiber Communications, and
LocalTel offer internet service to consumers over the PUD-owned fiber network. The PUD’s
fiber network has extensive coverage in the City of Moses Lake and its UGA.
Level of Service, Future Growth, and Recommendations
Federal and State regulations require that telecommunications purveyors provide adequate
telecommunications services on demand. Continuing coordination between the City and
telecommunications purveyors will help ensure maintenance of adequate levels of service as
growth occurs.
Goals and Policies
As the city continues to grow, both public and private utility providers will experience increased
demand for services and need to plan for new or improved facilities. The goals and policies below
encourage coordination of public and private providers to meet demands of future growth while
supporting local priorities of promoting economic development and maintaining cost-effective
services.
Goal 5.1 Facilitate the development and improvement of all utilities at the appropriate
levels of service to accommodate the city’s projected growth.
Policy 5.1.1 Coordinate utility providers’ planning with land use planning. Base the
extension and sizing of system components on the land use plan of the area rather than
allowing system capacity to determine land use but allow utility providers to determine
the implementation sequence of utility plan components.
Policy 5.1.2 Coordinate with the appropriate jurisdictions to ensure utility facilities
constructed in potential annexation areas are designed and built consistent with City
standards.
Policy 5.1.3 Encourage providers to incorporate technological changes when they are
cost effective and consistent with their public service obligations.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 442 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-25
Policy 5.1.4 Balance improved system reliability and the aesthetic standards of the
community when developing facilities.
Policy 5.1.5 Process permits and approvals for utility facilities in a fair and timely
manner and in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Water Policies
Policy 5.1.6 Review new development applications for consistency with Grant County
Coordinated Water System Plan.
Policy 5.1.7 Require connection to the city water system for all new development
within city limits and all short plats and subdivisions within the UGA unless otherwise
allowed by State or County regulations. Encourage properties on existing private well
systems to connect to city water.
Policy 5.1.8 Upgrade and maintain distribution and storage system as necessary to
maximize the useful life of the system and in accordance with Water System Plan and
Capital Improvement Program.
Policy 5.1.9 Enforce the following Level of Service (LOS) standards:
A. Maintain adequate water supply by ensuring that the water system has one well
(with approximately the same capacity as the largest well in the pressure zone) in
standby reserve under maximum daily demand conditions in each pressure zone.
B. Require usable storage volume for the City of Moses Lake water system equal to the
sum equalizing, operational, standby, and fire suppression storage components as
defined in Chapter 9 of the DOH’s Water System Design Manual.
C. Ensure distribution system can meet peak hour demands with a minimum pressure
of 30 psi while also providing fire flows during the maximum daily demand with a
minimum fire flow pressure of 20 psi
Policy 5.1.10 Analyze opportunities to leverage water supply by exploring water reuse,
use of irrigation rights and enhanced conservation efforts.
Policy 5.1.11 Actively work with the EPA to develop a remediation plan and implement
institutional controls for the designated Superfund site.
Sewer Policies
Policy 5.1.12 Design wastewater treatment facilities to provide the most cost-effective
upgrades necessary to meet State and Federal requirements while providing the best
service to the public.
Policy 5.1.13 Maintain a Level of Service (LOS) standard that allows collection of peak
wastewater discharge plus infiltration and inflow.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 443 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-26
Policy 5.1.14 Require connection to the city wastewater system for all new
development within city limits and all short plats and subdivisions within the UGA
unless the density is less than one unit per acre or other exception is allowed by state or
county regulations. Encourage sewer extensions to the remaining unsewered areas and
require existing development to connect when on-site systems have failed, and sewer
facilities are available.
Policy 5.1.15 Utilize sewer utility to incentivize infill and preserve lake health where
appropriate.
Policy 5.1.16 Work with Grant County Health District to educate owners of septic
systems on the proper care and use of septic systems.
Policy 5.1.17 Work with the development community and the Port of Moses Lake to
enhance capacity for industrial development through water reuse or similar measures.
Stormwater Policies
Policy 5.1.18 Continue to implement and regularly update the Moses Lake Stormwater
Management Program in compliance with the conditions of the City’s NPDES Phase II
permit.
Policy 5.1.19 Develop and maintain a stormwater system comprehensive plan to
govern the maintenance and development of stormwater infrastructure in Moses Lake.
The plan should include an inventory of stormwater collection and treatment
infrastructure, establish a level of service standard for the stormwater utility, and
document existing and future stormwater capital planning needs.
Policy 5.1.20 Operate and maintain the stormwater system to protect surface and
groundwater quality and preserve and enhance environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy 5.1.21 Establish procedures for the elimination of inappropriate discharges into
the stormwater system.
Policy 5.1.22 Design future stormwater facilities and upgrades to existing facilities to
eliminate direct discharge of stormwater runoff to Moses Lake without proper
treatment and minimize the number of stormwater outfalls on the lake.
Other Utility-Specific Policies
Policy 5.1.23 Encourage and actively participate in a uniform regional approach to
solid waste management that promotes education, recycling, and composting while
maintaining a cost-effective and responsive collection system.
Policy 5.1.24 Locate and landscape cellular communication facilities in a manner that
minimizes the adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Require telephone switching
facilities to be fully enclosed in structures that are aesthetically compatible with
surrounding area. Consolidate communication facilities where feasible.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 444 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-27
Policy 5.1.25 Encourage the natural gas provider to make service available to any
location in the Moses Lake UGA that wishes to use natural gas.
Goal 5.2 Facilitate the provision of utilities that are environmentally sensitive, safe,
reliable, aesthetically compatible with surrounding land uses, and available at a
reasonable price.
Policy 5.2.1 Provide timely notice of new construction and road maintenance projects
and promote co-location of utility facilities in shared trenches and coordination of
construction timing to minimize construction-related disruptions and reduce the cost of
utility delivery.
Policy 5.2.2 Require utility providers to notify the city prior to maintenance or removal
of vegetation in public right-of-way.
Policy 5.2.3 Encourage system design practices that minimize the number and duration
of interruptions to customer service.
Policy 5.2.4 Encourage utility providers to solicit community input on the siting of
proposed facilities.
Policy 5.2.5 Facilitate and encourage conservation of resources to delay the need for
additional facilities.
Policy 5.2.6 Encourage conversion to cost-effective and environmentally sensitive
alternative technologies and energy sources while incorporating the latest technologies
available into the services provided.
Policy 5.2.7 Employ Low Impact Development (LID) practices where feasible through
City projects, incentive programs, and new development standards and street
regulations.
Policy 5.2.8 Locate new electrical and communication lines underground whenever
possible and practical. Encourage providers to underground existing lines as well.
Policy 5.2.9 Screen or camouflage above ground utilities within a fully enclosed
building, sight-obscuring fence, landscaping, or by locating facilities out of sight.
Policy 5.2.10 Structure rates and fees for city-operated utilities to recover all costs,
including overhead, related to the extension, operation, and maintenance of those
utilities.
Policy 5.2.11 Assign costs for utility extensions and installations for new development
and recently annexed areas to developer or property owners. Assist in formulation of
ULID’s for major utility or street improvement projects.
Policy 5.2.12 Explore public-private partnerships to provide unique utility solutions
that will benefit the economic growth of Moses Lake.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 445 of 883
Ch. 5 Utilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 5-28
References
Moses Lake Wastewater System Master Plan (2015)
Moses Lake Water System Comprehensive Plan (2016)
Grant County Coordinated Water System Plan (1982, updated 1999)
Moses Lake Stormwater Management Program (Updated 2020)
Grant County Solid Waste Management Plan (2008)
Grant County PUD Integrated Resource Plan Update (2020)
Cascade Natural Gas Integrated Resource Plan (2020)
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 446 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 447 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-1
Photo by Sarah Richie
Ch. 6 Transportation
Introduction
The transportation element is a key element of the City of Moses
Lake Comprehensive Plan and is one of six required elements for
cities planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). To
meet GMA requirements, the transportation element must identify existing transportation system
characteristics, establish standards for levels of service, identify and designate planned
improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that address and encourage
enhanced community access and promote healthy lifestyles, and identify existing and future
deficiencies based on traffic growth projections. Goals and policies must be established which guide
the development of the City’s transportation system in support of the City’s vision for the future.
The GMA states that the transportation element should “encourage efficient multimodal
transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city
comprehensive plans.” In other words, the GMA requires that the local comprehensive plan,
including the land use and transportation elements, be consistent and coordinated with regional
programs. The GMA further requires that transportation facility and service improvements be made
concurrent with development. Concurrent means that the improvements or strategies are in place
at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
improvements or strategies within six years.
In this chapter…
Introduction 6-1
Existing Conditions and
Trends 6-2
Level of Service (LOS)
Standards 6-12
Goals and Policies 6-39
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 448 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-2
Existing Conditions and Trends
The City of Moses Lake is located within Grant County in Washington State. The city boasts over
300 days of sunshine each year and strong agricultural, manufacturing, and technology industries.
Thanks to the nearby Columbia River, the region benefits from irrigation water and low-cost
hydroelectricity, which support the region’s industry. Grant County is the number one producer of
potatoes in the United States.
Moses Lake and the surrounding region is served by Interstate 90, which runs east to west, and SR
17, which runs north to south. SR 171 and the I-90 Business Loop provide access to downtown
Moses Lake. The city is built around its namesake lake, which has a complex shape. The lake has
three “horns” and very few roadway crossings, resulting in limited access and mobility throughout
the city. I-90, which is located at the southern end of the city, provides the only east-to-west lake
crossing. If the westernmost I-90 bridge is closed, the only alternate routes are a low-volume gravel
road through the sand dunes, or a detour of over 40 miles to either the north or the south along
state and local two-lane roads. The only routes from I-90 to northern Moses Lake are along SR 17
which crosses the lake at its northernmost point on the Parker Horn, or crossing the lake using
Stratford Road, known as Neppel Crossing or “the fill.”
Efficient and consistent movement of people and goods is vital to the success of the businesses
operating in Moses Lake. The northern part of Moses Lake and surrounding Grant County includes
the region’s largest retail shopping area, Big Bend Community College, and the Port of Moses Lake
which operates the Grant County International Airport, an industrial park, and foreign trade zone.
This is an area of regional importance, serving as a shopping destination for people from all around
Moses Lake, the only college within the basin area, and a destination and generator of freight traffic.
The eastern part of Moses Lake is home to another area of heavy industrial manufacturing along the
Wheeler Industrial Corridor. Residential growth is occurring to the south of Wheeler Road along
the SR 17 corridor, and new commercial growth is occurring near the SR 17 and I-90 interchange.
The western part of Moses Lake is comprised of two disconnected areas. The Cascade Valley is a
peninsula accessible only from Valley Road or several connections with SR 17. This area is
primarily residential and agricultural. Farther west across the lake is the Mae Valley/Westshore
area. Access to this area requires travelling on I-90 which traverses the only bridges crossing the
southern part of Moses Lake.
Road Network and Functional Classifications
Federal Functional Classification
The City’s road system is classified in five federal functional classifications (FFC) which indicate the
characteristics of the roadway:
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 449 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-3
▪ Urban Principal Arterials carry the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban
areas and activity centers. They provide interconnectivity and continuity between roadways,
providing a high level of mobility and supporting high traffic volume.
▪ Minor Arterials distribute trips of moderate lengths within relatively smaller geographic areas.
These roadways provide connectivity within the city.
▪ Major Collectors provide land access and traffic circulation between residential
neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial areas. These roadways often traverse longer
distances, providing residential areas access to arterials, and often have higher speeds and
more signalized intersections.
▪ Minor Collectors perform the same function as a major collector but are often shorter with
lower speeds and fewer signalized intersections.
▪ Local Roads make up most of the City’s road system. These are the roadways within
neighborhoods that funnel traffic to the collectors and arterials. Local roads are not meant to
carry through traffic movement.
This classification system is managed by the Federal Highway Administration and each state’s
department of transportation. Changes to the FFC must be requested by the City to the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The FFC is used for many purposes, including
project prioritization, funding availability, and design. For example, an arterial will have a different
design than a local road and will be eligible for different funding sources. Exhibit 6-1 shows the FFC
for Moses Lake on a WSDOT map.
Local Street Classifications
The City similarly classifies their street system as primary, secondary, tertiary, or residential
streets. These classifications guide the standard to which the street is constructed.
▪ Primary streets are arterial streets that carry the majority of traffic that enters and exits urban
areas and that carry the majority of through traffic. Primary streets have either fully-controlled
or partially-controlled accesses. Primary streets include interstate highways, state highways,
and specific city streets.
▪ Secondary streets are arterial streets that distribute trips of moderate lengths between
different geographic areas of the City. Secondary streets include all arterials that are not
otherwise classified as primary streets. Secondary streets provide access to identifiable areas
of the City, but they do not enter into identifiable areas of the City.
▪ Tertiary streets are City streets that provide land access and traffic circulation within
residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the City. Tertiary streets differ from primary
and secondary streets in that they may enter geographic areas of the City, to distribute traffic
from the primary and secondary streets to their ultimate destination within the neighborhood.
▪ Residential streets are all City streets that are not classified as either a primary street,
secondary street, or tertiary street.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 450 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-4
Exhibit 6-1. Federal Functional Classifications.
Source: WSDOT.
Exhibit 6-2 identifies local street classifications within Moses Lake.
County
County and City roads work together to form the transportation network serving Moses Lake.
Important routes, such as Stratford Road, Wheeler Road, and Randolph Road support industry and
the movement of goods. Other routes, such as Valley Road and Potato Hill Road, provide important
connections for local traffic.
State
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) maintains I-90 and SR 17 as they
pass through the City of Moses Lake. WSDOT and the City jointly maintain SR 171, also known as
Broadway Avenue.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 451 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-5
Exhibit 6-2. City Street Classifications.
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 452 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-6
Active Transportation System Facilities
The City of Moses Lake’s active transportation system provides residents and visitors a variety of
opportunities to experience and move about the City without the use of a motorized vehicle.
According to the 2016 Moses Lake Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, there
are 23.18 miles of multi-use pathways in the city, along with 31.03 miles of shoulder greater than 4-
feet, 4.06 miles of bike lanes, and 2.16 miles of sharrows.
The bicycle network was designed to serve and interconnect various sectors of the City and County
with major points of interest. The City’s existing active transportation facilities are shown on
Exhibit 6-3.
Sidewalks
Pedestrian facilities within the City of Moses Lake are mainly composed of sidewalks constructed in
association with streets and the multi-use pathways. According to sheet A-2 of the Moses Lake
street standards (2020), all streets require a 5-foot planter strip with street trees between the road
and sidewalk to provide a buffer for pedestrians and to visually narrow the street to slow traffic.
Current design standards for residential and tertiary streets include provisions for a minimum five-
foot-wide sidewalk, and minimum six-foot-wide sidewalk for primary and secondary streets.
Commercial and industrial developments can eliminate the requirement for a planter strip by
installing an eight-foot-wide sidewalk. Many but not all existing residential, commercial, or
industrial areas have sidewalks.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 453 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-7
Exhibit 6-3. Existing Active Transportation Facilities.
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 454 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-8
Activity Trails and Pedestrian Paths
Moses Lake Municipal Code allows for the City to require activity trails as a condition of subdivision
approval when a trail is shown in the Activity Trails Master Plan. Moses Lake Municipal Code
defines an activity trail as:
“Trails or paths that are designated for bicycle and pedestrian use. Activity trails are typically
ten feet (10') wide, unobstructed trails, with four feet (4') or more of clearance on each side,
and ten feet (10') of vertical clearance. Activity trails may be widened sidewalks, designated
roadway lanes, or separate trails from sidewalks or streets. The Activity Trail Master Plan that
was adopted by City Council provides guidance on the construction of activity trails and their
locations a trail or path designated for bicycle or pedestrian use” (MLMC 17.06.020).
At the time of updated this transportation element, the City’s Activity Trail Master Plan was also
under review.
A pedestrian path “provides unobstructed pedestrian access between existing sidewalks and
activity trails, through mid-block right-of-way” (MLMC 17.06.350). Pedestrian paths may be
required when the route along sidewalks would be more than ¼ mile longer if the pedestrian path
is not provided (MLMC 17.21.040).
Currently, all City parks and public schools can be accessed by activity trails. The City has several
named activity trail systems:
▪ Joseph K Gavinski Trail which begins in Mae Valley and extends through Moses Lake to the
Cascade Valley.
▪ Yonezawa Loop which creates a loop along Yonezawa Blvd, Division Street, Nelson Road, and
Pioneer Way.
▪ Joe Rodgers Trail which extends from Valley Road at Central Drive to Big Bend Community
College.
▪ Peninsula Loop on the south side of I-90 along Lakeshore Drive, Peninsula Drive, and
Wanapum Drive, which extends to the north of I-90 along Peninsula Drive.
Bicycle Lanes and Sharrows
Bicycle lanes are roadway lanes dedicated for the use of bicyclists, and sharrows are road marking
that indicate roadways that are intended to be shared by both bicyclists and vehicles. Sharrows are
intended to be used on lower volume roadways with speeds no greater than 35 miles per hour and
identify specific bikes routes designated by the City where there is not enough space for a dedicated
bike lane.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 455 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-9
Transit
Public Transit System
Grant Transit Authority (GTA), the public transportation provider for Grant County, started with a
demonstration project in 1995. In 1996, voters approved a Public Transportation Benefit area
funded by a 2/10 of one percent tax increase to fund public transit services in Grant County. GTA
has expanded since 1996 and currently provides bus service throughout the City of Moses Lake,
Ephrata, and Soap Lake, and intra-county service to Warden, George, and Quincy. GTA is also a van
pool provider. In 2017, GTA opened the Multimodal Transit Center in downtown Moses Lake,
which offers indoor seating, restrooms, Wi-Fi, bike storage, and taxi pick up and drop off areas.
People for People Community Services offers free fixed route and paratransit to low-income
individual, seniors, and those with disabilities. Several routes connect Moses Lake to smaller
communities throughout Grant, Adams, and Lincoln County, including daily weekday trips to
Wenatchee and the Tri-Cities with stops at the regional medical centers and transit centers serving
those communities.
Commercial Bus Service
Connections with the urban public transportation systems available outside the county are
provided by Greyhound and Northwest Trailways.
Park and Ride Lots
WSDOT operates two Park and Ride Lots in the Moses Lake area. The lot located on SR 17 just south
of I-90 has 59 parking spaces, including 3 accessible spaces. The second lot located north of the city
on SR 17 along Randolph Road near the entrance to the Grant County International Airport and Big
Bend Community College has 24 parking spaces, including 2 accessible spaces. Both Park and Ride
lots would benefit from additional parking spaces, striping, and improved lighting at night for
better security.
Freight
Moses Lake Municipal Code Chapter 10.16 establishes a limitation on truck traffic with a combined
axle load of 12,000 pounds within the City. Routes approved as “through truck routes” are SR 17
and I-90 within the Moses Lake city limits. Local truck traffic, such as delivery trucks and
construction vehicles, are authorized to travel on other city streets.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 456 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-10
Airport
Moses Lake Municipal Airport
The Moses Lake Municipal Airport is classified as a General Aviation Airport and is located in the
Wheeler industrial area east of the city. This airport is an integral part of the City’s larger multi-
modal transportation system and provides important resources to the region’s agricultural
economy and other users of small aircraft. The 54.5-acre site serves general aviation aircraft and
commercial crop spraying operations. The runway is 2,500' by 50'. All aircraft using this airport
have an aircraft approach speed of less than 121 knots, a wingspan less than 49', and weigh less
than 12,500 pounds. The airport property was deeded to the City in 1947 by the Northern Pacific
Railroad. Since 1994, operations at the Municipal Airport have been overseen by the Municipal
Airport Advisory Board, consisting of five members appointed by the mayor.
Grant County International Airport
The Port of Moses Lake operates the Grant County International Airport located at the northern end
of the City. The facility is classified as a Commercial Service facility. Formerly the Larson Air Force
Base, it is now a world-class heavy jet training and testing facility used by the Boeing Company, the
U.S. Air Force, and many aerospace oriented users and air carriers from around the world.
Passenger service ended in 2010. The United States Customs and Border Protection operates an
office at the airport to clear international flights.
The airport has 4,700 acres and five runways. The main runway is 13,503 feet long and 200 feet
wide. The remaining four runways range from 10,000 feet by 100 feet down to 2936 feet by 75 feet.
Because of the acreage and the length of the runways, it is one of the largest airports in the nation.
Airside facilities also include 21 taxiways, 3.5 million square feet of aprons, fuel distribution and
storage systems, airport surveillance, radar, and a fire training facility. Landside facilities include a
terminal building with capacity for 132 passengers, control tower, and over 40 buildings totaling
about 1,000,000 square feet.
Rail
Moses Lake is served by the Columbia Basin Railroad. This is a freight line which dead ends at the
Port of Moses Lake and near the Wheeler Industrial Corridor (Exhibit 6-4). The rail line travels
south to Connell, where it connects with the BNSF Railroad.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 457 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-11
Exhibit 6-4. Columbia Basin Railroad Service Area.
Source: Columbia Basin Railroad.
The Port of Moses Lake has successfully sought federal funding and authorization to rehabilitate
and relocate the rail line that currently passes through downtown Moses Lake. The rail line will be
relocated to an alternate location that would efficiently and directly connect the industrial lands at
the Port of Moses Lake to the Wheeler Industrial Corridor and remove rail service that must cross
through downtown Moses Lake. The project includes construction of about 4.5 miles of new rail line
(Segment 1), and rehabilitation of 3 miles of existing track (Segment 3) as shown in Exhibit 6-5. The
benefits of this project are focused on economic development and preservation of existing industry
by providing new rail service to over 2,000 acres of industrial lands and improving rail service to
industrial lands already served by the rail lines. In addition, the projected benefits include the
diversion of 76 million truck miles to rail, potentially removing some industrial truck traffic from
within the City.
Passenger rail service provided by Amtrak is available in Ephrata, approximately 22 miles
northwest of Moses Lake.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 458 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-12
Exhibit 6-5. Northern Columbia Basin Rail Project.
Source: Port of Moses Lake.
Level of Service (LOS) Standards
Roadway LOS
Level of Service (LOS) standards are a mechanism for establishing the community’s expectations for
the performance of specific aspects of the transportation system. These standards are typically
associated with congestion at intersections which focus on the performance of the transportation
system from the point of view of the auto motorist. Level of Service is expressed using a scale with
letter designations ranging from A to F. Level of Service A represents the highest level and the best
operating conditions, and LOS F is the lowest level. See Exhibit 6-6 for a description of each LOS for
a signalized intersection. Unsignalized intersections and roundabouts have a similar LOS scale, but
have different delays than a signalized intersection. For example, a LOS F for a signalized
intersection is characterized by a delay greater than 80 seconds per vehicle, and a LOS F for a
roundabout or unsignalized intersection is characterized by a delay greater than 50 seconds per
vehicle.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 459 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-13
The Growth Management Act requires that jurisdictions forecast traffic volumes associated with
growth and determine transportation concurrency levels. The concurrency tests are intended to
ensure that the development of transportation facilities and operations are occurring consistently
with growth and development. A jurisdiction must show that it is physically and financially feasible
to accommodate traffic from new development.
The City of Moses Lake adopts a LOS D or better for all intersections, except for the intersections at
Stratford Road and Broadway Avenue and Stratford Road and Valley Road. These intersections shall
operate at a LOS F or better. The City recognizes that these intersections have an existing deficiency
and that the SR 17 Stratford Road study discussed below has found that there are no reasonable
improvements that can help these interchanges operate at a LOS D or E in the future, except for
projects that divert traffic from Stratford Road, such as a new bridge crossing the lake. These
intersections each have site constraints which limit future improvements.
Interstate 90, SR 17, and SR 171 must operate at a LOS D or better according to WSDOT.
A traffic study conducted in 2019 evaluated the LOS at several intersections along Moses Lake’s
Stratford Road, from Broadway Avenue to the SR 17 interchange. In 2021, analyses were conducted
that focused on Mae Valley growth and traffic impacts to local streets, I-90, and the Broadway
Avenue interchange, and the Yonezawa Blvd and Kittleson Road intersections with SR 17. The basis
for evaluating concurrency is based on these study intersections.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 460 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-14
Exhibit 6-6. Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection LOS.
Source: FHWA
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 461 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-15
SR 17 Stratford Road Transportation Study LOS Results
The Stratford Road Transportation Study was a joint effort between WSDOT and the City of Moses
Lake. The purpose of the study was to identify potential improvements along certain stretches of
the highway and city road system to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle mobility while
enhancing safety. The study included stakeholder and public participation to support the selection
of preferred alternatives. The preferred alternative at the Stratford Road and Valley Road
intersection has already been implemented, though it was slightly modified. Therefore, the results
shown below include the modified preferred alternative as the current condition.
The study included eight intersections. Two intersections are currently in the Urban Growth Area
outside of city limits. The growth rate used in the analysis was the average of the city identified
growth rate of 3% (2013 Comprehensive Plan) and actual traffic growth derived from 10-years of
traffic data. See Exhibit 6-7. The traffic data was collected in December 2018. New traffic data was
not collected for this plan update nor were the intersection analyses updated for several reasons:
▪ COVID-19 affected traffic volumes in 2020-2021, so traffic counts would not be accurate for
long-term forecasting.
▪ Five of the six study intersections are forecast to operate at a LOS E or F by 2040. Updating the
traffic study will not change the fact that the intersections are forecast to operate below City
LOS standards.
▪ Using the reduced growth rate of 2.4% from this 2021 Comprehensive Plan did not affect the
results enough to change the LOS.
Exhibit 6-7. Stratford Road Study Growth Rates
Source Stratford Road Broadway Avenue
Comprehensive Plan 3% 3%
WSDOT 10-year Traffic Data 2.64% 0.54%
Averaged Growth Rate 2.82% 1.77%
Sources: Perteet, 2019.
The results shown in Exhibit 6-8 indicate that five of the six intersections along the Stratford Road
corridor will fail by 2040 if no action is taken (highlighted in orange). The proposed preferred
alternative for each intersection is discussed in the next section.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 462 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-16
Exhibit 6-8. Level of Service Analysis along the Stratford Road corridor.
Intersection Peak Hour 2018 2025 2040
Valley Road at Central Drive AM C C D
PM C C D
SR 17 Northbound Ramps AM B B B
PM B B E
SR 17 Southbound Ramps AM B B F
PM C D F
Stratford Road at Marts Road AM B B B
PM C C F
Stratford Road at Valley Road1 AM C C E
PM C C F
Stratford Road at SR 171
(Broadway)
AM C D D
PM D D F
1 LOS is based on improvements made at intersection after the study was completed.
Sources: Perteet, 2019, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 463 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-17
Mae Valley Analysis LOS Results
The City of Moses Lake anticipates future growth and developments in the Mae Valley area, which
overlaps the western City limits and extends into unincorporated Grant County north of I-90. The
City, in partnership with WSDOT, performed a study to evaluate anticipated traffic impacts
associated with new potential developments. The analysis included several intersections near I-90
to the west of Moses Lake as well as the I-90 freeway segments between Mae Valley and the
Broadway interchange. Exhibit 6-9 identifies the locations of the study intersections. At the time of
adoption of this element, only the first step of the process was completed, as described below.
Exhibit 6-9. Mae Valley Analysis Study Intersections.
The first step in the process was to identify baseline level of service. The baseline analysis is based
on a minimal growth scenario, assuming the only growth will be single family residences on
existing parcels. The results of the baseline level of service analysis shown in Exhibit 6-10 indicate
that two of the intersections are currently operating below the city’s LOS standards, and two
additional intersections will operate below LOS standards within the next ten years (highlighted in
orange). The next step in the analysis is to develop a growth scenario that will form a more realistic
view of the future, including additional subdivisions and more intense growth, and re-evaluate the
level of service. The final step will be to identify transportation system improvement projects that
will mitigate the transportation impacts resulting from growth. Considering the entire system will
promote a more coordinated effort that will support the greatest growth potential within the Mae
Valley area.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 464 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-18
Exhibit 6-10. Baseline Level of Service Analysis within Mae Valley.
Intersection Peak Hour 2021 2030 2040
Westshore/Westlake
AM B B B
PM B B C
Westlake/Montana
AM A A A
PM A A A
Hansen/Westlake
AM B E F
PM C E F
Hansen/I-90 Ramps
AM A C E
PM B F F
Hansen/Frontage
AM F F F
PM F F F
Frontage/Idaho
AM C C D
PM B C C
Sage/Laguna
AM A A A
PM A A A
Broadway/EB Ramps
AM B B B
PM B B B
Broadway/WB Ramp
AM C D F
PM F F F
Sources: Perteet, 2021.
Needs and Opportunities
Growth
The City of Moses Lake has grown at a rate of 2.4% over the past five years and is expected to
continue growing at that rate. To sustain this growth for the next twenty-years, this equates to an
additional 4,803 housing units needed within the City, averaging 253 units per year. This growth
comes with additional traffic on existing City roads from the new residents, businesses, and
industries, and new roads where growth expands away from existing City infrastructure.
Additionally, as Moses Lake is a regional shopping, commercial, and industrial center, growth from
areas surrounding the City will also increase traffic. This transportation element gives the City an
opportunity to plan for that growth, to ensure there is an efficient multimodal transportation
system developed to meet the future needs of the City.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 465 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-19
Road System
The City’s road system provided the foundation for growth in the past and informs how the city will
develop into the future. This section of the plan outlines an improvement plan that will help the
City to meet transportation demands into the future. The City of Moses Lake has conducted several
studies and analyses over the past few years which form the basis of this improvement plan:
▪ SR 17 Stratford Road Transportation Study (2019)
▪ Mae Valley Analysis (2021)
▪ Yonezawa Blvd Intersection Control Evaluation (2021)
▪ Roundabout and Road Diet Study (2017)
▪ Activity Trails Master Plan (2005)
The City’s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan also provided several project
recommendations for future improvement to the road system. Some specific projects are described
below, with the complete project list provided in Exhibit 6-12 and Exhibit 6-18.
SR 17 Stratford Road Transportation Study Recommended Alternatives
Valley Road at Central Drive
This intersection is not forecast to fail within the study period; however, there are several large,
vacant, commercially zoned parcels nearby that, when developed, may increase traffic beyond the
standard growth rate and cause the intersection to fall below a LOS D. The study determined that
updating the signal timing would provide immediate benefit to the intersection but may not be
sufficient to manage additional commercial development. The best option for long term traffic
control is a roundabout. Because of the need to purchase right of way, it is identified as a preferred
alternative if necessary in the future and will need to be re-evaluated when specific development is
proposed.
SR 17 Interchange and Marts Road
The three intersections at the SR 17 interchange and Marts Road are all forecast to fail by 2040. The
study determined the best alternative is to add a traffic signal at the southbound ramps and add
new lanes at the northbound ramps and at Marts Road. The alternative also includes shifting the
lanes crossing the bridge to the east and widening the sidewalk on the west to provide safer
pedestrian access. This alternative significantly increased the efficiency of traveling vehicles and
provided the greatest improvements for pedestrians using the current bridge. These improvements
will require coordination with WSDOT. The proposed improvements are shown in Exhibit 6-11.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 466 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-20
Exhibit 6-11. SR 17 Interchange and Marts Road Preferred Alternative.
Sources: Perteet, 2019.
Stratford Road at Valley Road
The recommended alternative has already been implemented at this intersection; however, the
intersection is still forecast to fail in the future. This intersection is constrained, and there were no
feasible additional options found that could be implemented within the existing right of way. This
intersection will benefit from regional projects that remove through traffic from Stratford Road.
Stratford Road at Broadway Avenue
Site constraints limited the available options for different alternatives at this site, and even with the
recommended improvements the intersection is forecast to fail in 2040. Alternatives that will
improve traffic flow and are recommended for implementation include adding a protected right
turn for westbound traffic and revising the signal timing. The changes to the signal will require
coordination with WSDOT.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 467 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-21
Mae Valley Analysis
Although not complete at the time of this plan’s adoption, the Mae Valley Analysis is indicating that
several road improvement projects will be required to support additional growth in the Mae Valley
area. With the amount of urban growth area and vacant land in Mae Valley, substantial increases in
traffic are very possible and will require significant private investments to ensure level of service is
maintained. Once the analysis is complete and the preferred improvement projects are identified,
the City should develop an implementation plan to ensure concurrency requirements can be met.
Yonezawa Blvd Intersection Control Evaluation
An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is a process used to evaluate intersection alternatives. The
process is intended to result in the selection of the most cost-efficient and safe intersection design
that meets needs both now and into the future. The purpose of the Yonezawa ICE is to support
adding a fourth leg to the intersection to allow the roadway to extend to the east.
The ICE review team developed a conservative, but likely, growth forecast for the future based on
current zoning. The level of service analysis indicates the intersection will fail by 2043 with the
addition of traffic from the growth forecast. This includes both the three-legged intersection as it
exists today, and the proposed four-leg intersection. It will take a significant reduction in traffic for
the intersection to operate within the level of service standards, which impacts the potential for
growth.
These results indicate that a subarea planning process is needed to manage growth and traffic in
the future. Without taking a comprehensive look at the surrounding area, growth will be limited by
the capacity of the road system.
To maximize growth and economic development potential, the City should undertake a subarea
planning process that involves the community, property owners, developers, and the City. Through
this process, the City can ensure that development is coordinated and high quality and developers
and landowners can ensure their property is able to be developed to its maximum potential. A
subarea plan for this area should evaluate land uses and the supporting capital facilities, including
the transportation system, to identify what improvements will need to be made to ensure LOS
standards are met in the future. The planning process will ensure the public and private
investments required to support the new development and redevelopment can be planned for and
implemented in a cost-efficient, equitable, and timely manner.
Roundabout and Road Diet Study
This study was completed in 2017 and provided the basis for several recently implemented road
diets in downtown Moses Lake. Completion of the remaining road diets is recommended; however,
the road diet recommended along Valley Road will require more public outreach to determine if it
should be implemented.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 468 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-22
None of the roundabouts identified are currently recommended for implementation. However, if
future development causes a LOS impact at one of the studied intersections that recommended
roundabout installation, a roundabout solution should be evaluated for development at that time.
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) must be updated annually and be adopted by
City Council. The Six-Year TIP provides a short-term list of projects and their funding sources that
are planned to be implemented over the next six years.
The 2022-2028 Six-Year TIP included several projects that city officials have identified as a need
and was used to inform this plan element. Several projects are important to this plan and support
future growth or improve current conditions. The most current Six-Year TIP is available from the
Municipal Services Engineering division.
Yonezawa Boulevard East
This project extends Yonezawa Boulevard east of SR 17 and connects into Nelson Road, improving
access to the new elementary school and existing private school, opening land for development, and
removing local traffic from the highway.
American Disability Act (ADA) Ramp Reconstruction
Each year the City budgets funds to improve curb ramps and sidewalks around the city to improve
accessibility.
Hanson Road Reconstruction
This project includes completing frontage improvements and sidewalks along the corridor.
Development occurring in this area will complete some of the improvements.
Transportation Studies
Several studies are included in the TIP to evaluate preferred intersection control or corridor
improvements. These studies will identify specific projects to be added into future Six-Year TIPs.
Currently, the intersections of Wheeler Road at Road L and Division Street at Nelson Road are
identified for further study for intersection control. The Broadway Avenue corridor has two studies
identified. , One is a corridor study for East Broadway Avenue to evaluate improvements to the
intersections and corridor between Pioneer Avenue and SR 17, and the second is an analysis of the
entire Broadway Avenue corridor from I-90 to SR 17 to evaluate for revitalization.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 469 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-23
Additional Bridge Crossing
A long-time and long-term regional goal is to construct a new bridge crossing over Moses Lake to
provide an additional route to the northside of the lake. This goal has several benefits, including
providing a more efficient route for freight traveling to or from the west, supporting job and
industry creation, and alleviating congestion through Moses Lake on Stratford Road and SR 17.
Proponents for the new bridge have not confirmed a location, but several locations have been
identified as potential crossings in the past, including Dogwood Street in Moses Lake and most
recently a location west of the City in the Hiawatha Road vicinity.
Road System Twenty-Year Improvement Plan
The following projects are identified for the City’s twenty-year improvement plan. Exhibit 6-12
identifies the priority, project name, benefit area, estimated cost as of 2021, and potential funding
sources. Funding sources may include:
▪ Local: Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), Transportation Benefit District (TBD), gas tax, levies, etc.
▪ Grant: Funding secured from grants such as Safe Routes to School, Transportation
Improvement Board, QUADCO, etc.
▪ Developer: Funding provided by developers to comply with concurrency requirements.
▪ State or County funding
The project locations are shown on Exhibit 6-13.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 470 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-24
Exhibit 6-12. Road System Twenty-Year Improvement Plan
No. Priority Level Project Name Benefit Area Cost Funding Sources
1 Annual Annual Gravel Road Paving
Program
Local $500,000 Local
2 Annual Citywide Crack Seal and
Chip/Slurry Seal
Local $1,000,000 Local
3 2022-2023 Valley Road Reconstruction
Stratford Rd to Paxton Drive
Local $1,500,000 Local
4 2022-2023 SR 17/Grape Dr Roundabout
Gateway Treatment
Local $200,000 Local
5 2022-2023 Yonezawa Blvd East of HWY 17 and
Moses Lake Avenue
Regional $2,000,000 Local, Grants,
Developer
6 2022-2023 Wheeler Road and Road L
Intersection Control Feasibility
Study
Local $30,000 Local
7 2022-2023 Division St and Nelson Rd
Intersection Control Feasibility
Study
Local $30,000 Local
8 2022-2023 East Broadway Study (Pioneer
Road to SR 17)
Regional $50,000 Local, Grants
9 2024-2027 Broadway Ave & Stratford Rd
Intersection Improvements
Local $75,000 Local, State,
Grants
10 2024-2027 Stratford Road and SR 17
Intersection and Marts Road
Signalization and Interchange
Improvements
Regional $3,000,000
($1,250,000 for
Marts Road
portion)
Local, State,
Grants
11 2024-2027 Broadway Avenue Gateway
Treatments
Local $459,000 Local
12 2024-2027 Hanson Rd Reconstruction
Local $1,000,000 Local,
Developer
13 2024-2027 Wheeler Road Improvements
SR 17 to Road N NE
Regional $1,000,000 Local, Grants
14 2024-2027 3rd Ave Reconstruction
Dogwood St to Pioneer Way
Local $4,000,000 Local, Grants,
Developer
15 Future Broadway Revitalization Regional TBD Local, Grants,
Developer
16 Future Additional Lake Crossing - Motor
Vehicle Bridge
Regional $42,000,000 Local, State,
County, Grants,
Developer
17 Future Nelson Road Reconstruction Local TBD Local, Grants,
Developer
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 471 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-25
Exhibit 6-13. Map of Road System Improvement Projects
Source: Perteet, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 472 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-26
Active Transportation System
Having a well-connected, safe, and enjoyable active transportation system is very important to the
City of Moses Lake. The City already has a well-developed system of trails and sidewalks; however,
not all trails are interconnected. Several projects are proposed to improve access and
interconnectivity throughout the City. In 2005, the City developed an Activity Trails Master Plan
through a robust public process with a list of projects and their descriptions. Exhibit 6-14 identifies
several of the trails proposed within the Activity Trails Master Plan, as well as possible locations for
additional trail connections, either by widening existing sidewalks into activity trails, constructing
sidewalks where there are none currently, or reserving future connections on undeveloped land or
rights of way. The exhibit also shows where bikes lanes are proposed as part of a road diet. For
more specific information the proposed trail system, refer to the Activity Trails Master Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 473 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-27
Exhibit 6-14. Future Trails, Sidewalk Connections, and Bike Lanes
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 474 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-28
Stratford Road Bridge Sidewalk
The Stratford Road Bridge is the only pedestrian route crossing SR 17 from the residential areas to
the north to the shopping areas to the south. The bridge has 3-foot wide sidewalks on each side,
immediately adjacent to the travel lanes. The sidewalks are not ADA-compliant and are unsafe for
the high volume of pedestrian travel. In the winter, snow is pushed up onto the sidewalk which
forces pedestrians into the road to cross the bridge.
The SR 17 and Stratford Road Transportation Study evaluated options to improve pedestrian access
across the bridge. The City had already determined that a replacement bridge or a pedestrian only
bridge were not feasible options, so the study evaluated retrofits to the bridge. The study
determined that a strategy that shifts the lanes to the east and widens the sidewalk on the west side
of the bridge to 6-feet was the best strategy and could be implemented along with or prior to signal
improvements at the three nearby intersections. Exhibit 6-15 demonstrates the current and
proposed bridge sections.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 475 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-29
Exhibit 6-15. Stratford Road Bridge Pedestrian Improvement Strategy
Source: Perteet.
Central Washington Railroad Rail Trail
The Central Washington Railroad runs through the center of Moses Lake, crossing through
Montlake Park at the southern end, then crossing the Pelican Horn of Moses Lake, which takes the
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 476 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-30
railroad into downtown Moses Lake through Neppel Landing Park, and terminating near Big Bend
Community College. The City’s goal is to acquire a portion of the unused right of way after the
Central Washington Railroad is relocated to the Wheeler Road area and develop a trail system from
Montlake Park to connect into the existing Joseph K. Gavinski Trail at Marina Drive. At this point,
the trail system runs adjacent to the railroad through Neppel Landing Park. The trail could then also
extend farther north to SR 17 across another bridge crossing. Exhibit 6-16 identifies the rail
segments that are proposed for acquisition.
Exhibit 6-16. Proposed Railroad Right of Way Acquisition Areas
Sources: Port of Moses Lake, City of Moses Lake.
Trail Committee Projects
The City’s trail committee has identified several trail improvement projects, including:
▪ A new Montlake Park trail that extends west along I-90 crossing the Pelican Horn and
connecting to West Lakeside Drive. A pedestrian bridge is required to cross Moses Lake along I-
90. This trail could also connect into the existing Joseph K. Gavinski Trail just north of the
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 477 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-31
westbound on and off ramps at Broadway which would provide access to Blue Heron Park and
Westshore Drive. The trail would also connect to the future rail trail.
▪ Improve the connections from existing trails to McCosh Park.
▪ Connect Power Point Park to Division Street and Montlake Park through Grant PUD right of
way.
▪ Install way finding signs to provide the directions and the estimated distances for all those
using the trail system.
▪ Develop a greenway that extends from the Japanese Gardens to Parker Springs.
Grape Drive to Patton Blvd / SR 17 Trail Connection
During the SR 17 Stratford Road Transportation Study, the public identified the need for improved
non-motorized connection from Grape Drive to Randolph Road. A trail connection going north
along Grape Drive does exist; however, it is not direct, and the public desired a more direct route. In
addition, the public identified the SR 17 corridor as a desired pathway.
Dogwood Street Bridge
The City of Moses Lake recently acquired land on the north side of the lake across from Dogwood
Street, at the west end of Northshore Drive. The purchase completes the connection from one side
of the lake to the other and would permit the construction of a bridge. Although there is enough
right of way to construct a vehicle bridge, the City envisions a pedestrian bridge at this location
which will provide an alternate route across the lake instead of traveling along the activity trail that
is adjacent to the busy Stratford Road. A bridge would provide more direct access to destinations on
both sides of the lake which will promote more use of the active transportation system and reduce
the vehicle trips across the fill.
Road Diets
The City has several roads with two lanes and a parking strip in each direction, with no bike lanes.
The City performed a road diet study in 2017 to determine if some of these streets could be reduced
to one lane, parking strip, and bike lane in each direction, with a two-way center turn lane. Exhibit
6-17 shows a before and after illustration of a road diet. The results of this study were positive, and
several streets have been identified for road diet implementation. In 2015 the City implemented a
road diet on Division Street, from Nelson Road to 6th Avenue. Several streets are identified for near
future implementation of road diets in the downtown area, including extending the Division Street
road diet farther north.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 478 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-32
Exhibit 6-17. Road Diet Example
Source: FHWA Road Diet Case Studies
Bike Signals
A bike-only signal provides cyclists a dedicated signal phase and ability to cross the intersection
diagonally with all traffic stopped. The SR 17 and Stratford Road Transportation Study evaluated
the use of a bike-only signal at the intersection of Valley Road and Central Drive. The evaluation
determined the use of a bike-only signal would be a beneficial addition to this intersection because
it is an important activity trail crossing location and connection from the Joseph K. Gavinski Trail to
the Joe Rogers Trail.
Bike-only signals should also be evaluated at other signal-controlled intersection with activity trail
crossings and considered with future improvement projects.
Active Transportation System Twenty-Year Improvement Plan
The following projects are identified for the City’s twenty-year improvement plan. Exhibit 6-18
identifies the priority, project name, benefit area, estimated cost as of 2021 (unless otherwise
noted), and potential funding sources. Funding sources may include:
▪ Local: REET, TBD, gas tax, levies, etc.
▪ Grant: Funding secured from grants such as Safe Routes to School, Transportation
Improvement Board, QUADCO, etc.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 479 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-33
▪ Developer: Funding provided by developers to comply with concurrency requirements.
▪ Donations: Conservation easements or funding provided by landowners or other groups.
▪ State or County funding
The project locations are shown on Exhibit 6-19.
Exhibit 6-18. Active Transportation System Twenty-Year Improvement Plan
No.
Priority
Level Project Name
Benefit
Area Cost
Funding
Sources
1 Annual ADA Ramp Reconstruction and
Miscellaneous Sidewalk Repairs
Local $100,000 Local
2 2022-2023 Wheeler Road Corridor Study
SR 17 to Road N NE – Sidewalks or Trail
Regional $30,000 Local
3 2022-2023 Division St Road Diet Local Part of 2022 chip seal
program
Local
4 2022-2023 4th Avenue Road Diet Local Part of 2022 chip seal
program
Local
5 2022-2023 3rd Avenue Road Diet Local Part of 2022 chip seal
program
Local
6 2022-2023 Nelson Road Safe Routes to School Local TBD Local, Grants
7 2024-2027 Hill Avenue Road Diet Local Part of 2023 or 2024
chip seal program
Local
8 2024-2027 5th Avenue Road Diet Local Part of 2023 or 2024
chip seal program
Local
9 2024-2027 Stratford Road Bridge Lane Shift Local Part of road
improvement project
Local, State,
Grants
10 Future Separated Bike Lanes on Wide Streets Local TBD Local
11 Future Big Bend Community College Trail -
Segment 1
Regional $1,700,000 Local, State,
County,
Grants
12 Future Big Bend Community College Trail -
Segment 2
Regional $960,000 Local, State,
County,
Grants
13 Future Big Bend Community College Trail -
Segment 3
Regional $770,000 Local, State,
County,
Grants
14 Future Central Washington Railroad ROW
Acquisition
Regional $2,000,000 Local, Grants,
Donations
15 Future Additional Lake Crossing at Dogwood St Local TBD Local, Grants,
Donations
16 Future Montlake Park Trail Local TBD Local, Grants,
Donations
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 480 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-34
No.
Priority
Level Project Name
Benefit
Area Cost
Funding
Sources
17 Future Power Point Park Trail Local TBD Local, Grants,
Donations
18 Future Three Ponds Wetland Park Trail Local TBD Local, Grants,
Developers,
Donations
19 Future Downtown Alley Treatments Local TBD Local, Grants
20 Future City-Wide Activity Trail Extensions and
Sidewalk Connections
Local TBD Local, Grants,
Developers,
Donations
Sources: Perteet, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 481 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-35
Exhibit 6-19. Map of Active Transportation System Improvement Projects
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 482 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-36
Concurrency
The GMA requires concurrency for the transportation network and other public facilities that serve
a development. Maintaining currency means that the public facilities that are necessary to support
the development are in place as the development occurs, or within six years if a financial
commitment is in place. For the transportation network, concurrency is based on the adopted LOS
for the road network. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) requires local agencies to adopt and enforce policies
and regulations that prohibit development that causes the LOS to drop below the City standard. If a
development causes an impact, it must either pay to mitigate the impacts or redesign the project.
The City of Moses Lake does not currently have concurrency regulations adopted in city code. The
concurrency policies are listed below in Goal 1.2 and are intended to be applied to all development.
The City uses the SEPA process to implement concurrency policies. The City should codify policies
and regulations through future updates to the development regulations.
Complete Streets
A Complete Streets Program is one which promotes healthy communities by encouraging walking,
bicycling, and using public transportation. The program focuses on improving transportation
facilities to increase safety and usability for multi-modal travel. An overarching goal is to reduce
congestion by providing alternatives to driving. In 2011, Washington state established a grant
program for communities which have adopted complete street policies. The City of Moses Lake
received $250,000 in 2017 and may be eligible to receive more funding if nominated.
The City Council adopted Ordinance 2644 on March 13, 2012 which established the following
policies:
“The purpose of the Complete Streets Program is to ensure all users are planned for in the
construction of all City transportation improvement projects. The City of Moses Lake
encourages healthy, active living, reduction of traffic congestion and fossil fuels, and
improvement in the safety and quality of life.
The City of Moses Lake will plan for, design, and construct all new transportation projects
to provide reasonable and appropriate accommodations for bicyclists, pedestrians, and
transit users; except in the following cases:
1. Where the establishment would be contrary to public safety.
2. Where the cost would be disproportionate to the need or probably future use.
3. Where there is no identified need.
4. Where the establishment would be contrary to the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.”
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 483 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-37
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on reducing the number of vehicles on a road
during peak hours instead of constructing larger roadways or more roadways. In Moses Lake, TDM
is supported by Grant Transit Authority and their bus and vanpool programs, which provide public
transportation to the County and region. The City’s existing and proposed activity trail system will
also support TDM, by creating safer and more efficient pathways for non-motorized travel. The City
also encourages TDM concepts for new employers, especially industrial, manufacturing, and office
space type businesses which can control employee traffic. Employer TDM programs, such as
alternative work schedules and telecommuting, are efficient methods to reduce transportation
impacts during peak hours and reduce the need for mitigation as part of project approval.
State and Regional Planning Efforts
WSDOT
The Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) is a comprehensive and balanced statewide transportation
plan that establishes a 20-year vision for the development of the statewide transportation system,
from state highways and ferries to sidewalks and bike paths, county roads, city streets, public transit,
air and rail. The WTP identifies the total unfunded statewide need over 20 years, identifies significant
statewide transportation issues, and recommends statewide transportation policies and strategies
to the legislature and Governor.
By law, the WTP is required to be consistent with the state’s growth management goals, reflect the
priorities of government, and address regional needs, including multimodal transportation planning.
The WTP 2035 is based on the following four focus areas:
▪ Maintain and Preserve Assets
▪ Manage Growth and Traffic Congestion
▪ Enhance Multimodal Connections and Choices
▪ Align the Funding Structure with the Multimodal Vision
QUADCO
The Quad County (QUADCO) Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) was formed in
1992 and encompasses Adams, Grant, Kittitas and Lincoln Counties. Its mandate is based on the
RTPO planning provision of the Growth Management Act. QUADCO’s role is to foster an ongoing
planning and decision-making process that shapes the transportation system within that region,
ensures that needs are addressed within the available resources, and coordinates among
jurisdictions as well as between the public and private sectors.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 484 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-38
In 2017, QUADCO updated the Regional Transportation Plan which describes the regional
transportation system as it exists and projects its function 20 years into the future. The QUADCO
plan compares the projected system with the system that is required to meet the mobility,
economic, social, and environmental goals of the region, and provides strategies to shape the
transportation system so that it can support those goals.
The Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the goals of the QUADCO Regional
Transportation Plan:
Goal 1 – Safety: Protect the safety of our community.
▪ The Moses Lake plan focuses on creating a safe multimodal transportation system for all users
through roadway design and system improvements.
Goal 2 – Preservation: Preserve and extend the life and utility of prior transportation system
investments.
▪ The Moses Lake plan supports maintenance and preservation projects with a goal of extending
the life of current assets.
Goal 3 - Economic Vitality: Enhance our region’s economic vitality by promoting and
developing transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of
people and goods.
▪ The Moses Lake plan supports economic vitality by prioritizing an efficient transportation
system for freight and other users. The plan encourages orderly growth focused around
employment centers or accessible by public transportation. The plan supports the development
of revitalized corridors which encourage density and mixed uses.
Goal 4 – Mobility: Enhance the mobility of people and goods throughout the region by
providing an interconnected transportation system and opportunities for choosing different
transportation modes.
▪ The Moses Lake plan focuses on creating an efficient multimodal transportation system that
provides options for residents and visitors to use public transportation, an interconnected trail
and sidewalk system, and other modes of travel. The plan supports a multimodal system that is
accessible to all.
Goal 5 – Environment: Protect our region’s environment and high quality of life through
transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy
communities, and protect the environment.
▪ The Moses Lake plan encourages improvements to the public and active transportation
systems, which both reduce energy consumption and enhance the health of the community. The
Moses Lake plan encourages the incorporation of stormwater facilities to preserve lake health.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 485 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-39
Grant County Countywide Planning Policies
Grant County developed a regional policy plan, known as the County-Wide Planning Policies
(CWPP), to provide a framework for the development and adoption of comprehensive plans for
jurisdictions within the County. The framework is intended to ensure that county and city plans are
consistent, as required by the GMA. This transportation element is consistent with the CWPPs.
Goals and Policies
Goal 6.1 Provide a safe, efficient, interconnected, and pleasurable active transportation
system for residents and visitors.
Policy 6.1.1 Consider pedestrians and bicyclists as transportation system users in the
planning, design, construction, and maintenance of all roadway projects. Confirm
project design prior to implementation by coordinating the planning, development, and
funding of non-motorized systems with affected citizens, community councils,
neighborhood associations, business groups, and other stakeholders.
Policy 6.1.2 Require new development, infill development, and redevelopments to
provide active transportation facilities along their street frontage that promote
interconnectivity and are consistent with adopted street design standards and plans.
Policy 6.1.3 Encourage conversion of four-lane streets to three-lane streets with bicycle
facilities where appropriate (road diets).
Policy 6.1.4 Provide an active transportation system that is safe and accessible for
users of all ages and levels of mobility.
Policy 6.1.5 Improve interconnectivity by prioritizing linkages and connections to
existing bikeways, walkways, and trail systems.
Policy 6.1.6 Provide secure bicycle parking at public destinations throughout the City,
such as recreation areas, parks, schools, transit facilities, medical centers, and City Hall.
Policy 6.1.7 Require bicycle parking in all new commercial, industrial, and multi-family
housing developments.
Policy 6.1.8 Roadway reconstruction should maintain or improve existing active
transportation facilities.
Policy 6.1.9 Implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which provides for a
safe, coordinated system of bikeways, walkways, and trails, including through routes, to
meet existing and anticipated needs for active transportation.
Policy 6.1.10 Develop signage for active transportation facilities to provide users with
directional and distance information; on-street signage should comply with the Manual
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 486 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-40
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Policy 6.1.11 During the review process for new development or redevelopment,
ensure that sufficient right-of-way for bicycle improvements is secured.
Goal 6.2 Develop and maintain an efficient circulation system that serves the existing and
future population, considers multi-modal safety, traveling efficiency, and impacts
to neighborhoods and adjacent property.
Policy 6.2.1 Develop and maintain a cost-effective street system that serves the existing
and future population, minimizes transportation delays and impacts to neighborhoods,
and minimizes the disruption of the natural environment.
Policy 6.2.2 All streets should include facilities for pedestrians and bicycles that are
appropriate for the street classification and local conditions.
Policy 6.2.3 Maintain the existing street system with preservation projects focused on
extending life and reducing the cost of street maintenance.
Policy 6.2.4 Assure the provision of street and sidewalks as land is developed, by
requiring property owners to install street improvements based on a minimum
standard for the street classification.
Policy 6.2.5 Assure safe and convenient access by all travel modes to residential
neighborhoods, employment and retail centers, and major community and government
facilities from arterial streets. Development approval should:
A. Require that all property in the City be accessible from streets.
B. Maintain continuity of the street pattern by avoiding permanent dead-end streets.
C. Avoid the creation of excessively large blocks and long local access residential
streets.
D. Encourage grid street patterns to provide better connections for all travel modes
and reduce traffic congestion by spreading traffic among many available routes.
E. Provide for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
Policy 6.2.6 Maximize the functionality and safety of the local circulation system while
minimizing environmental impacts by observing the following guidelines:
A. Control the location and spacing of commercial driveways and the design of parking
lots to avoid traffic and pedestrian conflicts and confusing circulation patterns.
B. Emphasize property access to streets with lower classifications.
C. Discourage through traffic on local access streets.
D. Designate special routes for through truck traffic.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 487 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-41
E. Extend uncompleted dead-end streets in order to improve access and circulation as
development or redevelopment occurs.
F. Eliminate gravel streets existing in City limits.
G. Minimize grades by allowing the street alignment to follow the existing topography
subject to environmental limitations.
H. Incorporate natural landscape features in the design of circulation elements.
I. Incorporate sight distance requirements in new street design.
J. Expand and improve the pedestrian and bicycle network, especially on lower-
volume streets and off-street trails.
Policy 6.2.7 The City shall support the safe and efficient movement of freight and goods
within and through the City by:
A. Identifying special truck routes within the City which provide adequate access to
commercial areas.
B. Identifying special through routes for transporting hazardous material to minimize
impacts of accidents.
C. Assuring that freight routing and movement is compatible with nearby land uses
and does not conflict unreasonably with other types of travel.
D. Requiring that new private development provide for freight loading and unloading
on site rather than on the public right-of-way.
Policy 6.2.8 Implement the recommendations within the recently completed SR 17
Stratford Road Transportation Study, Mae Valley Analysis, Yonezawa Blvd and Kittelson
Road Intersection Control Evaluation, and the Roundabout and Road Diet Study.
Goal 6.3 The transportation system shall support state, regional, and City of Moses Lake
land use goals.
Policy 6.3.1 New development, redevelopment, and road construction or
reconstruction projects shall be required to incorporate transit and active
transportation supportive measures where appropriate, such as:
A. Providing pedestrian spaces
B. Providing adequate sidewalks, bikeways, pathways, and crosswalks
C. Preserving the connectivity of the pedestrian, bicycle, and street system
D. Traffic calming, reducing walkway crossing distances, and improving visual
character of neighborhood streets
Policy 6.3.2 Emphasize planning of land uses which minimizes the demand for travel
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 488 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-42
by:
A. Providing for a mixture of compatible and complementary uses that are near to
each other.
B. Providing for a balance of employment and housing within the City limits.
Policy 6.3.3 Transportation improvements should be designed to include architectural
features, landscaping, and artwork that complement the surrounding natural and built
environment where appropriate, and to protect the scenic, natural, and cultural
resources of Moses Lake.
Policy 6.3.4 The minimum level of service standard shall be D for all city streets except
the intersections of Stratford Road at Broadway Avenue and Stratford Road at Valley
Road shall be level of service F.
Policy 6.3.5 When designing new or reconstructed intersections and associated
facilities (such as approach and turn lanes, lane channelization, and traffic control
hardware/ software), the facilities should be designed with the objective of providing a
level of service consistent with the intersection operation for a minimum of 20 years
into the future, as well as meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
Policy 6.3.6 Encourage and support regional transportation improvements that may
alleviate the transportation demand on the Stratford Road corridor, such as a new
bridge crossing over the lake and improvements along East Broadway to SR 17.
Goal 6.4 Work cooperatively with new development to ensure funding of mitigation that
addresses transportation impacts related to the development.
Policy 6.4.1 Development shall include off-site safety improvements such as pedestrian
crossings when there is a need for such improvements, as demonstrated through a
traffic impact analysis or identified in an adopted plan.
Policy 6.4.2 Coordinate developer funded projects related to SEPA mitigation and off-
site developer improvements with the 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program.
Policy 6.4.3 Develop and maintain a Transportation Concurrency Program with traffic
impact study guidelines.
Policy 6.4.4 All proposed developments shall be reviewed to ensure that adequate
transportation facilities and/or strategies are in place or shall be in place within six
years of the development’s occupancy or operation, and that adopted City of Moses Lake
standards will be maintained.
A. Any development which would cause the level of service to fall below adopted
service standards for any identified corridor or intersection shall not be approved
without appropriate mitigation.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 489 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-43
B. Where the level of service is already below the adopted standard, new development
shall not be approved where the result would be further degradation in the level of
service without appropriate mitigation.
Policy 6.4.5 Any proposed development shall be deemed in compliance with the City’s
transportation concurrency requirements when the following conditions are met:
A. The development is consistent with the type and size of development envisioned
under a forecasted improvements plan.
B. The improvement plan for the corridor or intersection is deemed funded, feasible,
and project completion is occurring consistent with the six-year TIP schedule.
C. The development participates in the prescribed corridor or intersection
improvements.
Policy 6.4.6 Cooperate with the County, WSDOT, and transit operators to comply with
concurrency and LOS requirements.
Policy 6.4.7 The City should identify newly developing traffic generators outside the of
city limits which impact the City’s system and negotiate for fair compensation
commensurate with the anticipated impact. Conversely, the City should also identify
newly developing traffic generators within city limits which impact the transportation
system outside of the city limits and require payment of the appropriate impact fees to
the County or WSDOT.
Goal 6.5 The City shall support and encourage development of a public transportation
system that allows people to conveniently travel within the City and regional
destinations.
Policy 6.5.1 The City shall consider the need for transit facilities commensurate with
planned public transit service when reviewing and issuing permits for proposed private
developments and public projects.
Policy 6.5.2 New development, infill development, and redevelopments shall provide
transit facilities along their street frontage, if required, that is consistent with adopted
street design standards and plans, and the regional plan of Grant Transit Authority.
Policy 6.5.3 Support the use of public transit for pedestrians and bicyclists by:
A. Encouraging safe, attractive, comfortable walkways and waiting facilities at public
transit loading areas.
B. Encouraging secure, covered, or enclosed bicycle storage facilities at future primary
transit transfer stations.
Goal 6.6 The City shall support the continuous comprehensive, and cooperative
transportation planning process conducted by the Quad County Regional
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 490 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-44
Transportation Planning Organization (QUADCO RTPO).
Policy 6.6.1 The City shall submit its local transportation plan to the QUADCO RTPO for
review and certification of conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan.
Goal 6.7 Develop an adequate and equitable funding program to implement
transportation improvements concurrently with anticipated growth.
Policy 6.7.1 Prepare and update the City’s 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan
annually.
Policy 6.7.2 Allocate resources in the City’s transportation capital investment program
according to the following priorities, in descending order of priorities:
A. Address public health and safety concerns (including neighborhood traffic
protection, active transportation facilities, and transit)
B. Implement an effective transportation system maintenance, repair, and
improvement program
C. Provide growth-supporting improvements which support economic development
Policy 6.7.3 Pursue public and private financial resources to support improvements to
the transportation system.
Policy 6.7.4 Emphasize the development of joint projects, particularly where such
partnerships will increase the likelihood of obtaining funding, such as those involving
Grant County Public Works Department, the state, and/or a transit provider.
Policy 6.7.5 Allocate adequate City resources to effectively compete in regional, state,
and federal grant funding programs.
Policy 6.7.6 In the event that the City is unable to fund the transportation capital
improvements needed to maintain adopted transportation level of service standards,
the City shall either:
A. Phase development which is consistent with the land use plan until such time that
adequate resources can be identified to provide adequate transportation
improvements
B. Reassess the City’s land use plan to reduce the travel demand placed on the system
to the degree necessary to meet adopted transportation service standards.
Finance Plan
Several sources of funding exist to complete the improvements identified in this plan, and all
projects have an identified funding source. However, if faced with funding shortfalls, the City will
need to make changes to balance the budget. Several strategies could be used:
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 491 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-45
▪ Increase revenues through use of bonds, new or increased user fees or rates, new or increased
taxes, regional cost sharing, or voluntary developer funds.
▪ Decrease LOS standards if consistent with GMA Goals.
▪ Reprioritize projects to focus on those related to concurrency.
▪ Decrease the cost of the facility by changing project scope or finding less expensive alternatives.
▪ Decrease the demand for the public service. This could involve instituting measures to slow or
direct population growth or development, for example, developing only in areas served by
facilities with available capacity until funding is available for other areas, or by changing project
timing and phasing.
▪ Revise the comprehensive plan's land use element to change types or intensities of land use as
needed to match the amount of transportation facilities that can be provided.
Local Revenues
Transportation Benefit District
A Transportation Benefit District (TBD) was formed within Moses Lake city limits in December
2016. In November 2017, the citizens of Moses Lake voted to approve a 0.2% sales tax to fund the
TBD. The TBD provides the City an important source of local funding that can be used for projects of
local importance or as matching funds for grants. The TBD funding source must be renewed every
ten years.
State law (RCW 36.73) authorizes cities and counties to form TBDs. TBD revenue can be used for
transportation projects such as roadway improvements, sidewalks, bike infrastructure, and
transportation demand management. Construction, maintenance, and operation costs are also
eligible.
Funding from the TBD was the primary source of revenue used in development of the
transportation system improvement plan. This element assumes the funding will be renewed in
2027, and that grants, developer mitigation, and other funding sources will supplement the funding
source.
Impact Fees
State law (RCW 82.02.050) authorizes communities to impose impact fees. Transportation impact
fees are a one-time charge paid by development, proportional to their impacts to fund
improvements that provide new transportation system capacity. The City of Moses Lake does not
currently impose any impact fees.
While transportation impact fees cannot be used for roadway maintenance or projects that
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 492 of 883
Ch. 6 Transportation DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 6-46
exclusively address an existing traffic operations or safety issue without providing future capacity,
they can fund a wide variety of projects in the street right-of-way.
State and Federal Revenues
State and Federal revenues supplement local funding sources to complete major street
improvement projects that are outside the capabilities of local funds.
Complete Streets Awards
The Complete Streets Act of 2011 established a grant program for local governments to improve
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. To be eligible, the local agency must adopt a complete streets
policy and must be nominated. The City of Moses Lake’s complete streets policies were adopted in
Ordinance 2644 on March 13, 2012.
Gas Tax
The City receives a portion of the motor vehicle fuel tax that is collected state-wide. This funding
assists the City with the construction, maintenance, and policing of City streets.
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
Washington State allows local agencies to impose two one-quarter of one-percent (0.25%) taxes on
real estate sales (total 0.5%). The City of Moses Lakes imposes both taxes to real estate sales within
the City. These funds have limited use and can only be used for the construction and limited
maintenance of projects identified within the capital facilities element.
Grants
Grants are an important source of funding for capital improvements and maintenance. The City
actively submits for grants from several funding sources. Examples of grant sources include Safe
Routes to School, WSDOT Bike and Pedestrian Safety, or Federal Aid grants, Transportation
Improvement Board, and Surface Transportation Program funds administered by QUADCO.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 493 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 494 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-1
City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Ch. 7 Capital
Facilities
Introduction
Local governments planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) must include a Capital
Facilities Plan Element in their Comprehensive Plan that is coordinated with the City’s larger land
use planning process. The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is the financing plan/feasibility analysis for
the overall comprehensive plan. Capital facilities are urban services and facilities with a long and
useful life that support current residents, businesses, and tourists, and that are needed to serve
future development or meet another community need (such as economic development). They
include systems owned by the City, as well as those owned by other public agencies (e.g., the School
District) and by private companies. City-owned or operated facilities in Moses Lake include public
buildings, fire and emergency medical services, police, parks, roadways, libraries, water, sewer, and
stormwater facilities, and a homeless housing site. Non-City owned facilities include public schools.
In this chapter…
Introduction 7-1
Conditions and Trends 7-7
Economic Development 7-19
Goals and Policies 7-23
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 495 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-2
The Capital Facilities Element establishes policies to ensure adequate public facilities are available
to serve existing and future development in the city and UGA in an efficient, effective, and equitable
manner. The policies are designed to guide the actions of public agencies, such as the City, as well as
private decisions related to individual developments to support anticipated growth.
The capital facilities covered in this element are:
▪ Municipal facilities
▪ Fire and emergency medical services
▪ Police
▪ Parks and recreation facilities
▪ Schools
▪ Library
Transportation facilities (including streets) are covered in the Transportation Element and the
City’s 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Wastewater and water facilities are covered
in the Utilities Element. The Capital Facilities Plan (Volume II – Appendices) contains consolidated
capital facility inventory and capital funding analysis for each capital facility category, including
transportation and utilities. The CFP provides the detailed forecast of needs and revenue and cost
projections necessary to meet GMA requirements for capital planning. The CFP and TIP project cost
estimates become elements of the City’s annual budget.
Exhibit 7-1 below shows the location of major community services in the city.
What does GMA require?
Capital planning is required by GMA and must be coordinated with the City’s larger land use planning process. At a
minimum, state law requires the plan to include water systems, sewer systems, stormwater facilities, schools, park
and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities (WAC 365-196-415). WAC 365-195-315(2)(a) also
recommends that schools be included in the capital facilities inventory even though they are not directly funded by
the City.
The Growth Management Act establishes five requirements for this element, which are to:
▪ Provide an inventory of facilities;
▪ List a forecast of needs;
▪ Show proposed locations and capacity of planned facilities;
▪ Provide a financing plan for needed facilities; and
▪ Reassess planned facilities if they cannot be provided and paid for.
The process of addressing these five requirements helps the City make wise use of City funds by organizing and
prioritizing projects. The first four requirements are addressed in the CFP Appendix and summarized here. The fifth
requirement is addressed in Policy 7.2.7.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 496 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-3
Exhibit 7-1: Existing Public Facilities
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 497 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-4
Levels of Service (LOS) and Meeting Future Growth
Part of the capital facilities planning process involves prioritizing funds available for capital
spending. This involves making decisions about the level of service (LOS) that will be provided and
where investment will occur and must take into consideration land capacity for growth within
Moses Lake. Level of service (LOS) standards for capital facilities are established as a “yardstick” to
measure performance and help determine the level of investment needed to maintain or meet
service standards as growth occurs. LOS standards may be defined by state law, recommended by
national professional associations, or locally defined based on community preferences.
The CFP presents an inventory, revenue analysis, level of service
analysis, and all known capital projects needed to accommodate
projected growth in Moses Lake. This includes a 6-year and, when
available, 20-year financing plan to meet concurrency requirements of
the GMA. Together, the CFP and the Capital Facilities, Transportation,
and Utilities elements provide a comprehensive look at investment in
the City’s infrastructure and its ability to serve residents broadly.
Essential Public Facilities
Essential public facilities are facilities that are typically difficult to site
but that serve a public purpose. They may be publicly or privately
owned or operated, and they may be regional facilities or facilities of
state-wide significance. Examples include schools, water transmission
lines, sewer collection lines, fire stations, hospitals, jails, prisons, solid
waste transfer stations, highways, and stormwater treatment plants.
GMA requires that the City’s Comprehensive Plan include a process for identifying and siting
essential public facilities. No comprehensive plan is allowed to preclude the siting of essential
public facilities within the community. It is important to recognize that the location of these
facilities may have negative impacts on surrounding land use areas and different essential public
facilities may have different needs in terms of their physical location.
Exhibit 7-2 lists facilities designated as essential public facilities in the Moses Lake planning area.
Concurrency means that
adequate public facilities
are available at the time of
development or within a
reasonable time following
development.
Essential public facilities
are those facilities that are
typically difficult to site but
that serve a public purpose.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 498 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-5
Exhibit 7-2: Moses Lake Essential Public Facilities
Facility Address Location
Airports
Port of Moses Lake 7988 Andrews St. UGA
Moses Lake Municipal Airport 11905 NE RD. 4 City Limits
Transportation Facilities
Grant Transit Authority 116 W. 5th Avenue City Limits
Freight Rail System
Columbia Basin Railroad 111 University Parkway, Ste 200,
Yakima, WA
Headquarters in Yakima – Rail
infrastructure located in Moses
Lake and unincorporated UGA.
Educational Facilities
Big Bend Community College 7662 Chanute Street NE UGA
Correctional Facilities
Washington State Department of
Corrections – Moses Lake Field
Office
530 S. Interlake Road City Limits
Moses Lake Police Department 411 S. Balsam Street City Limits
Solid Waste Facilities
Lakeside Disposal & Recycling 2000 W. Broadway City Limits
CDSI Transfer & Recycling Center 9524 Rd. 7 NE UGA
In-Patient Facilities
Samaritan Healthcare 801 W. Wheeler City Limits
Homeless Services
Moses Lake Transformational
Center
TBD City Limits
Mental Health Facilities
Grant Mental Health 840 Plum St. City Limits
Phoenix Counseling Services 821 W. Broadway City Limits
Essential Public Facility Siting Process
This section contains Moses Lake’s process for siting essential public facilities. To be considered an
Essential Public Facility, a facility must the following criteria:
▪ The facility, conveyance, or site is used to provide services to the public;
▪ These services are delivered by government agencies, private or non-profit organizations under
contract with or funded by government agencies, or private organizations subject to public
service obligations; and
▪ The facility, site, or conveyance is necessary to adequately provide a public service.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 499 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-6
The Moses Lake City Council will adopt and periodically update a list of essential public facility
types that meet this definition, and which are eligible to use the essential public facility siting
process. At a minimum, the list shall include all facility types listed in WAC 365-196-550. Facilities
that meet the definition may request to be sited using the following process.
Requests for siting through the Essential Public Facilities process may be made in writing to the
Director of Community Development, or the current position having the duties of this office.
The letter shall describe the proposed facility, including how it meets the definition of an
essential public facility and potential challenges to siting.
The Community Development Director will review the request and grant it if the following
criteria are met:
– The facility meets the definition of an essential public facility;
– The facility is difficult to site because of one of the following:
The facility needs a type of site that is difficult to find;
The facility must be located near another public facility;
The facility has, or is perceived to have, adverse impacts that make it difficult to site; or
The facility is of a type that has been historically difficult to site.
– There is a need for the facility in the Moses Lake area.
If the facility serves a regional, countywide, statewide, or national need, the Community
Development Director should coordinate the siting process with affected jurisdictions within
the facility service area. The multi-jurisdictional siting process should consider sites within the
service area outside Moses Lake.
The facility siting process will include a public engagement process that includes at least one
public hearing. The engagement process should specifically solicit input from residents living
near the proposed facility and from the population who would use the facility, if applicable.
The City will require an analysis of potential impacts associated with proposed facility, include
evaluation of potential adverse effects on environmental resources and likely effects on
municipal services and finances.
The City will consider the following criteria in deciding the application:
– Can the potential impacts associated with the proposed facility be sufficiently avoided or
mitigated to make the facility compatible with the surrounding environment?
– Can the factors that make the facility difficult to site be modified to increase the range of
available sites or otherwise minimize impacts?
– Is the proposed facility consistent with the goals and policies of the Moses Lake
Comprehensive Plan?
– How would the proposed facility comply with any applicable state siting and permitting
requirements (e.g., hazardous waste facilities)?
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 500 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-7
Conditions and Trends
The City and special districts serve the Moses Lake community with infrastructure and public
services. The City owns and operates public buildings, fire and police facilities, park and recreation
facilities, streets, and wastewater, water, and solid waste facilities – streets are addressed in the
Transportation Element, and wastewater, water, and solid waste facilities are addressed in the
Utilities Element. Additional capital facilities addressed in this chapter that are not operated by the
City of Moses Lake but are necessary for development include schools and libraries.
Service Providers
Exhibit 7-3 summarizes the types of facilities, providers, and applicable plans that further guide the
agencies for facilities addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Appendix. The applicable plans
listed in Exhibit 7-3 are incorporated by reference.
Exhibit 7-3: Capital Facility Service Providers
Facility Type Provider(s) Description Applicable Plans
Municipal Facilities City of Moses Lake Includes City-owned buildings
and property management
related to City owned capital.
City Budget (2019)
Fire and Emergency
Services
Moses Lake Fire
Department (city limits)
Grant County Fire District
No. 5 (UGA)
Provides facilities that support
the provision of fire and
emergency services.
Moses Lake Fire
Department Policy and
Procedure Manual (2021)
Moses Lake Fire
Department Annual Report
(2020)
Police Moses Lake Police
Department (city limits)
Grant County Sheriff’s
Office (UGA)
Provides facilities that support
the provision of law
enforcement services.
Moses Lake Police
Department Annual Report
(2020) and Police
Department Policy and
Procedures Manual (2021)
Parks, Recreation
Facilities, and Open
Space
City of Moses Lake Parks
and Recreation Department
Provides facilities for passive
and active recreational
activities.
2016 Comprehensive Parks,
Recreation & Open Space
Plan (currently being
updated)
Schools Moses Lake School District
(School District 161)
Provides facilities for
instruction for the City of
Moses Lake.
-
Library City of Moses Lake and
NCW Libraries (previously
North Central Regional
Libraries)
Provides access to books,
movies, and music and to other
community services like free
wireless internet and children’s
story hours.
NCW Libraries 2019 – 2021
Strategic Plan
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 501 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-8
Facility Type Provider(s) Description Applicable Plans
Streets City of Moses Lake Public
Works Department
Provides streets, sidewalks,
traffic controls, and street
lighting.
See the Transportation
Element
▪ Moses Lake
Transportation Benefit
District Annual Report
(2021)
Wastewater City of Moses Lake Public
Works Department and the
Port of Moses Lake
Provides facilities used in
collection, transmission,
storage, and treatment or
discharge of waterborne waste
and stormwater within the city
and UGA.
See the Utilities Element
▪ 2015 Wastewater
System Master Plan
Water City of Moses Lake Public
Works Department
Provides supply of potable
water to the city and UGA.
See the Utilities Element
▪ Water System Plan
(2016)
▪ Grant County
Coordinated Water
System Plan (1982,
updated 1999)
Solid Waste City of Moses Lake and
Grant County PUD
Provides automated refuse
collection to residential
customers.
See the Utilities Element
▪ Grant County Solid
Waste Management Plan
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 502 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-9
Municipal Facilities
Existing Conditions
The City of Moses Lake provides numerous services at its municipal facilities throughout the city,
many of which are discussed in detail in the CFP Appendix and the Utilities Element. Existing public
buildings owned or operated by the City include the Civic Center (including the Museum & Art
Center), the Civic Center Annex, two fire stations, the Police/Parks Building, the Public Works and
Parks Operations Complex, and several wastewater buildings (the Central Operations Facility and
two wastewater treatment plants; see the Utilities Element). The CFP details an inventory of these
facilities, forecasts future needs based on growth, and proposes projects and financing for proposed
projects. See Exhibit 7-1 for the location of these buildings.
Level of Service
Planning for municipal facilities is based on employment trends, current known overcrowding at
facilities, and expansion requirements. Space plans are also determined based on the program
objectives of individual departments. Because the City operates a variety of public facilities with
unique needs, this plan does not establish a single LOS standard for municipal facilities. Locational
standards necessary to meet concurrency requirements are established for individual facility types
(e.g., public safety, parks and recreation) in the following sections. The City relies upon
recommended space standards when planning future facilities and on the general goals and policies
Architectural rendering of the Larson Recreation Center
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 503 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-10
for capital facilities presented in this chapter to direct municipal facility improvements and
investments. Specific LOS standards for public safety services, parks and recreation, schools, and
libraries are discussed in the relevant sections below.
Future Growth and Recommendations
Future growth and development will place increased demand on the City‘s municipal facilities and
services. Municipal facility needs affected by growth include equipment and space needs as well as
additional staff time to process building permits, conduct development plan reviews, and perform
City administrative functions. The City should consider recommended space standards and develop
an appropriate LOS standard for administrative office space per employee to guide future space
development. New facilities should be planned for a minimum of 20 years of growth and evaluated
each five year period.
Increased staffing levels during the next 20-year period will require additional municipal facility
space. The New Public Works and Operations Complex and Civic Center were designed to
accommodate growth during this time period.
Additional satellite fire stations will be required in the future to serve outlying areas of the city,
including the Larson and Port areas in the north and areas south of Downtown. One possible
proposed location is the City-owned property along Central Drive, though other locations may
provide better response time. Due to high call volumes in the southern portions of the city, Moses
Lake Fire Department has prioritized construction of the southern station over expansions in the
north. Police staff may also occupy these future buildings, depending on staffing needs.
The City’s former firing range, located on the City’s property along Randolph Road, was abandoned
due to the concerns of the adjacent industry. This range was used by the City of Moses Lake Police
Department as well as other law enforcement agencies for firearm practice. The Moses Lake Police
Department currently contracts with a range in Ephrata to meet training needs, and no new City
firing range facilities are planned.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Existing Conditions
The City of Moses Lake operates its own Fire Department composed of career firefighters who
provide a full range of fire protection, rescue, public education, inspection, investigation, and
emergency medical services (EMS) for the city from two stations (see Exhibit 7-1). The Department
is made of three primary divisions: Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Services, and Fire
Prevention. Fire services within the unincorporated UGA are provided by Grant County Fire District
No. 5 – the City participates in a County-wide Mutual Aid Agreement with Grant County Fire District
No. 5 to provide additional resources in the event of large scale incidents.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 504 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-11
Staff and Facilities
Fire Station 1 serves as the Headquarters
for the Moses Lake Fire Department. The
station is equipped with six drive-through
apparatus bays, public meeting rooms,
living quarters for on-duty staff, the
department training facility, and the
department administrative offices. Three
rotating platoons consisting of a captain
and 3-7 firefighter/EMT or paramedics
provide 24-hour coverage from the station.
Fire Station 2 is a satellite station to serve
the Peninsula and Mae Valley areas. Three rotating platoons consisting of a lieutenant,
firefighter/EMT, and firefighter/paramedic provide 24-hour coverage.
Services
The Fire Department is responsible for fire suppression and EMS services as well as fire prevention
services. The Fire Suppression Division is primarily responsible for emergency response and
peripheral duties that support that mission. All career personnel are either certified emergency
medical technicians (EMTs) or paramedics. The Fire Prevention Division is responsible for fire
investigations, annual and special inspections for commercial occupancies, code enforcement,
reviewing construction plans for compliance with the International Fire Code, the Life Safety
Provisions of the International Building Code, the technical review of fire protection systems, and
hazardous materials compliance with nationally recognized standards. Public Fire Education is also
overseen by the Prevention Division. Both the Fire Prevention and Suppression Divisions are
involved in pre-fire planning and hazard tracking and analysis.
Level of Service
LOS for fire protection is measured in terms of response times and staffing levels. The City’s
adopted LOS response time standards for turnout time and various incident types are listed in
Exhibit 7-4. The current average citywide response time is 4 minutes, 45 seconds.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 505 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-12
Exhibit 7-4: Moses Lake Fire Department Adopted Response Time LOS Standards
Response Type LOS Standard
Turnout Time 75 seconds 90% of the time
Fire Suppression Incident
First Arriving Engine 5 minutes 90% of the time within the city for the first fire engine and 4
personnel
Deployment of a Full First Alarm
Assignment
10 minutes 90% of the time within the city – full alarm assignment includes 2
additional engines, 1 ladder truck, 1 medic unit, and 1 additional
command/safety officer for a total compliment of 13-15 personnel on scene
Emergency Medical Incident
Arrival of First Medical Response
Aid Vehicle
▪ 5 minutes 90% of the time with a minimum of 2 EMT-B qualified personnel
when responding within their first due area
Arrival of Advanced Life Support
Transport Unit
▪ 7 minutes with a minimum of 1 EMT-B and 1 EMT-P qualified personnel
Other
Arrival of Hazardous Materials
Trained and Equipped Technicians
▪ 5 minutes 90% of the time within the city for 4 personnel trained to the
Hazardous Materials Awareness or Operations Level*
* Currently no capability to provide Hazardous Materials Technicians.
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021.
Other criteria that can affect fire service are fire flow and the transportation system:
▪ Sufficient water supply or fire flow is critical to the ability of the Fire Department to adequately
fight fires. While fire flow is a consideration for all types of construction, it is more of a concern
for commercial, and is a significant concern for industrial development. It also affects the
insurance rating of the City. Fire flow considerations are incorporated in fire codes. All new
development is required by statute to meet the requirements for adequate fire flow.
▪ The Fire Department depends on an efficient transportation system in good repair to keep
response times low. The layout of streets, their widths and conditions, and secondary access
routes directly affect response times. Since these considerations are built into future City LOS
standards, it is assumed that future transportation improvements will promote more efficient
fire and emergency service activities.
Future Growth and Recommendations
Growth over the next twenty years will increase demands for fire suppression, fire prevention, and
emergency medical services. The Department will need additional manpower, facilities, and
equipment to continue to meet fire and EMS needs of the citizens. Additional satellite fire stations
and associated staff will be needed sometime in the future to meet response time standards in
outlying areas of the city. Additional firefighters will also be needed to bolster the response from
outlying stations as the industrial base and population grow. The Department will likely need to
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 506 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-13
add one staffed medic unit, one additional brush fire truck to the fleet during the planning period. A
pumper/tender unit will also likely require replacement within the next 5 years. Based on current
call volume, an additional fire station will be needed to serve fire response zones 4 and 9 (southern
Moses Lake). New station will also eventually be necessary in the northern and western portions of
the city to serve new growth and address geographical issues.
Other options to address future increased demand for fire and emergency medical services include:
▪ Requiring future development proposal to assess and mitigate their impact on fire and
emergency medical services.
▪ Forging new and renewing old interlocal agreements to continue support from adjacent fire and
emergency service jurisdictions.
Police
Existing Conditions
The City of Moses Lake Police Department provides law enforcement services within city limits and
operates out of the Police/Parks building at 411 Balsam St. Law enforcement within the
unincorporated UGA is provided by the Grant County Sheriff’s Office. The City and Grant County
Sheriff’s Office have signed a Mutual Aid Peace Officer powers agreeing to provide cooperative law
enforcement beyond their territorial boundaries as requested by the jurisdiction in need of
assistance.1 The Police Department also has a number of interlocal agreements with area law
enforcement, including the Central Basin Traffic Safety Task Force, Columbia Basin Investigative
Team, and the Northwest Violent Offender Task Force.
In 2019, the Police Department employed 38 commissioned officers and 8 civilian employees.2
Commissioned officers include the Police Chief, 2 captains, 5 sergeants, 4 detectives, and 26 police
officers. Based on a 2019 population of 24,220, the City has 1.57 commissioned officers per 1,000
population.
Average response times to high priority calls range from 3-8 minutes depending on the location.
Highest priority is given to incidents where the safety of an individual is threatened – this is a Code
3 response (all emergency equipment). In progress calls where the perpetrator is present also
receive a high priority response. Depending on the severity of the incident, these may also be a
Code 3 response, or a Code 2 response (emergency lights authorized, however obey traffic laws).
The vast majority of all MLPD calls are calls for response to a crime where the perpetrator is no
longer present – these are handled as soon as possible but have lower priority (Code 1 response).
1 In accordance with the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act (RCW Chapter 10.93).
2 See the 2020 Preliminary Budget.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 507 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-14
Level of Service
LOS for police protection is expressed in terms of response times and staffing level (see Exhibit 7-5)
The main factors affecting LOS are the population served and the number of calls for service. In
determining future needs for police services within the City of Moses Lake, a LOS standard of 1.7
officers per 1,000 population is used. The statewide average for cities of similar size to Moses Lake
(20,000- 40,000 residents) is 1.27 commissioned officers per 1,000 population (2019).3 The
Department’s 2019 staffing ratio was 1.57 commissioned officers per 1,000 population. The
Department also has a LOS average response time of 5 minutes for high priority calls, the existing 1-
5 minute response time meets this LOS.
Exhibit 7-5: Moses Lake Police Department Adopted LOS Standards
LOS Type LOS Standard Existing LOS
Staffing Level 1.7 commissioned officers per 1,000
population
1.57 commissioned officers per 1,000
population
Response Time 5 minutes for high priority calls 3-8 minutes
Sources: WASPC, 2019; BERK, 2021.
Future Growth and Recommendations
The City will need to address any deficiencies in police services that result from growth and
development. Based on an estimated 2038 population of 35,626, there would be a need for an
additional 23 commissioned officers to meet increased demand for police service. The Police
Department is already operating out of a constrained space in the Police/Parks building and any
additional officers will further increase the need for new and expanded capital facilities. Additional
non-commissioned personnel, vehicles, and other equipment will also be needed to support police
services.
The Department should also continue to strengthen its local partnerships and interlocal
agreements with area law enforcement. These relations have previously enabled the Department to
expand its expertise and resources, which is a direct benefit to the community.
3 Per the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs (https://www.waspc.org/crime-statistics-reports).
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 508 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-15
Parks, Recreation Facilities, and Open Space
Existing Conditions
The City’s Park and Recreation Department is responsible
for planning, developing, and maintaining parks and
recreation facilities, trails and routes, and open space areas
in Moses Lake; developing and administering recreational
and tourism programs; providing tree/brush chipping
service to reduce waste; and operating the Moses Lake
Museum & Art Center.
The City operates and maintains 39 parks and facilities
totaling approximately 400 acres throughout the city. The
2016 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan)
and CFP Appendix detail an inventory of existing facilities
and programs. The PROS Plan also includes goals and
objectives to achieve adopted LOS standards and
adequately meet the community’s public recreational
needs. The City is currently updating the PROS Plan.
The City also maintains a system of sidewalks, bikeways,
and multi-use paths. See the Transportation Element for a
description of these facilities.
Level of Service
Adopted park and recreation LOS standards from the 2016 PROS Plan are summarized below in
Exhibit 7-6. New LOS standards are being developed as part of the current update process and will
be adopted by reference when finished.
Exhibit 7-6: Moses Lake 2016 Parks and Recreation Adopted LOS Standards
Parkland
2015
Ratio
Adopted
LOS
2015
Inventory
2015
Acres
2015
Need
2025
Need
Mini Parks 0.49 ac/1000 0.25–0.5 ac/1000 9 sites 10.75 ac 0 ac 12.4-24.8 ac
Neighborhood Parks 1.52 ac/1000 1.0–2.0 ac/1000 8 sites 33.62 ac 0 ac 49.6–65.6 ac
Community Parks 6.4 ac/1000 5.0–8.0 ac/1000 6 sites 141.7 ac 0 ac 248.2–397.1 ac
Regional/Urban Parks 6.4 ac/1000 5.0–10.0 ac/1000 2 sites 141.11 ac 0 ac 248.2–496.4 ac
Special Use Areas 1.7 ac/1000 1.07 ac/1000 9 sites 37.67 ac 0 ac 90.8 ac
Natural Open Space 0.94 ac/1000 1.20 ac/1000 3 sites 20.81 ac 5.69 ac 59.6 ac
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 509 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-16
Parkland
2015
Ratio
Adopted
LOS
2015
Inventory
2015
Acres
2015
Need
2025
Need
Total Parkland LOS 17.4 ac/1000 13.5–22.8 ac/1000 37 sites 395.09 ac1 5.69 ac 460.06–1134.3
Linear Parks 0.42 ac/1000 n/a 2 sites 9.43 ac1 n/a n/a
Total Parkland Acreage — — — 380.0 ac1 — —
Pathways & Trails 2.8 mi/1000 .86 mi/1000 62.98 mi n/a 0 mi 139 mi
Recreation Facilities
2015
Ratio
Adopted
LOS
2015
Inventory
2015
Count
2015
Need
2025
Need
Soccer fields [Full size] 1 field/11040 1 field/4000 2 2 2.52 12.41
Soccer fields [Modified] 1 field/2007 1 field/4000 11 11 1.41 12.41
Tennis Courts 1 court/7360 1 court/2000 3 3 8 24.8
Playgrounds 1 set /1299 1 set/2000 17 17 8 24.8
Museum 1/22080 n/a 13,000 ft2 1 0 TBD2
Skate Park 1/22080 n/a 1 0.5 0 2.24
Note: The PROS Plan used a 2015 population of 22,080 and 2025 population estimate of 49,644 (nearly 15,000 more than
the 2038 estimate of 35,626 used in this plan) to estimate need.
1 Marine Drive Park and Neppel Landing are two Linear Park sites providing an additional 9.43 acres resulting in 395.09
acres of total park acreage.
2 The current new Moses Lake Museum & Art Center (13,000 sq. ft.) was overbuilt in anticipation of future growth.
Specific needs for increased square footage oriented towards the projections for 2025 are difficult given the fact that
there is no specific standard provided by the NRPA. Future programming and specific needs should be factored into any
plans to expand this facility.
Source: Moses Lake 2016 PROS Plan, Table 4-11.
In addition to specifying park acreage per 1,000 persons, the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) standards specify service area radius, a measure of how close park facilities
should be to each other to adequately serve residential areas. The City does not currently have an
adopted location based LOS standard for park and recreation facilities, but many areas do not meet
NRPA’s location based standards; most parks are located in older neighborhoods with fewer parks
and recreational facilities serving rapidly growing areas within the city and unincorporated UGA.
Future Growth and Recommendations
The City is committed to providing quality park and recreation facilities to its residents and is
meeting the demands and needs of a dynamically growing community. The 2016 PROS Plan
identified a need for nearly all types of parklands and recreational facilities by 2025 based on the
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 510 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-17
adopted LOS standards and projected growth (see Exhibit 7-6).4 The PROS Plan identified goals and
objectives to achieve adopted LOS standards and established an actionable implementation plan
and funding plan to meet current and future needs. The City is currently updating the PROS Plan,
including an assessment of future needs and an updated implementation plan to mitigate the
impacts of growth.
Some strategies that could be used to address deficiencies and meet future need include:
▪ Specify criteria for acquiring park lands.
▪ Acquire new park lands and develop additional recreation facilities in new and developing
neighborhoods.
▪ Establish LOS standards reflective of the community’s needs and financial resources.
▪ Consider park facility locations and adopt a service area LOS standard in line with NRPA
guidelines.
▪ Establish policies to deal with park and recreation facilities and open space deficiencies as a
result of annexations and heavy regional use.
▪ Consider continued park and recreation facilities and open space enhancements to serve
commercial areas and the Central Business District.
Schools
Existing Conditions
The Moses Lake School District (MLSD) serves children from the City of Moses Lake and
unincorporated Grant County. The District currently has ten elementary schools, three middle
schools, one comprehensive high school, and one technical skills high school. All schools are within
city limits with the exception of Larson Heights Elementary, North Elementary, and Endeavor
Middle School. A new elementary school is expected by Fall 2021 and a project-based high school is
scheduled to open in Fall 2022.
MLSD ended the 2019-2020 school year with a full-time equivalent student enrollment of just over
9,000 students (up from approximately 8,300 four years ago) and an average class size of 19.0.
MLSD employed over 1,100 professionals, including 458 classroom teachers during the 2019-2020
school year. District staff size increases or decreases based on enrollment and state funding.
4 Future growth used to estimate need in the PROS Plan was higher than the estimated 2038 growth used in this plan
(49,644 versus 35,626), but new growth will still place additional demand on the existing facilities.
The new Civic Center and associated Museum & Art Center was overbuilt in anticipation of future growth. Future
programming and specific needs should be factored into any plans to expand this facility.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 511 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-18
Level of Service
Moses Lake School District projects enrollment annually and bases its space needs on the state
formula for school facilities; these includes space allotments of 90 square feet per elementary
student, 117 square feet per middle school student, and 130 square feet per high school student.
Additional square foot allotments are granted for vocational and special education students. Each
school is designed to accommodate the following:
▪ Elementary: 400-600 students.
▪ Middle School: 700-900 students.
▪ High School: 1,250-1,600 students.
The actual capacity of a school depends on the current curriculum and student/teacher ratio.
Curriculum planning will continue to provide guidance for adequate planning and financing of
facilities. MLSD has adopted educational specifications for each school to support the curriculum. In
addition to general classrooms required for regular instruction, the District has identified
specialized areas (such as computer labs or technology centers, music rooms, special education
rooms, play fields and gymnasiums, and science labs) in its educational specifications. Schools are
also designed with personal and property safety in mind.
Future Growth and Recommendations
The student population is expected to grow over the next 20 years. In the past, MLSD has addressed
unanticipated growth by using portables, leasing appropriate space in the community, and
transporting students between elementary service areas. The new elementary school (Groff
Elementary) and new project-based high school will alleviate some of the current capacity issues:
▪ Groff Elementary will have capacity for 500 students with 25 total classrooms and will serve as
a prototype model for future Moses Lake elementary schools. Each classroom will include state-
of-the-art technology and flexible furniture and design to allow for breakout areas and dynamic
configurations. The classroom space is designed to be adaptable to a range of activities, learning
styles, and classroom needs.
▪ The project-based high school (known informally as Real World Academy) will accommodate
educational models that foster innovation: technology, hands-on learning, collaboration, trade
and professional development. The school will offer different educational options than
currently available at Moses Lake High School in an effort to connect to a wider range of
students’ post-graduation goals. Students who would like to attend various classes throughout
all three high school programs will have the capability to do so.
MLSD will also ask voters to renew the current 3-year Educational Programs and Operations levy
(originally approved in 2018 and due to expire in 2021) to continue to provide essential services
and support for student programs and day-to-day operations that the state only partially funds.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 512 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-19
Library
Existing Conditions
The Moses Lake Public Library, located at 5th and Pioneer Way, has been operating since 1956. In
1962 the library became a branch of the North Central Washington Library System (NCW
Libraries). Currently the library houses over 69,000 volumes. As an affiliate branch of the NCW
Libraries system, the local library retains access to over 600,000 volumes which are continuously
rotated throughout the system at the request of the users. Some services provided by the facility
include reference materials, audio books, e-books, videos, DVDs, free wireless Internet, reading
programs, and special children's story hours.
The City of Moses Lake owns the facility and the grounds on which the library is located. The City
pays all costs related to the facility, including the monthly utilities and some maintenance costs.
North Central Regional Library Services owns the materials and pays for staffing and maintenance
expenses.
Level of Service
There are currently no adopted LOS standards for the Moses Lake Public Library. NCW Libraries’
mission from the 2019–2021 Strategic Plan will serve as the City’s guide to providing library
services:
Connecting the people of North Central Washington to vital resources and opportunities
that foster individual growth and strengthen communities.
Future Growth and Recommendations
It is recommended that the Library Board develop a detailed LOS standard for the library facilities.
These standards should enable the Board to identify facility deficiencies and plan for necessary
improvements. The Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies will help ensure that improvements
and acquisitions for library facilities are provided for and funded concurrently with new
development. Additionally, NCW Libraries has completed facilities assessment that identifies
approximately $500,000 in necessary improvements to the Moses Lake Library. The City is working
with NCW Libraries on an expansion plan for the facility in conjunction with the City’s planned
Downtown Creative District.
Economic Development
As described in Chapter 3 – Land Use, Moses Lake’s economy boast leading agricultural employers
and a strong aerospace industry. The city’s location on major regional transportation routes also
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 513 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-20
makes it ideal for further commercial and industrial development, and the City has a long history of
supporting business growth. The following projects and initiatives will help Moses Lake realize its
economic development objectives and support future growth in the community.
Grant County International Airport Employment Center
The GCIA Employment Center Project is a joint effort between the City of Moses Lake, the Port of
Moses Lake, and Grant County to strengthen business and employment opportunities in the
aerospace and manufacturing node surrounding the Grant County International Airport. The
Employment Center encompasses approximately 1,258 acres adjacent to the eastern side of the
Grant County International Airport. In 2015, Grant County issued a Planned Action Environmental
Impact Statement (Planned Action EIS) for the project; under SEPA, planned actions allow for up-
front environmental review and streamlined permitting for development projects that comply with
development standards and mitigation measures established in the Planned Action Ordinance.
Downtown Creative District
This project would revitalize the 125-acre Paver District in Downtown Moses Lake, which has
suffered from disinvestment in recent decades. The recent COVID pandemic has further hurt local
businesses and forced business closures in the area. The Creative District project seeks to create a
unique sense of place for Downtown Moses Lake, focused on civic uses and the city’s cultural
heritage. Project goals also include reduced vacancy of downtown commercial spaces, increased
mixed-use and live-work development, and creation of economic opportunity and community
resilience for a diverse cross-section of city residents.
Revitalization of the Creative District will be accomplished through targeted investments in
facilities and infrastructure, including the following:
▪ Expansion of the Moses Lake public library to include meeting spaces and maker/artist spaces;
▪ Establishment of a small business/start-up incubator in partnership with the Moses Lake
Chamber;
▪ Improvements to stormwater facilities on Broadway and Third Avenue to demonstrate use of
stormwater facilities for placemaking and improvement of surface water quality and lake
health;
▪ Construction of a mixed-use housing project to implement the City’s Housing Action Plan; and
▪ Enhancements at McCosh Park and Sinkiuse Square to enhance utilization and honor local tribal
history and relationships.
The City estimates the total cost of improvements associated with the Creative District at
approximately $22 million. While funding has been secured for some components of the project, the
City is seeking grant funding for the majority of costs.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 514 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-21
Broadway District Revitalization
Moses Lake’s Broadway corridor (historic Highway 10) provides an important connection between
I-90 and Downtown and can serve an important economic function as a gateway to the city.
However, significant improvements are necessary to improve development viability in the area and
create a multimodal transportation corridor. Goals of the revitalization project include:
▪ Stormwater and wastewater infrastructure improvements to reduce runoff pollution and
improve lake health;
▪ Increased bicycle and pedestrian access through the district;
▪ Redevelopment of urban infill properties, which increased property values and property tax
revenues; and
▪ Revitalization of the local business community.
Infrastructure investments, property acquisitions, and site improvements are projected to cost
approximately $120 million. Key projects include:
▪ Street upgrades, traffic calming, transit infrastructure, and pedestrian/bicycle facilities along
3.75 miles of roadway;
▪ Acquisition of the portion of the Columbia River Railroad line that runs through the district for
conversion and incorporating in the Moses Lake Activity Trail; and
▪ Acquisition of property for development as subsidized housing, mixed-use commercial
development, or hotel/convention spaces through public-private partnerships.
Funding for the Broadway District Revitalization is anticipated to come from a new tax increment
financing district, supplementing by grant funding.
Cascade Valley Utility Extension
The Cascade Valley area is currently underserved by water and sewer utilities. Before this area can
fully develop, additional water, sewer, and roadway improvements will be necessary to ensure
availability of services. The City has developed a conceptual plan for extending utility services to
the incorporated portions of Cascade Valley along Valley Road. This route would provide the
greatest benefit to the larger Cascade Valley area while being relatively easy to maintain long-term.
The proposed extension of both water and sewer mains down Valley Road would require the
following improvements:
▪ 5,800 linear feet of sewer force main;
▪ 2,500 linear feet of sewer gravity main;
▪ 5,200 linear feet of 12-inch water main;
▪ 3,100 linear feet of 8-inch water main;
▪ 1 new sewer lift station;
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 515 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-22
▪ 1 new water well and well house; and
▪ 8,300 linear feet of roadway repaving as part of water and sewer line installation.
Total conceptual cost for this project is approximately $4 million. Funding sources and timeline for
the project have not yet been identified.
I-90 Improvement Project
In addition to its role as a major regional transportation corridor, I-90 serves as a vital local
transportation link for the Moses Lake area, connecting central Moses Lake to the growing West
Moses Lake/Mae Valley area. This project would include the formal design, environmental review,
and construction of additional multi-modal local access lanes on I-90 between Hansen Road and
West Lakeshore Drive, as well as construct improvements to the overpass and pedestrian
connection at Hansen Road. The goals of the project include:
▪ Improve traffic safety on I-90: Growth in the area has increased congestion on this segment of
I-90, leading to safety hazards as local traffic is forced to mix with interstate traffic. Additional
local-access lanes would relieve congestion and reduce conflicts.
▪ Improve lake health: This portion of I-90 includes a lake crossing, and the existing roadway is
not compliant with Eastern Washington National Pollution Discharge standards. Roadway
upgrades would allow installation of improved stormwater facilities to handle runoff from the
highway.
▪ Improve pedestrian access and safety: Improvements to the pedestrian overpass at Hansen
Road would include enhancements to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Additional benefits of the project would include improved freight mobility due to reduced mixing of
local and interstate traffic, improved transportation access to the West Moses Lake/Mae Valley area
in anticipation of future growth, and improved access to recreational amenities, including Blue
Heron Park.
Total cost for the project is estimated at $95 million, and funding is anticipated to consist of a mix of
local funds and federal grant funding.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 516 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-23
Goals and Policies
This element’s goals and policies address how the City will ensure public facilities and services
(including essential public facilities) are in place to serve current and future residents and
employees. This element requires that capital facilities are in place and available when new
development occurs, otherwise known as concurrency. A requirement to reassess the land use
element is included in the policies if probable funding falls short of existing needs.
Adequate Service and Funding
Goal 7.1 Ensure that public facilities and services are adequate to serve the planned land
use patterns in the city and its Urban Growth Area.
Policy 7.1.1 Plan capital facilities that have capacity and are located to serve existing
development and future growth planned in the Land Use Element.
Policy 7.1.2 Adopt level of service standards for individual services to measure
performance and evaluate future facility needs. Require the provision of essential public
facilities and services that meet adopted LOS standards concurrent with development.
Standards are defined in Exhibit 7-7.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 517 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-24
Exhibit 7-7: Level of Service Standards
Facility Type LOS Standard
Municipal Buildings None. Consider an appropriate LOS standard for administrative office space per
employee.
Fire and Emergency
Services
Turnout Time: 75 seconds 90% of the time
Fire Suppression Incident
First Arriving Engine: 5 minutes 90% of the time within the city for the first
fire engine and 4 personnel
Deployment of a Full First Alarm Assignment: 10 minutes 90% of the time
within the city – full alarm assignment includes 2 additional engines, 1 ladder
truck, 1 medic unit, and 1 additional command/safety officer for a total
compliment of 13-15 personnel on scene
Emergency Medical Incident
Arrival of First Medical Response Aid Vehicle: 5 minutes 90% of the time with
a minimum of 2 EMT-B qualified personnel when responding within their first
due area
Arrival of Advanced Life Support Transport Unit: 7 minutes with a minimum of
1 EMT-B and 1 EMT-P qualified personnel
Other
Arrival of Hazardous Materials Trained and Equipped Technicians: 5 minutes
90% of the time within the city for 4 personnel trained to the Hazardous
Materials Awareness or Operations Level
Police Staffing Level: 1.7 commissioned officers per 1,000 population
Response Time: 5 minutes for high priority calls
Parks Parkland
Level of service standards for park and recreation facilities are established in the
City’s 2016 Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan and
its successors. LOS standards from the PROS plan are reproduced below.
Total Parkland LOS: 13.5–22.8 ac/1,000 population
o Mini Parks: 0.25–0.5 ac/1,000 population
o Neighborhood Parks: 1.0–2.0 ac/1,000 population
o Community Parks: 5.0–8.0 ac/1,000 population
o Regional/Urban Parks: 5.0–10.0 ac/1,000 population
o Special Use Areas: 1.07 ac/1,000 population
o Natural Open Space: 1.20 ac/1,000 population
Pathways & Trails: 0.86 mi/1,000 population
Recreation Facilities
Soccer fields [Full size]: 1 field/4,000 population
Soccer fields [Modified]; 1 field/4,000 population
Tennis Courts: 1 court/2,000 population
Playgrounds: 1 set/2,000 population
Schools None. Consider a standard addressing building square footage, student capacity,
and student generation. This may allow the City to support the collection of an
impact fee. See CFP Appendix.
Library None.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 518 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-25
Facility Type LOS Standard
Streets See the Transportation Element
Wastewater See the Utilities Element
Water See the Utilities Element
Solid Waste See the Utilities Element
Policy 7.1.3 Ensure new development meets Moses Lake’s transportation LOS before
development may be permitted. Mitigation may be required to meet the adopted LOS.
Policy 7.1.4 Maintain and use updated departmental functional plans (e.g., Wastewater
System Master Plan, Water System Plan) to guide development of capital properties and
investment decisions within each functional area. Ensure functional plans are generally
consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 7.2 Prioritize funding to maintain and invest in adequate capital facilities and public
services that increase quality of life, meet service standards, and accommodate
Moses Lake’s current and future population.
Policy 7.2.1 Prepare and adopt a 6-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to finance capital
facilities, assess funding capacities, and identify public and private financing to ensure
adequate levels of service are maintained. Annually adopt a Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) that more specifically identifies financing and implementation of
facilities contained in the 6-year CFP. Ensure 20-year projected growth, level of service,
and funding projections are also considered in the CFP.
Policy 7.2.2 Require development to carry a proportionate share of capital facility
improvement costs, including parks and recreation and transportation facilities,
concurrent with development to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards for
essential capital facilities.
Policy 7.2.3 Ensure budget decisions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 7.2.4 Aggressively pursue funding from all levels of government and private
agencies to accomplish the City’s capital investment program while optimizing
resources.
Policy 7.2.5 Support infill in vacant residential areas by participating in the cost to
construct a lift station where it appears private sector investment is unlikely to occur.
Encourage maximum residential densities in areas benefitting from the lift station and
collect reimbursement fees.
Policy 7.2.6 Explore the use of impact fees as a funding mechanism to pay for capital
facility improvements. Consider exempting certain land uses which have broad public
purpose (e.g., low income housing) from paying impact fees.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 519 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-26
Policy 7.2.7 If projected funding is inadequate to finance needed capital facilities that
provide the City’s adopted LOS, adjust the LOS, the planned growth, and/or the sources
of revenue to maintain a balance between available revenue and needed capital
facilities.
Goal 7.3 Locate capital facilities in such a way as to provide safe and efficient service to all
residents. Plan, design, and site capital facilities in a fair and equitable manner.
Policy 7.3.1 Ensure that City-provided community facilities and services are
appropriate for the size and composition of the population they serve.
Policy 7.3.2 Provide equitable supply and access by accounting for existing community
conditions and needs and by considering how decisions will impact different geographic
areas and racial and socioeconomic groups.
Policy 7.3.3 Locate emergency service facilities to maximize ease of access and
minimize response time.
Policy 7.3.4 Ensure that facilities and infrastructure are designed and located with
consideration of their impacts on community character.
Policy 7.3.5 Encourage public engagement and input into large public capital facility
projects to identify community needs and community benefits.
Public Safety
Goal 7.4 Provide efficient, cost effective, and concurrent levels of fire protection,
emergency medical services, and law enforcement services to protect the lives
and property of Moses Lake residents, businesses, and visitors.
General Public Safety
Policy 7.4.1 Maintain current community education programs on fire prevention, crime
prevention, and community policing to increase the level of community awareness.
Policy 7.4.2 Evaluate the adequacy of the City’s public safety facilities and equipment,
mutual aid agreements, and personnel staffing and program needs for the present and
for changes in needs with anticipated growth.
Policy 7.4.3 Emphasize continued cooperation through interlocal agreements with
rural fire districts and law enforcement agencies of adjacent jurisdictions as well as
other public safety service providers.
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Policy 7.4.4 Continue to work to improve response times and response safety.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 520 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-27
Policy 7.4.5 Evaluate the adequacy of special hazards response capabilities with regard
to hazardous materials response, and ice, water, and technical rescue needs.
Police
Policy 7.4.6 Maintain the Police Department’s accreditation with the Washington
Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), to assure policies and procedures are
updated and current.
Policy 7.4.7 Deter crime and provide security by maintaining an adequate police force
and offering effective police services. Assure all police employees receive
comprehensive training and appropriate equipment.
Policy 7.4.8 Hold all police employees accountable to uphold the core values of the
department.
Parks, Recreation Facilities, and Open Space
Goal 7.5 Design, develop, and maintain an integrated system of parks, recreation facilities,
trails, greenbelts, and open space for residents and visitors that enhance the
community’s quality of life, supports the economic and tourism base, and meets
the community’s growing needs.
Policy 7.5.1 Regularly prepare and implement a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Plan (PROS Plan) that provides a vision, addresses community desires and trends, and
identifies needed capital improvements, costs, and potential revenues. Adopt any new
goals and policies established in a revised PROS Plan to be consistent with RCW
36.70A.070 and as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 7.5.2 Develop a parks LOS standard that is consistent with policy guidance in the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.
Policy 7.5.3 Acquire future parklands and resources within the city and the
unincorporated UGA to ensure that ample recreation and open space areas are available
to meet community needs.
Policy 7.5.4 Invest in new or enhanced park and recreation facilities to diversify
recreation opportunities for residents and visitors, better utilize waterfront and natural
open space assets, integrate the park and trails systems to support City beautification
efforts, and respond to community needs according to established standards and
available resources.
Policy 7.5.5 Incorporate unique ecological features and resources into the park system
to preserve and enhance environmental resources and features.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 521 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-28
Policy 7.5.6 Identify and preserve significant historical opportunity areas and features
and incorporate them into the park system. Work with property and facility owners to
increase public access and utilization of these special features.
Policy 7.5.7 Create a comprehensive system of multi-purpose park trails and corridors
that access significant environmental features, public facilities, and developed local
neighborhoods and business districts.
Goal 7.6 Ensure the recreation system is accessible and meets the needs of all ages and
interest groups.
Policy 7.6.1 Evaluate existing parks, facilities, and programs to improve safety and
accessibility for all users.
Policy 7.6.2 Acquire and preserve additional shoreline access for waterfront fishing,
wading, swimming, watercraft access, and other related recreational activities and
pursuits.
Policy 7.6.3 Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest quality competitive playing
standards and requirements for all age groups, skill levels, and recreational interests.
Policy 7.6.4 Develop multiple-use indoor community centers that provide a variety of
services on a year-round basis, including arts and crafts, music, video, classroom
instruction, meeting facilities, eating and health care, daycare, and latch key. These
spaces should serve all age groups, including preschool, youth, teens, and seniors.
Policy 7.6.5 Develop high quality special-purpose facilities (such as golf courses,
swimming pools and aquatic centers, ice arenas, convention and theater facilities,
marinas, and off-leash areas for dogs) that meet the interests of all segments of the
community.
Policy 7.6.6 Diversify cultural arts facilities and programs to increase community
awareness, attendance, and participation opportunities.
Goal 7.7 Provide adequate funding to support new parks and recreation programs and to
maintain the existing facilities.
Policy 7.7.1 Ensure facilities are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain with life cycle
features that account for long-term costs and benefits. Evaluate existing parks, facilities,
and programs to maximize efficient maintenance and operating practices.
Policy 7.7.2 Explore implementation of growth impact fees, land set-aside or fee-in-
lieu-of-donation ordinances and identify cost sharing opportunities to reduce costs,
retain financial flexibility, match user benefits and interests, and increase facility
services.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 522 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-29
Policy 7.7.3 Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating,
and maintaining park and recreational facilities to accurately distribute costs and
benefits to public and private user interests.
Policy 7.7.4 Encourage the multiple use of public facilities to take advantage of cost
efficiencies and provide the greatest benefit to residents and visitors.
Policy 7.7.5 Leverage public/private partnerships and other non-traditional sources
for recreational opportunities, facilities, and funding. Cooperate with Grant County,
Moses Lake School District, neighboring communities, and other public and private
agencies where appropriate.
Coordination
Goal 7.8 Coordinate the provision of capital facilities through collaboration with
neighboring governments and private providers.
General
Policy 7.8.1 When services are provided by others, cooperate and coordinate with the
other agencies or private providers to ensure sufficient and uninterrupted service to
residents as growth occurs.
Policy 7.8.2 Actively participate as stakeholders in processes for planning capital
facilities of regional or statewide importance.
Policy 7.8.3 Coordinate and collaborate with public agencies to site essential public
facilities and to ensure their impacts on adjacent uses at proposed or alternative
locations have been anticipated.
Schools
Policy 7.8.4 Partner with the Moses Lake School District to offer quality education to
the Moses Lake community.
Policy 7.8.5 Consider implementing school impact fees at the School District’s request
to pay for new school facilities necessitated by future growth.
Library
Policy 7.8.6 Provide a library facility that houses resources necessary to meet the
personal, educational, and professional needs of Moses Lake citizens and that serves as
a learning and reference center for the community.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 523 of 883
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 7-30
Essential Public Facilities
Goal 7.9 Provide adequate locations for siting essential public facilities.
Policy 7.9.1 All essential public facilities shall be located and developed to be
compatible with adjoining land uses to the greatest possible extent.
Policy 7.9.2 Essential public facilities shall be located in areas where they are best able
to serve the individuals they are intended to serve.
Goal 7.10 Essential public facilities should be equitably located throughout the City, County,
and State. No jurisdiction should absorb a disproportionate share.
Policy 7.10.1 All essential public facilities providing County-wide or Statewide services
shall be identified according to the requirements under the Grant County-wide Planning
Policies Section 3.1.
Policy 7.10.2 A review process for siting or the expansion of essential public facilities
shall be established according to the requirements under the Grant County-wide
Planning Policies Section 3.2 through 3.3.
Policy 7.10.3 The criteria for determining the location of essential public facilities
should be coordinated and consistent with other planning goal requirements, such as
reducing sprawl, promoting economic development, protecting the environment, and
supporting affordable housing.
Policy 7.10.4 Coordinate and collaborate with other public agencies to site essential
public facilities and to ensure their impacts on adjacent uses at proposed or alternative
locations have been anticipated.
References
▪ City of Moses Lake Municipal Budget (2019)
▪ Moses Lake Fire Department Annual Report (2020)
▪ Moses Lake Police Department Annual Report (2020)
▪ Moses Lake Comprehensive Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (2016)
▪ NCW Libraries 2019 – 2021 Strategic Plan
▪ Moses Lake Wastewater System Master Plan (2015)
▪ Moses Lake Water System Plan (2016)
▪ Grant County Coordinated Water System Plan (1982, updated 1999)
▪ Grant County Solid Waste Management Plan
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 524 of 883
October 2021 ▪ DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 525 of 883
DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 A-1
Appendix A. Proposed UGA
Boundary Amendments
Introduction
As part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the City is considering revisions to its Urban
Growth Area (UGA) boundary. Any amendments to the UGA boundary must be coordinated with
and approved by Grant County. The City began coordination with Grant County on the potential
need for revisions to the Moses Lake UGA in Fall 2020, including ongoing partnership between the
jurisdictions to promote orderly development in the unincorporated UGA. Topics of primary
concern included the following:
▪ Consistency of County and City development regulations for unincorporated areas in the UGA;
▪ Allocation of growth targets between incorporated and unincorporated areas of the UGA; and
▪ Phasing of future growth in the unincorporated UGA based on availability of urban services
and infrastructure, land capacity, and development demand.
This appendix describes the UGA boundary proposed by the City for approval by Grant County,
including documentation of associated stakeholder engagement and supporting analysis. After final
approval of an amended UGA boundary by Grant County, the City will update the Future Land Use
Map and the body of the Comprehensive Plan as necessary through the annual update process.
UGA Sizing Considerations
Based on a combination of stakeholder input, review of available urban services, and land capacity
analysis, the City has determined the existing UGA boundary is potentially larger than necessary for
the adopted growth targets and includes areas that appear difficult to provide future urban services
in a timely and cost-effective manner. Per guidance under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the
UGA boundary should enclose a logical area that meets the population, housing, and employment
growth needs of Moses Lake, but is compact and capable of being adequately served by public
infrastructure and essential City services, including water and sewer utilities, transportation, police
protection, and fire and emergency medical services.
Growth in the unincorporated UGA has outpaced capital planning for multiple City services in
recent years, including water, sewer, transportation, police, and fire protection, leading to service
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 526 of 883
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 A-2
and infrastructure deficiencies. As such, the City is re-evaluating the UGA to ensure that future
urban growth occurs in areas it is prepared to serve.
As described in Chapter 1 – Introduction of the Comprehensive Plan, the City engaged in extensive
outreach to local residents, business owners, property developers, and service providers through
the Summer and Fall of 2020 to inform the Comprehensive Plan update. These outreach efforts
included discussion of the preferred vision for Moses Lake, desired urban design aesthetics and
community amenities, housing needs, and potential changes to the Future Land Use map and UGA
boundaries. Interviews with stakeholders have indicated that several areas of the existing UGA
possess limited or no short-term development potential, and capital planning by City engineering
staff and the Police and Fire Departments indicated that significant investments will be necessary to
extend urban services to outlying areas of the UGA, particularly locations west of the lake.
UGA Land Capacity Analysis
In March 2021, the City commissioned BERK Consulting to prepare a land capacity analysis for the
incorporated City and unincorporated UGA to inform the Comprehensive Plan update process. The
analysis reviewed Grant County Assessor records to identify vacant lands, redevelopable properties
(developed properties that are currently underutilized), and lands currently used for agriculture
within the UGA. Net housing and population capacity was estimated for these lands, based on
applicable zoning regulation density requirements, the presence of environmentally critical areas,
and necessary deductions for roads and other public infrastructure1. Exhibit 1 shows total housing
unit and population capacity for the incorporated City and unincorporated UGA.
Exhibit 1. Residential Housing and Population Capacity
ZONE
NET HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY TOTAL NET
HOUSING
CAPACITY
TOTAL NET
POPULATION
CAPACITY VACANT AGRICULTURE REDEVELOPABLE
City of Moses Lake 277 510 3,152 3,939 10,983
Unincorporated UGA 2,299 5,842 2,384 10,525 29,369
Source: BERK, 2021.
Grant County has developed growth targets for the combined city limits and UGA, and each area is
assigned 50% of the growth target. The City’s adopted population growth target for the 2018-2038
planning period is 7,917 new residents. Population growth in Moses Lake has averaged 2.4%
1 BERK assumed a 15% deduction in buildable area for roads and public infrastructure. To account for market-based
impediments to development, as additional market factor deduction of 10% was applied to vacant or agricultural
properties, and a deduction of 25% was applied to redevelopable properties.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 527 of 883
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 A-3
annually since 2015. If this trend continues, the City’s population would exceed the adopted target
for the city limits during the planning period, growing to approximately 35,626 residents by 2038
(2020-2038 net growth of 11,006 residents compared to a capacity of 10,983 per Exhibit 1). The
combined capacity of the City and unincorporated UGA far exceeds both the adopted growth target
for the combined City and UGA and forecasted population growth.
Exhibit 2 presents residential capacity for the unincorporated UGA by subarea; subarea locations
are shown in Exhibit 3. It shows a net population capacity of 29,352 compared to a 2038
unincorporated UGA target of 7,917 new residents.
Exhibit 2. Unincorporated Residential Capacity by UGA Subarea
UGA SUBAREA NET HOUSING
CAPACITY
NET POPULATION
CAPACITY
PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL POPULATION
CAPACITY
1. Airport/Port 258 720 2.5%
2. Larson 95 265 0.9%
3. Airway 859 2,397 8.2%
4. Cascade Valley 2,376 6,630 22.6%
5. Mae Valley North 3,372 9,408 32.1%
6. Mae Valley 1,675 4,674 15.9%
7. South Side 557 1,554 5.3%
8. Interchange 454 1,266 4.3%
9. North of 90 0 0 0.0%
10. Wheeler East 0 0 0.0%
11. Wheeler West 348 971 3.3%
12. Longview 526 1,467 5.0%
13. East of Port 0 0 0.0%
GRAND TOTAL 10,520* 29,352* 100.0%
*Area sub-totals differ slightly from UGA-wide capacity numbers presented in Exhibit 1 due to rounding calculations.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2019; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 528 of 883
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 A-4
Exhibit 3. Unincorporated UGA Subareas
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2020; ESRI, 2020; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 529 of 883
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 A-5
Industrial Land Supply
As described in the previous section, the UGA is generally oversized with respect to residential
development capacity. However, recent analysis also shows increasing demand for industrial land
in the UGA. In 2019, AHBL, Inc. prepared an analysis of industrial land supply in support of a UGA
boundary amendment request by the Port of Moses Lake. This land capacity analysis identified
2,687 acres of vacant, partially-used, or under-utilized land out of a total of 10,483 acres of
industrially-designated land. While the report did not include detailed estimates of employment
capacity for these properties, the report concludes that rapid residential growth is likely to drive
increased demand for local employment, including jobs in the warehousing, distribution, and
manufacturing sectors; as of 2016, manufacturing accounted for 12.5% of total employment in
Grant County and 16.9% of payroll dollars. As a result, demand for industrial land and associated
development pressures in the UGA are likely to increase.
Due to the ongoing pressures on the local industrial land supply and a surplus of residential
capacity, targeted expansions of the UGA in areas that would provide additional industrial
employment capacity may be warranted in exchange for UGA reductions in outlying residential
areas with service provision challenges.
Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments
A map of potential UGA boundary amendments is presented in Exhibit 4. These amendments
respond to the factors described in the previous sections, as well as the following:
▪ A request from Grant County to evaluate the southeastern UGA boundary, specifically the
possible enclosure of rural lands south of Wheeler Road and north of East Kittelson Road;
▪ Requests from private property owners to add or remove properties from the UGA, if
considered consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, GMA guidance and best
practices for UGA sizing, and service availability; and
▪ Inclusion of areas where the City has established an extra-territorial utility agreement (ETUA)
to provide water and/or sewer services to areas outside city limits.
As shown, the proposed boundary revisions include both additions and removals, resulting in a net
decrease in the size of the UGA. The proposed UGA boundary would create a more compact
boundary while covering areas of existing and planned urban services, while providing sufficient
development capacity to meet future growth projections.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 530 of 883
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments DRAFT
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | October 2021 A-6
Exhibit 4. Potential UGA Boundary Amendments
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 531 of 883
MOSES LAKE HOUSING
ACTION PLAN
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 532 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 533 of 883
Contents
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 534 of 883
Exhibits
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 535 of 883
Executive Summary
The Housing Action Plan is Moses Lake’s strategy to promote
affordable housing options for all members of the community.
Moses Lake faces several challenges to creating affordable housing for
all members of the community.
Adopted policies, programs, and regulations promote housing
affordability, but also face challenges.
Seven strategies are identified to address housing supply, affordability,
and variety in Moses Lake.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 536 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 537 of 883
Introduction
Document Outline
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 538 of 883
1. Housing Needs in Moses Lake
2. Housing Policy Review
3. Goals & Strategies
4. Implementation & Monitoring
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 539 of 883
Housing Needs in Moses Lake
Housing production is not keeping pace with
demand.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 540 of 883
Housing affordability is an increasing
challenge.
“Provide for diversity in the type,
density, and location of housing within
the City in order to provide an
adequate supply of safe and sanitary
housing at price and rent levels
appropriate to the varied financial
capabilities of City residents.”
-Goal 1 from the Housing Element of
Moses Lake’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 541 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 542 of 883
Housing options should reflect the current and
anticipated future makeup of the community.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 543 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 544 of 883
Housing Policy Review
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 545 of 883
Goals & Strategies
Housing Action Plan Goals
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 546 of 883
Housing Action Plan Strategies
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 547 of 883
Reduce minimum lot sizes in residential zones.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 548 of 883
Increase allowed housing types in existing
zones.
Streamline permitting process.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 549 of 883
Integrate added flexibility for planned or
clustered subdivisions into the zoning code.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 550 of 883
Encourage income-restricted affordable
housing development.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 551 of 883
▪
▪
▪
Facilitate production of accessory dwelling
units.
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 552 of 883
▪
▪
Strategic infrastructure investments.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 553 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 554 of 883
Implementation & Monitoring
Implementation
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 555 of 883
▪ ⚫
▪
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
⚫
▪ ⚫
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 556 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 557 of 883
▪ ⚫
▪ ⚫
▪
▪ ⚫
▪ ⚫
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 558 of 883
Key Performance Indicators
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 559 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 560 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 561 of 883
Appendices
A Housing Needs Assessment
B Public Engagement Summary
C Policy Review
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 562 of 883
Appendix A
Housing Needs Assessment
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 563 of 883
MOSES LAKE HOUSING NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 564 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 565 of 883
Contents
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 566 of 883
Exhibits
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 567 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 568 of 883
Summary of Key Findings
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 569 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 570 of 883
Community Context - COVID-19
The global pandemic of COVID-19 has severely weakened the U.S. and Washington state
economies affecting both rural and urban communities. People of color, subject to established
patterns of discrimination affecting the workplace, housing market, education system, and
healthcare structure, have been disproportionately affected by the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic.
Trends in Washington state
The state’s economy has begun to recover; however, it remains far below pre-pandemic
activity. Washington’s unemployment rate was 8.5% in August 2020 compared with 16.3% in
April 2020.
Economic impacts are uneven among industries. The hardest hit industries are those where
social distancing is most difficult, such as leisure and hospitality. Aerospace and construction
jobs are expected to decline by 9.0% and 8.3% respectively. Meanwhile, online shopping
employment is expected to increase 19.7%.
Job security directly relates to housing security. Income loss and unemployment will fuel
instability in the housing market. Lower wage households are vulnerable to market
downturns, as these families are less likely to have excess financial reserves and generational
wealth resources to tap into during times of economic hardship.1
Washington new home construction is down annually for 2020. Permit activity is expected to
be down about 4,000 units from 2019. Many planned developments and construction
projects have likely been postponed, stalled, or cancelled due to economic uncertainty. 2
Temporary relief from housing costs of up to one year of mortgage forbearance was
provided by the federal government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act for those with coronavirus related income loss.3 Washington state
instituted a moratorium on evictions due to non-payment through the end of 2020. These
debts accumulate and residents are responsible for payment when the relief periods end.4
Supporting Moses Lake Residents
Protections for renters. Renters are most vulnerable to housing loss during this time. Short-term
protections should keep people in their homes as the economy adjusts. Assistance should
prioritize households that are both low-income and cost burdened.
Support for people experiencing homelessness. Residents experiencing homelessness need
additional support with shelter that protects them from infection with social distancing.
Policies to increase housing units. Increasing the quantity and type of housing units is more
important than ever, as affordability concerns increase for workers with lost or reduced income.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 571 of 883
Population Characteristics
Current and Future Population
Moses Lake is growing and aging.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 572 of 883
Age
20,366
24,220
35,626
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038Moses Lake Actual
Moses Lake Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 573 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 574 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 575 of 883
Race, Ethnicity, and
Language
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 576 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 577 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 578 of 883
Households
Household Income
Household income brackets reveal disparities between White and Hispanic
households in Grant County.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 579 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 580 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 581 of 883
Moses Lake households are roughly split between renters and owners, but renters
have lower incomes overall.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 582 of 883
Cost-Burdened Households
Cost burden in Moses Lake is most common among low-income, renter, and
older adult households, as well as among households with disabled members.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 583 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 584 of 883
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 585 of 883
Workforce Profile9
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 586 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 587 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 588 of 883
Travel to Work
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 589 of 883
Employment Projections
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 590 of 883
Housing Inventory
Housing Supply Characteristics
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 591 of 883
There is a mismatch between household size and housing unit size with existing
housing stock.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 592 of 883
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 593 of 883
Housing Age and Production
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 594 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 595 of 883
The City has sufficient land capacity to meet both adopted growth targets and
anticipated growth trends.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 596 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 597 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 598 of 883
Housing Affordability
Home Ownership
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 599 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 600 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 601 of 883
Rental Housing
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 602 of 883
Subsidized Housing
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 603 of 883
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 604 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 605 of 883
Gap Analysis
Housing Production
8,365
10,199
15,002
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Housing Actual
Housing Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 606 of 883
Housing Choice and Diversity
Home Ownership
Rental Housing
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 607 of 883
Housing Needs by Income Level
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 608 of 883
674
425
1,060
1,585
510 530
2,050
715
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
<30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI >80% AMI
Renter Households Rental Units
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 609 of 883
441
566
918
476
2,402
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
<30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI >100% AMI
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 610 of 883
Homelessness
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 611 of 883
Glossary
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 612 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 613 of 883
A Appendix A: Household Types
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 614 of 883
B Appendix B: Housing Affordability
Calculations
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 615 of 883
C Appendix C: Point in Time Estimates &
Students Experiencing Homelessness
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 616 of 883
Appendix B
Public Engagement Summary
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 617 of 883
Public Engagement Summary
Introduction
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 618 of 883
What We Heard – Key
Themes
Summary of Key Themes
Moses Lake’s Assets
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Who Participated in the
Engagement Process?
Local residents
Chamber of Commerce representatives
Retired staff from Big Bend Community
College
Grant County Transit Authority
Chiropractor
Local business owners
Workforce trainer
Natural gas service provider
Real estate agents
Anthropologist
Residential Lender
Rotary Club members
Public utility district
Grant County Housing Authority
Land developers
Housing developers
Sustainable tourism expert
Moses Lake Community Coalition
Grant County Public Libraries
Moses Lake School District
Hope Source
Grant County Conservation District
Columbia Basin Railroad / Central
Washington Railroad
Economic Development professionals
Small-scale landlord
Home builders
Restaurateur
Auto detailer
Former Councilmember
Moses Lake Youth Baseball
Former Police Officer
Former Parks Department staff
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 619 of 883
Concerns
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Hopes and Desires
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 620 of 883
Important Topics for the HAP and Comprehensive Plan
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Housing Market and Production
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 621 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 622 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Employment
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 623 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Equity
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 624 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Environment and Parks
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 625 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Transportation and Utilities
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 626 of 883
Appendix C
Policy Review
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 627 of 883
April 2021
1
City of Moses Lake Policy Review
MOSES LAKE HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Introduction
The Moses Lake Housing Action Plan Policy Review evaluates the current City of Moses Lake
Comprehensive Plan and existing programs, policies, and initiatives related to housing, including
coordinated efforts between the City and Grant County. The Policy Review also addresses key housing
issues and provides a review of the existing land use and development regulations in Moses Lake.
Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) are referenced and evaluated against the Moses Lake Housing
Needs Assessment (HNA) and Housing Element.
The Policy Review is informed by findings from the Moses Lake HNA and will help inform strategies
proposed in the Housing Action Plan (HAP). Key takeaways from the Policy Review are listed below. The
City should consider these items to support development of housing that meets the needs identified in the
HNA.
Key Takeaways:
▪ Housing Element policies support diverse housing types and density but are limited in their effect.
More should be done at the policy level to increase housing choice via increased density in
residential areas.
▪ The MFTE Program should be revisited and improved due to low interest by the developer
community. Additional incentives or modifications to the MFTE program could potentially increase
usage.
▪ ADUs have many benefits for homeowners and renters alike; while production has been limited in
Moses Lake, policies aimed at affordable ADU development for homeowners earning less than
100% of Median Family Income (MFI), who are interested in building an ADU and making it
available to rent for low-income renters, could be encouraged.
▪ Proposed changes to the zoning code and land use regulations should promote the removal of
barriers related to affordable housing production, including rental and homeownership.
▪ Programs and policies aimed at homeownership opportunity, especially for cost-burdened
households, should be encouraged. Homeownership is out of reach for many households due to rising
costs and minimal change to income.
▪ The City should continue efforts to address homelessness in the City and continue to work with Grant
County on coordinated efforts.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 628 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 2
The Policy Review is organized as follows:
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 3
Housing Needs Assessment Findings ................................................................................................... 3
City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................................. 4
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Countywide Planning Policies .................................................................................................................................. 5
Housing Element ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Housing Element Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 7
Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 11
Land Use Element ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Land Use Element Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 12
Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 14
City of Moses Lake Land Use & Development Regulations ................................................................. 14
ADU Development ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Multi-Family Housing Tax Exemption ............................................................................................................... 15
Zoning Code Update .............................................................................................................................................. 17
City of Moses Lake Programs and Initiatives ...................................................................................... 17
Housing Programs .................................................................................................................................................... 17
MFTE Program ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Housing Authority of Grant County .................................................................................................................. 18
Homelessness ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
Other Programs and Initiatives ............................................................................................................................. 20
Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Discussion and Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 21
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 629 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 3
Evaluation Criteria
The Moses Lake Policy Review evaluates the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, specifically, the
Housing Element, and considers whether the goals and policies align with the needs identified in the
Housing Needs Assessment. Current programs and policies are also evaluated to determine whether they
help to address the needs in the HNA, or if more should be done to enhance those programs and policies,
thus supporting overall housing goals.
The evaluation criteria used measure existing policies and programs by the likelihood that they will help
the City of Moses Lake meet both the needs identified in the HNA and the overall stated housing goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The Key Findings in the Housing Needs
Assessment Findings section below guide the evaluation.
The Policy Review uses the evaluation scoring criteria listed in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1. Policy Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Evaluation
The policy is valid and helpful. There is continued need for the policy and it is likely to help the
City meet the needs identified in the Housing Needs Assessment.
V (Valid)
The policy is aligned to the needs identified in the HNA but may not be sufficient to meet those
needs. The City may consider amending the policies to encourage the desired development.
A (Approaching)
The policy may challenge the City’s ability to meet the needs identified in the HNA. The policy’s
benefits and consequences should be reviewed to optimize the ability to meet the policy’s
objectives while minimizing the negative impacts on meeting the housing needs of all community
members.
C (Challenge)
The Policy does not impact the City’s ability to meet the needs identified in the HNA NA (Not Applicable)
Housing Needs Assessment Findings
The Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) provides an overview of population characteristics, a
housing inventory, and a gap analysis which assesses housing production in the City of Moses Lake in
addition to findings on key characteristics related to housing choice, rental housing, and homeownership in
the City. These findings help to inform the review of existing programs and policies, including those in the
Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, laid out in the Policy Review. This review will ultimately
translate into strategies highlighted in the Housing Action Plan that the City could implement to address
these findings and to continue planning for population growth.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 630 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 4
Key findings include:
▪ Aging Population experiencing high rates of cost burden, particularly if they live alone.
▪ One third of households in Moses Lake are cost-burdened and pay more than 30% of their income
for housing, signaling a lack of affordability and choice in the market.
▪ Renters find it a challenge to find housing they can afford, although rental rates have not increased
as much as home values.
▪ Between 2012-2018, home values rose by 47%, but median income only increased by 19%.
▪ Lack of available and affordable housing options are pushing residents who work in Moses Lake out
of the City to find housing close to where they work. Over two-thirds of Moses Lake’s workforce lives
outside the City; many of these workers are commuting as far as 50 miles to work in the City.
▪ Moses Lake has a tight housing market; as of 2018, the homeownership vacancy rate was reported
at 2.6%.
▪ The average annual production of housing units in Moses Lake between 2010-2018 was 197 units;
Although housing production has increased in recent years, the rate falls short of anticipated growth.
Moses Lake needs an average of 253 units per year to meet estimated household growth by
2038.
▪ More housing type diversity is needed to produce units to meet the community’s needs.
▪ There is a misalignment between household sizes and housing unit size in Moses Lake.
More than 60% of Moses Lake households have only one or two members, but only about 39%
of the community’s housing units have two bedrooms or less.
This misalignment contributes to cost-burden as smaller households may be paying a higher price
for a larger unit that they may not need.
City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
OVERVIEW
Cities and Counties in Washington State are required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to
prepare comprehensive plans, which guide conservation efforts, development of rural and urban lands,
and plans for growth over a twenty-year period. The City of Moses Lake is located in Grant County,
which is considered a “fully planning” county; as such, all cities in the County are required to plan under
GMA.
The City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Elements include:
▪ Housing
▪ Utilities
▪ Transportation
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 631 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 5
▪ Capital Facilities
▪ Land Use
▪ Siting Essential Public Facilities
▪ Environmental Review
▪ Roles and Responsibilities
▪ Maintenance of the Plan
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
Comprehensive Plans at the local jurisdiction/City level must be consistent with Countywide Planning
Policies (CWPPs) and consistent with plans in other jurisdictions within the County. Cities planning under
GMA must coordinate comprehensive planning efforts and incorporate Countywide Planning Policies
adopted by the County.
In 1993, the Grant County Planned Growth Committee developed a series of CWPPs aimed at
incorporating the requirements of GMA, including mandated planning goals. The CWPPs were adopted
by the Grant County Board of Commissioners in 1993 and were last updated in 2009.1 The City of
Moses Lake ratified the CWPPs adopted by Grant County and have incorporated them within the City of
Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan.
Objectives of the CWPPs include2:
▪ Designation of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs);
▪ Promotion of contiguous and orderly development;
▪ Siting of public capital facilities;
▪ Establishing transportation facilities and strategies;
▪ Providing affordable housing for all economic segments of the population;
▪ Promotion of joint county and city planning within the UGA; and
▪ Encourage favorable employment and economic conditions in the County.
The Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Housing Element references CWPP Policy 5, which is incorporated
into Housing Element policies proposed in the plan. Below is a summarized overview of the relevant
objectives presented by CWPP Policy 53:
▪ Policy 5: Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic
segments of the population.
Provide a range of housing alternatives which meet urban area and regional housing needs.
Develop a balanced variety of dwelling unit types and densities.
1 Introduction, Grant County Comprehensive Plan.
2 Introduction, City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan.
3 Appendix D, Countywide Planning Policies, Grant County Comprehensive Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 632 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 6
Recognize manufactured housing as a functional and needed housing type, including provisions
for where it may be located (subdivisions/park, single lots, etc.)
Provide areas for the location of a variety of residential uses while minimizing the impact on
surrounding areas.
▪ Plan provisions for the location of high, medium, and low-density residential development
shall be made within the urban growth area where possible and within or adjacent to
existing communities.
▪ Plan provisions for the location of rural housing shall be made in a manner consistent with
preserving agricultural lands and maintaining the rural lifestyles of the County while
minimizing conflicts with commercial agricultural activities.
Preserve the viability of existing single-family residential areas.
Promote housing that meets the needs of all socio-economic groups in the County.
Policy 5 objectives highlight preservation of existing single-family residential areas and land uses, while
also promoting the provision of diverse housing types and densities. Manufactured housing is referenced
multiple times as an alternative housing type that should be preserved and encouraged according to
Grant County.
The Housing Element section below provides an overview of the Housing Element section of the Moses
Lake Comprehensive Plan, including ways in which the goals and policies incorporate the CWPP, in
addition to evaluating the goals and policies as they relate to the HNA findings.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Overview
The Housing Element of the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan is based on the following assumptions4:
▪ Single-family detached houses located on individual lots will continue to be the preferred choice of
housing for most residents in the future.
▪ As the population requiring Special Needs housing and services become more diverse, there will
need to be alternative housing choices to maintain adequate housing supply.
▪ Moses Lake’s Urban Growth Area will experience a 3% annual growth rate.
Note: Based on recent permitting trends, the Housing Needs Assessment assumes a 2.4%
average annual growth rate, which would translate to a population of 35,626 residents by
2038, or an increase of 10,819 residents over the 2020 population.
▪ Public Housing agencies will continue to receive Federal funding for purposes of housing assistance
programs for low-and-moderate income families.
These assumptions are based on data and analysis from the last revision of the Comprehensive Plan, in
September 2014. The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, with adoption expected
4 Housing Element, Section 4.1, City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 633 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 7
in the summer of 2021. Revisions to the plan elements will include updated information on existing
conditions and projected growth trends.
Housing Element Evaluation
Exhibit 2 below provides a list of relevant goals and policies in the Housing Element of the Moses Lake
Comprehensive Plan. Evaluation scores are based on the evaluation criteria established in Exhibit 1 and
are used to evaluate policies against the Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment findings and current
City-level efforts to address the needs and gaps identified in the HNA.
The Discussion and Recommendations section below addresses ways that the City can leverage existing
efforts, improve upon, or create new programs and policies. These recommendations will inform the
strategies proposed in the Moses Lake Housing Action Plan.
Exhibit 2. Housing Element Evaluation, Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
HOUSING SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION
Goal 1: Provide for diversity in the type, density, and location of housing within the City in order to
provide an adequate supply of safe and sanitary housing at price and rent levels appropriate to the
varied financial capabilities of City residents.
Policy 1.1. Encourage the public and private sector to take actions to develop and maintain an
adequate supply of single family and multifamily housing for all economic segments of the
population.
A
Policy 1.2. Encourage and support equal access to housing throughout the City for all people
regardless of race, color, sex, marital status, religion, national origin, physical or mental
handicap, and encourage the responsible state and federal agencies to enforce federal and
state civil rights and fair housing laws.
V
Policy 1.3. Encourage the development of alternative housing types through innovative land use
regulations that enable construction of affordable attractive housing which include attached
single-family units, modular or manufactured housing, clustered housing, mixed-use developments,
group homes, assisted living facilities, self-help housing, cooperatives, etc.
C
Policy 1.4. A variety of housing types and densities should be available in residential areas to
provide all residents with location and price/rent choices. The City shall encourage affordable
housing units that are compatible in design and quality with other units to be integrated within
market rate developments.
A
Policy 1.5. Encourage the development of multi-use neighborhoods which are a mix of housing,
jobs, stores, and public space all within a well-planned pedestrian environment.
A
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 634 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 8
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
Policy 1.6. Assure that policies, codes, and ordinances promote neighborhood designs that are
pedestrian and transit friendly and discourage reliance upon the automobile.
C
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Goal 2: Support and assist in planning for increasing housing opportunities which are primarily for
households with special needs.
Policy 2.1. Assure that code and ordinances allow for a continuum of care and housing
opportunities for special needs populations, such as emergency housing, transitional housing,
extensive support, minimal support, independent living, family- based living or institutions.
A
Policy 2.2. Assure that policies, codes, and ordinances allow for a geographic distribution of
housing continuum with housing provided in appropriate locations and adequately served by
public facilities (such as transit) and services.
A
Policy 2.3. Codes and ordinances shall recognize the changing demographic trends by
supporting accessory units and other types of housing and human service programs.
C
Policy 2.4. Building codes and development regulations shall encourage the development,
rehabilitation, and adaptation of housing that responds to the physical needs of special
populations. For example, lower parking requirements and smaller lot sizes could be permitted in
projects designed for elderly residents. In this case, restrictions similar to the HUD standards could
be considered to limit housing occupancy to only senior citizens.
A
Policy 2.5. The City shall support and assist in planning for subsidized housing opportunities
primarily for households that cannot compete in the market for housing utilizing all available
federal and state aid. If the City’s elderly population continues to be higher than average, then
the City may wish to consider requiring public housing to be divided between elderly and non-
elderly families proportionate to their representation in the City’s total need for low income
housing.
A
HOUSING MAINTENANCE/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Goal 3: To maintain the area’s existing housing stock in a safe and sanitary condition.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 635 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 9
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
Policy 3.1. The City shall continue to work with non-profit agencies to maximize the receipt of
Federal and State housing resources. These programs should be used to provide low and
moderate-income residents with housing assistance and related services as well as to maintain or
improve housing conditions and re-use existing structures. This assistance may include technical
expertise and advice as well as grants targeted at rehabilitating substandard residential units
occupied by low-income households. Assistance should be provided to both owner-occupied and
renter-occupied units.
V
Policy 3.2. The City shall consider the Community Development Block Grant program each fiscal
year in which the City is eligible to apply, for the purposes of increasing the quality of
affordable ownership housing.
C
Policy 3.3. The City should continue and expand housing inspection and code enforcement
programs to promote neighborhood and community pride and ensure adequate maintenance of
the housing stock. Inspectors should seek to resolve hazardous or overcrowded housing conditions
or other threats to the public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging or requiring property
owners to maintain their properties in compliance with all applicable codes concerning junk and
debris, noxious weeds, and other unsafe or unsanitary conditions. Where necessary these
regulations should be aggressively enforced.
A
Policy 3.4. The City should proceed as quickly as allowed by State and local laws to demolish
substantially dilapidated structures that are beyond rehabilitation or reuse.
NA
Policy 3.5. Relocation assistance should be provided to any dislocated household. A
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROGRAM
Goal 4: To encourage more affordable housing by making it easier and/or less expensive to build
new housing through the use of innovative land use regulations, development standards, and
building code requirements.
Policy 4.1. The City should review all land use and building regulations to see that they do not
unnecessarily restrict the supply of housing or increase its cost. Any modifications should be
designed to reduce housing costs and facilitate development of more affordable housing types,
styles, and prices without compromising the public health, safety, welfare, or the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A
Policy 4.2. Within budget constraints, the City should consider incentives to private or nonprofit
housing developers to build more affordable housing. Such incentives should target the
production of below-market rate units for renters and first-time home buyers. These incentives
could include, but should not be limited to, fee waivers, expedited permits, density bonuses,
innovative land use regulations, new construction practices, and others.
A
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 636 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 10
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
HOUSING CHOICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY
Goal 5: Support public and private actions that increase housing choices for City residents with
emphasis on housing and public improvement programs that increase the number of housing
alternatives for both renters and owners, maintain neighborhood stability, and improve the physical
and environmental conditions of all neighborhoods.
Policy 5.1. Encourage programs in deteriorating older neighborhoods that address structural,
demographic, and economic issues.
A
Policy 5.2. Encourage voluntary housing rehabilitation programs. V
Policy 5.3. Encourage preventative maintenance in sound and transitional neighborhoods. NA
Policy 5.4. The City shall support efforts to conserve, protect, and rehabilitate housing by
programming infrastructure improvements in areas where there is a concentration of substandard
housing and where infrastructure improvements are needed. To the extent possible, public
investments in new infrastructure should be coordinated to foster housing rehabilitation and
encourage neighborhood improvements.
A
Policy 5.5. Preserve the character of stable residential neighborhoods by protecting them from
undesirable impacts of new development through selective and innovative zoning techniques that
accomplish infill and consider the following:
▪ Impact on older existing neighborhoods
▪ Development that is appropriate to surrounding residential density, housing type, and
affordability or use characteristics
▪ Encouragement of affordable units
▪ Maintenance of neighborhood integrity and compatibility
▪ Provision of development standards and process for infill.
A
Policy 5.6. The City recognizes the extensive number of substandard mobile and site-built owner-
occupied housing units concentrated in numerous neighborhoods. The City shall place a high
priority on the rehabilitation or replacement of dwelling units located in these areas.
A
Policy 5.7. Contingent on the availability of federal, state, or private funds made available to
local government for the purposes of carrying out an affordable very low and low income home
rehabilitation loan and grant program, the City shall target the rehabilitation of low or very low
income owner dwelling units.
A
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 637 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 11
Discussion and Recommendations
Policies in the Housing Element of the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan are organized by key themes as
listed below:
▪ Housing Supply and Production (Policy 1.1-Policy 1.6)
▪ Special Needs Housing (Policy 2.1-Policy 2.5)
▪ Housing Maintenance/Technical Assistance (Policy 3.1-Policy 3.5)
▪ Development Regulations Program (Policy 4.1-Policy 4.2)
▪ Housing Choice and Neighborhood Stability (Policy 5.1-Policy 5.7)
The above themes correspond to the Housing Needs Assessment findings and to the CWPP Policy 5
Objectives on housing diversity. In relation to the HNA findings, the Housing Element policies are well
positioned to address the key findings; however, a focus on promoting more housing type diversity should
be implemented by the City. Further, the policies should support more infill development in residential
zones to encourage diversity in density, as referenced in Goal 1 of the Housing Element. The Housing
Needs Assessment finds that production is recent years has shown a diversification of housing types, with
more multifamily units and mobile/manufactured homes coming to the market. This trend should be
emphasized and encouraged as a way to meet the housing needs identified in the HNA.
The provision of more housing units through increased production could allow for more affordable
options. However, as referenced in the HNA, housing supply is limited, which translates to higher housing
costs. The City should encourage more housing production within its residential zones and encourage the
use of programs such as MFTE to incentivize production of affordable housing units; considering the
program has not been as successful, the City should prioritize ways to promote its use by developers.
Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 to 2.5 are specific to Special Needs Housing, which is inclusive of housing for
individuals who require additional supports through services, other types of assistance, and/or age-
friendly housing. The City of Moses Lake has an advantage due to its existing programs and policies
aimed at addressing housing for elderly populations and those with disabilities and mental illness.
Goal 3 and its associated policies are focused on housing maintenance, code enforcement, and other
technical assistance policies. These programs should remain, as they benefit renters and homeowners,
especially cost-burdened households who may not have the extra expense to make necessary repairs or
improvements. As referenced in the Housing Needs Assessment, the City has an aging housing inventory,
with 30% of the housing stock built prior to 1960, and 25% built since 2000.5
Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 to 4.2 are specific to development regulations, and specifically policies aimed at
supporting affordable housing through incentives for developers and for mitigating unintended
consequences of land use regulations such as those related to costs. As the City considers options for
updates to its zoning code, incentivizing the development of affordable housing should continue to be
prioritized.
Goal 5 and its policies are aimed at housing stability and choice; these policies help to address the needs
identified in the HNA, specifically related to housing diversity and stability. While housing production has
increased, the rate is not enough to meet the demand of projected population growth, thus more should
5 Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment, BERK Consulting, March 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 638 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 12
be done to increase housing production and infill development to allow for more housing choices/options.
Policies aimed at housing maintenance and repairs, such as those highlighted under Housing Element Goal
5, will help to address HNA findings related to age of housing stock in Moses Lake. According to the
HNA, 25% of the housing inventory in Moses Lake was built between 1950-1959, thus highlighting the
potential for necessary upgrades and/or rehabilitation of those units and building structures.
LAND USE ELEMENT
Overview
The Land Use Element (LU Element) of the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan identifies land uses for
all areas in Moses Lakes, including incorporated and unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth
Area. The LU Element follows the assumption that the UGA will increase in population and grow at a rate
of 3% per year; as noted previously, the HNA uses a 2.4% average annual growth rate.
Policies proposed in the LU Element are meant to respond to and be consistent with policies proposed in
the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies. The main CWPPs related to
land use are as follows:
▪ Policy 1: Policy regarding urban growth areas and the designation of urban growth boundaries
▪ Policy 2A: Policies to promote contiguous orderly development and the provision of urban
governmental services to such development.
▪ Policy 2B: Urban densities – definition of lot sizes
▪ Policy 6: Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth area
▪ Policy 7: Policy for county-wide economic development and employment
▪ Policy 15: Population forecast distribution
The above CWPPs help to inform policies proposed by the City and incorporate specific goals related to
planning for growth via land use.
Land Use Element Evaluation
The LU Element includes sixteen goals and associated policies under the following topic areas:
▪ General Land Use – Goals 1-2
▪ Annexation – Goal 3
▪ Residential Land Uses – Goal 4
▪ Residential Redevelopment Areas – Goal 5
▪ Nonconforming Land Uses – Goal 6
▪ Commercial Land Uses – Goals 7-8
▪ Neighborhood Commercial Centers – Goal 9
▪ Industrial Land Uses – Goal 10
▪ Parks/Open Space – Goal 11
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 639 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 13
▪ Environmentally Sensitive Areas – Goal 12
▪ Cultural Resources – Goal 13
▪ Community Image and Design – Goals 14-16
Land Use Goals 1, 2, 4, and 5 are most relevant to housing and as such will be the main focus for
evaluation of policies, as shown in Exhibit 3. Please note that not all policies under LU Goal 1-5 are
referenced here; only those most relevant to the HNA findings are evaluated.
Exhibit 3. Land Use Element Evaluation, Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
GENERAL LAND USE
Goal 1: Growth shall occur in a manner that balances the pace of development with the City’s
ability to provide public facilities and services within the Urban Growth Area.
Policy 1.1. The City shall encourage cost effective development adjacent to urban areas
where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in a timely and
efficient matter.
A
Policy 1.4. Infill developments that are scaled and designed to fit their surroundings are
encouraged on properties suited to urban development.
A
Goal 2: The City shall continue and strengthen the partnerships that foster communication and
coordination among residents, the business community, and other governmental entities in the
Moses Lake area.
Policy 2.3. Interlocal agreements with Grant County should be established for the
development of land within the City’s unincorporated UGA. These agreements should address
potential land use, zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, as well as other
relevant issues.
V
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Goal 4: The City shall encourage a range of housing opportunities through its residential land use
designations for all citizens throughout the Urban Growth Area.
Policy 4.1. Densities should be set to encourage affordable housing stock that includes a
range of housing types that meets the housing needs of all segments of the community.
V
Policy 4.6. To decrease inefficient use of land, residential density should be increased in ways
that will not negatively affect existing neighborhoods.
V
RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 640 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 14
Goal 5: To stimulate development in economically disadvantaged residential areas that may be
stagnant or in need of redevelopment due to inadequate public improvements, public facilities,
open spaces, utilities or other identified factors.
Policy 5.3. The City shall create flexible development regulations that encourage and foster
revitalization of the areas while promoting the sound development and utilization of the area
compatible with established land uses.
A
Policy 5.4. Properties within the Residential Redevelopment Area designation retain the
underlying zoning, but are eligible for optional development techniques. All properties with
wetlands or other critical areas on site are subject to the critical areas and wetlands
regulations.
V
Discussion and Recommendations
The Land Use Element goals and policies evaluated above correspond to the Housing Element policies, as
land use is the foundation to all residential development. The policies also correspond to the CWPPs
highlighted above that are related to land use. In relation to the HNA findings, the Land Use Element
policies in the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, coupled with the Housing Element policies, are well
framed to respond to some of the key findings, which include:
▪ A need for housing choice and diversity of housing types and densities, and
▪ A need for more infill development, which also relates to housing diversity.
Policies aimed at homeownership opportunity and land use policies that could promote homeownership,
are not included in the Land Use Element and/or Housing Element. Considering availability of affordable
homeownership opportunities were identified in the HNA as a gap, policies and goals aimed at
homeownership opportunity is encouraged.
Related to land use, the HNA found that Moses Lake has sufficient land capacity to meet anticipated
population growth. As referenced previously, the HNA assumes a 2.4% average annual growth rate,
which would bring the 2038 city population to 35,626 residents, which is an additional 10,819 residents
since 2020. To accommodate this population growth, the City should prioritize development where
appropriate within City limits and in the unincorporated UGA.
City of Moses Lake Land Use & Development Regulations
The City of Moses Lake is comprised of mostly single-family homes. As referenced in the Housing Needs
Assessment, 62% of the housing stock in Moses Lake is single-family units. A quarter of the housing stock
range from duplexes, four-plexes, and/or larger multifamily buildings; 11% of all units are mobile
homes.6 Title 18 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code provides the relevant zoning
designations/classifications and development standards in the City, which guides development throughout
6 Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment, BERK Consulting, March 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 641 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 15
the City. Exhibit 4 below provides an overview of the relevant residential zones in Moses Lake and
maximum densities allowed.
A majority of land in Moses Lake is zoned R1 – Single Family Residential, thus corresponding to a high
inventory of single-family homes as the dominant housing type in the City, as noted in the HNA.
Additional zones where housing is located include C2 – General Commercial, which is located along
major corridors, HI – Heavy Industrial, which is found north and east of the City center, and R3 –
Multifamily residential, which is found in Downtown Moses Lake, and distributed in areas within the City
limits. Exhibit 5 provides a detailed zoning map showing the existing land use distribution across the City.
Exhibit 4. Residential Density by Zone
ZONE MAXIMUM
DENSITY
(DU/AC)
R-1 Single Family Residential 4.0
R-2 Single/Two-Family Residential 8.0
R-3 Multifamily Residential 15.0
C-2 General Commercial 15.0
Source: City of Moses Lake 2021; BERK 2021
ADU Development
Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, are allowed uses under the City of Moses Lake zoning code (Moses
Lake Municipal Code – Title 18). ADUs are currently allowed in all residential zones, with the exception
of R-4, which is a low-density rural zone. Chapter 18.20.0557 provides an overview of standards related
to ADUs in residential zones where they are allowed, which include R1, R2, and R3 zones. ADUs are
allowed as a subordinate use, attached and/or detached from any existing single-family dwelling. There
are parking requirements for the ADU dwelling at one off-street parking space, in addition to one off-
street parking space for the primary dwelling.
While ADUs are currently allowed in the City, they have not yielded much interest from the local
developer community. ADUs as a rental product could help to respond to some of the findings in the HNA,
especially related to housing choice and availability of affordable rental units to those who may be
priced out of the City. ADUs are an added cost to homeowners, and as such may not be a feasible
undertaking by households who are already cost-burdened. The City should identify ways to promote
ADU development and incentivize production for homeowners who are interested in a detached and/or
attached ADU, but do not have the resources.
Multi-Family Housing Tax Exemption
The City of Moses Lake offers an MFTE Program for multifamily housing production in what are known as
“residentially deficient urban centers.” Chapter 18.23 of the zoning code provides an overview of the
7 Chapter 18.20.055, Accessory Dwelling Units https://moseslake.municipal.codes/Code/18.20.055
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 642 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 16
MFTE Program, and the various standards and eligibility requirements. The Housing Programs section
below goes more in depth on the program and ways that the City could leverage the program to
promote mid-to-high density residential development and/or improve the program so that more
developers would utilize its benefits, and in turn, develop more affordable and accessible housing.
Exhibit 5. Moses Lake Zoning Map
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020; BERK 2020
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 643 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 17
ZONING CODE UPDATE
The City of Moses Lake is planning a significant update to its zoning and development code following
adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan in summer 2021. This code update will implement new
comprehensive plan land use designations, provide increased predictability in the permitting process,
promote quality urban design in Downtown and along major gateway corridors, and add flexibility for
both commercial and housing development near established residential neighborhoods. The updates,
coupled with the Housing Action Plan and Housing Needs Assessment, will promote a more efficient and
streamlined development and land use process that will remove barriers to affordable housing
production in the existing zoning code.
Exhibit 6 summarizes the major components of the planned development code update and evaluates how
these measures respond to the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and the goals of the Housing
Action Plan.
Exhibit 6. Development Code Update Evaluation
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATES INCREASES
HOUSING
PRODUCTION
ADDRESSES
HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
ENCOURAGES
VARIETY IN
HOUSING
STOCK
Revision of zoning in Downtown Moses Lake to
promote additional mixed-use development and live-
work units associated with a new Creative District.
⚫
Update development regulations for duplex, triplex,
and courtyard apartment housing types.
⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Incorporate cluster development provisions. ⚫ ⚫
Provide density bonuses in exchange for affordable
housing unit production in higher-density residential
zones.
⚫ ⚫
Establish design standards for residential and
commercial development to ensure compatibility of
all types of infill housing in existing neighborhoods.
⚫ ⚫
Reduction of minimum lot sizes in residential zones. ⚫ ⚫
Relaxation of standards for development of ADU’s. ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
City of Moses Lake Programs and Initiatives
HOUSING PROGRAMS
The City of Moses Lake has several programs which address housing affordability and homelessness
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 644 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 18
within the City, including coordinated efforts with Grant County, and specifically the Housing Authority of
Grant County. Other programs and policies include the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program, which
provides incentives to housing developers, in exchange for production of affordable housing. While these
programs exist, as referenced in the Housing Needs Assessment, subsidized housing is limited in Moses
Lake.
MFTE Program
The City of Moses Lakes adopted the MFTE Program in 2004; according to the City, the program has not
received much interest from the local developer community. The program is specific to Downtown Moses
Lake, which could be considered a limiting factor to developers who may be interested in developing
elsewhere within City-limits. As of March 2021, two active projects have utilized the MFTE Program.
Chapter 18.23 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code8 provides a description of the program, including
project eligibility and development standards. The purpose of the MFTE Program is to encourage new
private multifamily housing development and redevelopment within cities that planning under GMA (RCW
84.14)9. The MFTE program provides for allows for the provision of multifamily housing in areas that are
considered “residentially deficient urban centers.” The goal is to build housing closer to employment
centers, entertainment, shopping, and transit services. The City of Moses Lake has adopted a Residential
Target Area where MFTE could be implemented.
Regarding project eligibility, projects utilizing the MFTE Program must include at least four units within a
residential structure or as part of a mixed-use development. Further, the proposed project must not
displace existing residential units, unless they are not up to building and housing codes.
Housing Authority of Grant County
The City of Moses Lake offers public housing and other subsidized housing options under the jurisdiction
of the Housing Authority of Grant County (HAGC). HAGC offers a variety of affordable housing options
in cities across the County, including Moses Lake. HAGC also offers a variety of homeless assistance and
rental assistance programs. In addition to public housing and special needs housing, HAGC offers housing
for farmworkers. HAGC administers the Section 8 Housing Choice (HCV) Program, which provides a total
of 237 vouchers to be distributed across the County.10 Moses Lake has 184-units of income restricted
housing, and 206 vouchers for subsidized units.
Public Housing
The Housing Authority of Grant County is located in Moses Lake and operates four properties in the City;
these properties include:
▪ Section 8 Larson: A 47-unit property located in North Moses Lake
▪ Larson: A 126-unit property and former subdivision developed in 1977 as U.S. Air Force housing; it
now offers 2, 3, and 4-bedroom rental units
▪ Transitional Housing: 12 units
8 Chapter 18.23, Moses Lake Municipal Code. https://moseslake.municipal.codes/Code/18.23.010
9 Chapter 84.14 RCW. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=84.14
10 Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment, BERK 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 645 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 19
▪ Emergency Shelter: 5 units
Special Needs Housing
HAGC operates several properties tailored towards individuals who require additional supports. HAGC
operates a 5-unit 3-bedroom property in North Moses Lake for those with special needs. The
Developmental Disabled Development Project11 is under the jurisdiction of HAGC, and residents have 24-
hour access to Directions in Community Living, which is a program of the Grant County Developmental
Disability Services.
In addition to the above project, HAGC also offers Mental Health Housing; Moses Lake is the site of a 6-
unit 2-bedroom property known as Balsam Apartments, which provides housing for low-income individuals
with chronic mental illness.
Homelessness
Programs and services aimed at addressing homelessness in Moses Lake are referenced in the
Comprehensive Plan; these programs and services include those provided by the Housing Authority of
Grant County; The City of Moses Lake also has several programs and efforts underway currently; more
information on these programs and policies are described below. An Ad-Hoc Homeless Committee was
formed as an advisory committee to the Moses Lake City Council, to address matters related to
homelessness, including programs and policies.
Project Open Doors
Project Open Doors was established in 2019 following passage of Resolution 376412 by the City of
Moses Lake, which was a resolution to adopt a homeless program via a percentage of real estate excise
tax dollars. The mission of Project Open Doors is to: “advocate for the homeless people in Moses Lake in
order to improve quality of life, increase public awareness of issues of homelessness, impact public policy,
and to prevent and end homelessness.” The Project identifies ways to coordinate and link resources by
involving stakeholders with a shared goal of building a comprehensive system to end homelessness.13
Project Open Doors led to the creation of the Open Doors Sleep Center, which is a low-barrier drop-in
shelter with services targeted at chronically homeless and unsheltered populations in Moses Lake. Services
are provided by HopeSource. The City has entered into a sub-recipient agreement with Grant County to
ensure the allocation of funds for homeless programs, which will allow the City to fund the program
through June 2022.14 Funding allocation from the County Emergency Solutions Grant awards the City of
Moses Lake approximately $1,458,000 to operate homeless programs.
Homeless Task Force of Grant County
The City of Moses Lake is a member of the Homeless Taskforce of Grant County and has adopted the
11 Developmental Disabled Development Project, https://a7ed2d6f-fada-4dab-8641-
52945d95c661.filesusr.com/ugd/84d143_e8538be16cc1460ea7259fee984d8af8.pdf
12 Resolution 3764, City of Moses Lake. https://www.cityofml.com/DocumentCenter/View/7460/08-00-AB-Homeless-
Program-Resolution-2019
13 Project Open Doors, Help for the Homeless, City of Moses Lake. https://www.cityofml.com/1005/Help-for-the-Homeless
14 Sleeping Center FAQ, City of Moses Lake. https://www.cityofml.com/DocumentCenter/View/8956/Sleeping-Center-FAQ-1
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 646 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 20
County Plan to End Homelessness as the baseline from which to administer programs. The mission of the
Homeless Task Force is to: “advocate for the homeless people in Grant County in order to improve
quality of life, increase public awareness of issues of homelessness, impact public policy and to prevent
and end homelessness.”
OTHER PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES
In addition to the above Open Door Sleep Center, the City of Moses Lake has worked with HopeSource
to convert a former motel into an emergency shelter.15 The Enhanced Emergency Shelter operates out of
the former El Rancho Motel in Moses Lake, which HopeSource entered into a Purchase and Sales
Agreement (PSA) to contract for the motel site, and ultimately acquired the site to be used for homeless
services and a shelter. The purchase of the site added an additional 25-beds to the homeless program in
Moses Lake, and beds are available via referrals from other local agencies.
The City’s partnership with HopeSource has the following objectives:
▪ Objective 1: Quickly identify and engage people experiencing homelessness.
▪ Objective 2: Prioritization of homeless housing for people with the highest needs.
▪ Objective 3: Effective and efficient homeless crisis response and housing services.
The partnership will lead to long-term and short-term options for addressing homelessness in the City.
Those individuals who reside in the Open Doors Sleep Center site and/or the Enhanced Emergency
Shelter may be referred to the Housing Authority of Grant County for more stable housing placement or
for other services. The City will work with the Homeless Taskforce to identify other needs and strategize
improvements to the City’s homeless plan and provision of services.
The City is currently seeking Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from qualified service providers to expand the
homeless program and help to develop a Rapid Re-Housing Program directed at those who experience
chronic homelessness, and will also create a Hotel Voucher Program to provide temporary emergency
shelter to Crisis Response System providers in Moses Lake.
EVALUATION
Exhibit 7. Evaluation of Existing Programs and/or Policies in Moses Lake
PROGRAM EVALUATION SCORE
MFTE Program C
Subsidized Housing A
Special Needs Housing A
Homelessness V
15 “Moses Lake Moves Forward with Programs to Fight Homelessness,” The Wenatchee World, September 15, 2020.
https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/northwest/moses-lake-moves-forward-with-programs-to-fight-
homelessness/article_d6865177-723c-5e2d-ac44-9fc3f862ec9c.html
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 647 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 21
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Moses Lake has several programs and initiatives currently which address homelessness in the
City. Further, the City has partnered with the Housing Authority of Grant County, nonprofits, and private
sector organizations to address subsidized housing needs, and housing for those experiencing mental
illness. The City has several housing options for elderly residents who require additional supports. These
programs help to meet the identified needs in the Housing Needs Assessment.
While these programs currently exist, the City should leverage them, and improve them to address the
HNA findings related to lack of rental unit options, including subsidized units for very low-income and
extremely low-income rental households. Further, programs aimed at homeownership should be
incorporated in housing related policies, such as those offered by the State of Washington, and/or
locally by Grant County.
The HNA found that a Point-in-Time count of homeless individuals in Grant County was reported to be
148 persons in 2019, 82 of those being unsheltered individuals. Considering the prevalence of homeless
programs in the Moses Lake, and in the County, the City should continue its efforts, as described above in
conjunction with County-led efforts.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 648 of 883
Moses Lake Together
Comprehensive Plan Update 2021
Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan
October 2021 | DRAFT
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Prepared for:
City of Moses Lake
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 649 of 883
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Growth Management Act Requirements 1
Definition of Capital Facilities 2
Sources and Assumptions 3
Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 3
Overview 3
Funding the Capital Facilities Plan 3
Assumptions 4
General/Dedicated Capital Revenues and Operating Transfers 4
Six-Year Cost and Revenue Comparison 13
Policy Options and Other Funding Sources 15
Capital Facilities Inventory, Demand, and Planned Project Lists 17
Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services 17
Wastewater 24
Water 27
Stormwater 31
Municipal Facilities 34
Refuse 37
Streets 37
Airport 38
Law Enforcement 40
Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Services 43
Schools 49
Library 51
Capital Project Summary 53
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 650 of 883
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Actual and Project Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund REET 1 & REET 2 Revenues (2015-2038),
YOE$ 6
Exhibit 2: Actual and Projected Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund TBD Sales and Use Tax Revenues (2015-
2038), YOE$ 7
Exhibit 3: Actual and Projected Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund Grants and Miscellaneous Revenues
(2015-2038), YOE$ 8
Exhibit 4: Projected Streets Capital Revenues (2020-2038), YOE$ 8
Exhibit 5: Projected Streets Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$ 9
Exhibit 6. Actual and Projected Parks and Recreation Improvement Fund Hotel/Motel Sales Tax Revenues
(2015-2038), YOE$ 10
Exhibit 7. Actual and Projected Park Mitigation Capital Fund Park Mitigation Fees Revenues (2015-2038),
YOE$ 11
Exhibit 8: Projected Parks and Recreation Capital Revenues (2020-2038), YOE$ 11
Exhibit 9: Projected Parks and Recreation Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$ 12
Exhibit 10: Projected Water and Sewer Capital Revenues (2020-2038), YOE$ 13
Exhibit 11: Projected Water/Sewer Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$ 13
Exhibit 12: Projected Total Capital Revenues (2020-2038), 2021$ 14
Exhibit 13: Projected Total Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$ 14
Exhibit 14: City of Moses Lake Parks Inventory 17
Exhibit 15: City of Moses Lake Trail, Linear Park, and Water Trail Inventory. 18
Exhibit 16: City of Moses Lake Recreation Facilities 19
Exhibit 17: Parks Level of Service 20
Exhibit 18: Proposed Parks Projects 2022-2027 21
Exhibit 19: Wastewater Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+, 2020$ 26
Exhibit 20: City of Moses Lake Water Supply Facilities 27
Exhibit 21: City of Moses Lake Water Storage Facilities 28
Exhibit 22: Projected Future Water Demand and Future Source Capacity 29
Exhibit 23: Water Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+, 2020$ 30
Exhibit 24: Stormwater Infiltration Basins 31
Exhibit 25: Stormwater Outfalls 32
Exhibit 26. Stormwater Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+ 33
Exhibit 27: City Owned Civic Buildings 34
Exhibit 28: Municipal Facilities Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+ 36
Exhibit 29: Airport Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+ 39
Exhibit 30: Police Services Level of Service 40
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 651 of 883
Exhibit 31: Future Police Services Need – LOS Analysis 41
Exhibit 32: Police Facility Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+ 42
Exhibit 33: Current Facilities Inventory – Moses Lake Fire Department 43
Exhibit 34: Current Equipment – Moses Lake Fire Department 44
Exhibit 35: Moses Lake Fire Department Adopted Response Time LOS Standards 45
Exhibit 36. Fire and EMS Facility Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+ 46
Exhibit 37. Fire and EMS Equipment Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+ 46
Exhibit 38: Moses Lake School District – School Buildings 49
Exhibit 39: Moses Lake School District – Special Purpose Facilities 50
Exhibit 40: Library Facility Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+ 52
Exhibit 41: Total Estimated Capital Project Costs by Category, 2020$ 53
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 652 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 1
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Appendix is to use sound fiscal policies to provide
adequate public facilities consistent with the land use, transportation, parks and capital facilities,
and utilities elements and concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of development to achieve and
maintain adopted standards for levels of service.
The Capital Facilities Element and associated CFP Appendix are required components of the
Comprehensive Plan to guide capital planning necessary to provide services to the community (CFP
refers collectively to both the element policies and this supporting appendix). Capital facilities are
significant projects for jurisdictions to fund, build, and maintain, and the sooner a jurisdiction plans
for its needs the better they can do to meet their needs. The Comprehensive Plan and CFP are 20-
year policy and planning documents (or sometimes longer). Some jurisdictions create Capital
Improvement Program with a 6-year time horizon for budgetary purposes, which may be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and associated CFP.
Together, these documents guide the development of capital facilities needed to support forecasted
population and employment growth over the next 20 years. This CFP updates the inventory of
current capital facilities owned by the City, establishes the Level of Service Standards (LOS) that
measures the benefits the City can provide, and includes a project summary that forecasts the
expected capital facilities needs and investments over the next 20 or more years.
Growth Management Act Requirements
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the Capital Facilities Element
of a Comprehensive Plan include an inventory, projected needs, and funding and financing for
facilities and infrastructure. This CFP Appendix is intended to provide the technical foundation –
inventory, service standards, capacity, proposed projects, and funding as appropriate – for the GMA
required Capital Facilities Element. The goals and policies for these required elements are
contained in the Capital Facilities Element of Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan.
GMA requires that all comprehensive plans contain a Capital Facilities plan element. GMA specifies
that the capital facilities plan element should consist of: a) an inventory of existing capital facilities
owned by public entities; b) a forecast of the future needs for capital facilities; c) the proposed
locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; d) a six-year CFP that will finance
capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money
for such purposes; and e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls
short of existing needs. (RCW 36.70a.070(3))
The GMA requires the CFP to identify specific facilities, include a realistic financing plan (for the six-
year period), and make adjustment to the plan if funding is inadequate. Capital facilities are
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 653 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 2
important because they support the growth envisioned in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. GMA
requires that all capital facilities have “probable funding” to pay for capital facility needs, and that
jurisdictions have capital facilities in place and readily available when new development comes in
or must be of sufficient capacity when the population grows, particularly for transportation
(concurrency) or for services deemed necessary to support development.
Levels of service (LOS) are established in the CFP and represent quantifiable measures of capacity.
They are minimum standards established by the City to provide capital facilities and services to the
Chelan community at a certain level of quality and within the financial capacity of the City or special
district provider. LOS standards are influenced by local citizens, elected and appointed officials,
national standards, mandates, and other considerations, such as available funding. Examples of LOS
measures include: amount of intersection delay, acres parks or miles of trails per 1,000 population,
gallons of water per capita per day, and others. Those facilities and services necessary to support
growth should have LOS standards and facilities.
Recent Growth Management Hearings Board cases have placed more importance on the
preparation and implementation of CFPs. The key points include:
▪ Capital facilities plans should address the 20-year planning period and be consistent with
growth allocations assumed in the Land Use Element. Capital facilities plans should also
demonstrate an ability to serve the full city limits and Urban Growth Area (UGA).
▪ Financial plans should address at least a 6-year period and funding sources should be specific
and committed. The City should provide a sense of the funding sources for the 20-year period
though it can be less detailed than for the 6-year period.
Growth, LOS standards, and a funded capital improvement program are to be in balance. In the case
where the LOS cannot be met by a service or facility, the jurisdiction could do one of the following:
1) add proposed facilities within funding resources, 2) reduce demand through demand
management strategies, 3) lower LOS standards, 4) phase growth, or 5) change the land use plan.
Definition of Capital Facilities
Capital facilities generally have a long useful life and include city and non-city operated
infrastructure, buildings, and equipment. Capital facilities planning does not cover regular
operation and maintenance, but it does include major repair, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of
facilities.
The CFP addresses infrastructure (such as streets, roads, traffic signals, sewer systems, stormwater
systems, water systems, parks, etc.) and public facilities through which services are offered (such as
fire protection structures and major equipment, law enforcement structures, schools, etc.). Per
WAC 365-196-415, at a minimum, those capital facilities to be included in an inventory and analysis
are water systems, sewer systems, stormwater systems, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
police facilities and fire facilities. Moses Lake’s CFP also describes solid waste collection (Refuse),
the local municipal airport, and the local public library system.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 654 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 3
Sources and Assumptions
The CFP is based on the following sources of information and assumptions:
▪ Capital Facility Functional or System Plans. Capital facility functional or system plans of the
City of Moses Lake or other service providers were reviewed for inventories, levels of service,
planned facilities, growth forecasts, and potential funding.
▪ Growth Forecasts. Population and job growth forecasts were allocated to the City of Moses
Lake through the County wide Planning Policies for Grant County. The 2020 population as well
as the 2027 (six-year) and 2038 population (18-year) growth for each facility provider is
estimated.
▪ Revenue Forecasts. Revenues were forecasted for Moses Lake city facilities to year 2038. The
sources of revenue are summarized from available plans and compared to typical revenue
sources for those service providers.
Capital Facilities Revenue
Analysis
Overview
The revenue analysis of the Capital Facilities Plan supports the financing for providing facilities and
services, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). Revenue estimates, using assumptions that are
based on historical trends, are used to represent realistic expectations for revenue that may be
available for capital funding.
This revenue analysis looks at the City of Moses Lake’s capital facility revenues for municipal
services. Through identifying fiscal constraints in the future, and potential gap funding options,
project prioritization can be incorporated into the capital planning process.
The revenue analysis provides an approximate, and not exact, forecast of future revenue sources.
The numbers projected in this analysis are for planning purposes and do not account for
sensitivities such as local, state, and federal policy, economic trends, and other factors.
Funding the Capital Facilities Plan
Estimated future revenues are projected for the Plan’s 2020 – 2038 planning period, in year of
expenditure dollars. The following revenue analysis is organized according to the following
categories:
▪ General Capital Revenues. Revenues under the category of general capital revenues are the
revenues required by law to be used for capital projects. The general capital revenues in Moses
Lake consist of REET 1 and REET 2.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 655 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 4
As a note, though REET 1 and REET 2 revenues can be used for a variety of different capital
projects, Moses Lake has historically used REET 1 and REET 2 revenues to fund transportation
capital projects.
▪ Dedicated Capital Revenues. Dedicated revenues are required to be used for certain types of
capital spending, outlined by the law. The dedicated capital revenues in Moses Lake include
park mitigation fees and grants.
▪ Operating Transfers. Operating transfers are revenue sources that are transferred to capital
improvement funds from operating funds. Although these are not dedicated sources to be relied
on for capital funding, it has been the historical practice of the City to regularly make transfers
into capital improvement funds for certain service departments. Those are calculated
separately as the practice may be common enough to be considered a potential funding source,
however these transfers are not dedicated to capital spending and could be used elsewhere.
▪ Potential Policy Options and Other Funding Sources. There are additional policy tools and
sources available to fund capital projects.
Assumptions
The assumptions used in this analysis may not align with the City’s future budget assumptions
around the same revenue sources as the purpose of the two analyses is different. The City’s budget
estimates how much money the City will have available for spending in the coming fiscal year while
this CFP revenue analysis estimates how much revenue, that will be specifically allocated to capital
projects, the City is likely to receive in total over the next six and 20 years.
For each revenue source, revenue projections were estimated using various methodologies,
depending on trends in historical revenues and best available information. These methodologies
are as follows:
▪ Projecting revenues based on a historical per capita rate and growing based on population
growth
▪ Projecting revenues based on a constant historical value
▪ Projecting revenues based on existing revenue projections
Population growth is assumed to be consistent with population projections outlined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element.
General/Dedicated Capital Revenues and
Operating Transfers
Streets
The City’s Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund (Fund 119) provides funding for the City’s
transportation capital projects. Funding sources for the Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund include
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 1 and REET 2, transfers of sales tax from the Moses Lake
Transportation Benefit District (TBD), and state grants.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 656 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 5
Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund: REET 1 & REET 2
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues are collected on property sales at the point of sale. They are
required by law to be spent on capital projects. REET is based on the total value of real estate
transactions in a given year, and the amount received annually can vary significantly based on
fluctuations in the real estate market and trends in the economy.
Moses Lake is authorized by the state to impose two separate REET levies. REET 1 and REET 2 each
allow for a levy of 0.25% on the assessed value of a sale, for a total tax of 0.5% of total assessed
value. All proceeds must be used for capital spending, as defined in RCW 35.43.040. REET II is more
restricted than REET I, as it may not be spent on acquisition of land for parks, recreation facilities,
law enforcement facilities, fire protection facilities, trails, libraries, or administrative or judicial
facilities (RCW 82.46.035). REET 2, specifically, can only be levied by those cities and counties that
are planning under GMA. For REET 2, the capital projects must be those specifically listed in RCW
82.46.035(5):
Public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads,
highways, sidewalks, streets and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic
water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, constructions,
reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks.
Within the parameters defined by law, REET 1 and REET 2 can be spent at the discretion of the City
of Moses Lake. Historically, Moses Lake has directed REET 1 and REET 2 revenues to the Street
Repair/Reconstruction Fund. The Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund began receiving REET 2
revenues in 2015.
This analysis leverages budgeted projections for REET 1 and REET 2 revenues for 2020 and 2021.
REET 1 revenue projections after 2021 are based on average annual REET 1 revenue the City
received from 2006 to 2019, around $329,000 for REET 1, which is annually adjusted for inflation
based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index: U.S. City Average. REET 2
revenues are estimated to match REET 1 revenue projections from 2022 to 2038. See Exhibit 1.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 657 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 6
Exhibit 1: Actual and Project Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund REET 1 & REET 2 Revenues
(2015-2038), YOE$
Note: Estimates are shown on an annual basis, but the purpose of this analysis is to establish planning-level estimates
appropriate for the 2022-2038 plan period.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund: TBD Sales and Use Tax
In 2018, through voter approval, the City’s Transportation Benefit District (TBD) began collecting
0.2% in sales and use taxes to be used for transportation projects and maintenance. These sales and
use tax revenues are collected by the TBD and transferred to the Street Repair/Reconstruction
Fund.
The TBD sales and use taxing option is limited to 10 years, with the ability to renew the sales and
use tax by voter approval for additional 10-year periods. For the purposes of this analysis, the TBD
sales and use tax is assumed to be renewed by voters in 2028 to 2038.
This analysis leverages existing budgeted projections for TBD sales and use tax revenues in 2020
and 2021. Revenue projections for TBD sales and use tax revenues after 2021 are based on the
historical percentage of total taxable retail sales that TBD sales and use taxes have represented in
the City. Total taxable retail sales were projected through 2038 based on average annual per capita
total taxable retail sales observed in the City from 2006 to 2019. TBD sales and use taxes
represented around 0.187% of total taxable retail sales within Moses Lake, on average, from 2018
to 2019. This percentage was applied to total taxable retail sales projections to derive TBD sales
and use tax revenue projections.
See Exhibit 2 for actual and projected TBD sales and use tax revenues for the Streets
Repair/Reconstruction Fund.
0.0 M
0.1 M
0.2 M
0.3 M
0.4 M
0.5 M
0.6 M
0.7 M
0.8 M
0.9 M
1.0 M
REET 1 REET 2
Actual ProjectionsBudget
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 658 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 7
Exhibit 2: Actual and Projected Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund TBD Sales and Use Tax
Revenues (2015-2038), YOE$
Note: Estimates are shown on an annual basis, but the purpose of this analysis is to establish planning-level estimates
appropriate for the 2022-2038 plan period.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund: Grants and Miscellaneous Revenues
The City’s Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund also receives federal, state, and local grants and
miscellaneous revenues such as special assessments. These revenues have historically represented
around $15 per capita, on average, from 2006 to 2019.
Revenue projections for grants and miscellaneous revenues are based off of a $15 per capita rate
and grow with the rate of population growth. Revenues are adjusted for inflation based on the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index: U.S. City Average. See Exhibit 3 for actual and
estimated grants and miscellaneous revenues for the Streets Repair/Reconstruction Fund from
2015 through 2038.
0.0 M
0.5 M
1.0 M
1.5 M
2.0 M
2.5 M
3.0 M
3.5 M Actual ProjectionsBudget
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 659 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 8
Exhibit 3: Actual and Projected Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund Grants and
Miscellaneous Revenues (2015-2038), YOE$
Notes: Projections shown above are designed to estimate expected cumulative revenues for the planning period; annual
amounts shown above are not meant to reflect actual expected revenues in each specific year.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Streets: Total Estimated Capital Revenues
Exhibit 4 details total projected capital revenues for streets capital projects over the planning
period. In 2019, Moses Lake had a fund balance of around $2,070,000 for the Street
Repair/Reconstruction Fund. These funds are also available to cover street capital costs during the
2020-2038 time period.
Exhibit 4: Projected Streets Capital Revenues (2020-2038), YOE$
Revenue Sources 2020-2021
Budget
2022-2027
Estimated
2028-2038
Estimated
TOTAL
2020-2038
REET 1 $600,000 $2,130,000 $4,530,000 $7,260,000
REET 2 $600,000 $2,130,000 $4,530,000 $7,260,000
TBD Sales Tax $3,540,000 $11,910,000 $30,070,000 $45,520,000
Grants and Miscellaneous $330,000 $2,700,000 $6,820,000 $9,850,000
Total $5,070,000 $18,870,000 $45,950,000 $69,890,000
Total with Fund Balance $71,960,000
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Streets: Six-Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated recreation revenue sources with its planned
project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2022-2027 in order to understand the difference
between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As of the end of 2021, Moses
0.0 M
0.2 M
0.4 M
0.6 M
0.8 M
1.0 M
1.2 M
1.4 M Actual ProjectionsBudget
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 660 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 9
Lake is projected to have a fund balance of around $10,900 for the Street Repair/Reconstruction
Fund. These funds are also available to cover water/sewer capital costs during the six-year time
period.
As shown in Exhibit 5, estimated dedicated street capital revenues are not expected to be adequate
to cover estimated capital costs.
Exhibit 5: Projected Streets Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$
Parks and Recreation Revenues and Costs
Estimated Streets Capital Revenues $18,870,000
Estimated 2022 Fund Balance $10,900
Estimated Streets Capital Costs $22,344,000
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus / (Deficit) ($3,463,100)
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
More information on specific Streets projects can be found in the Transportation Element Update
(2021) as well as the City’s latest six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Parks and Recreation
The City has two capital improvement funds for parks and recreation capital projects: the Park and
Recreation Improvement Capital Fund (Fund 314) and the Park Mitigation Capital Fund (Fund
315). Funding sources for the Parks and Recreation Improvement Fund consist of transfers of
Hotel/Motel Sales Tax as well as other operating transfers from the City’s General Fund. Funding
sources for the Park Mitigation Capital Fund consist of mitigation fees paid by new developments.
Parks and Recreation Improvement Fund: Hotel/Motel Sales Tax
Revenues
In accordance with RCW 67.28.180, the City imposes a 2% tax on all charges for furnishing lodging
at hotels, motels, and similar establishments. This tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state
sales tax—in other words it does not add to the sales tax charged for lodging. The City refers to this
as the “first” 2% lodging tax. The City also levies a local option 2% tax in accordance with RCW
67.28.181, the “second” 2% lodging tax which brings the total received by the City to 4% of the
lodging charges.
Historically, the City has directed the first 2% of the tax to the Parks and Recreation Improvement
Fund and has used that revenue for debt service related to water park capital improvements. These
revenues are kept in the City’s general fund and transferred to the Parks and Recreation
Improvement Fund for expenditure.
Revenue projections for hotel/motel sales taxes are assumed to be revenues from the “first” 2% tax
and are based on the historical percentage of total taxable retail sales that hotel/motel taxes that
have represented in the City. Total taxable retail sales were projected through 2038 based on
average annual per capita total taxable retail sales observed in the City from 2006 to 2019.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 661 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 10
Hotel/motel sales taxes represented around 0.09% of total taxable retail sales within Moses Lake,
on average, from 2008 to 2019. According to the SAO FIT data, the City did not receive hotel/motel
sales taxes in 2006 and 2007. The percentage of 0.09% was applied to total taxable retail sales
projections to derive hotel/motel sales tax revenue projections.
Exhibit 6. Actual and Projected Parks and Recreation Improvement Fund Hotel/Motel Sales
Tax Revenues (2015-2038), YOE$
Note: Estimates are shown on an annual basis, but the purpose of this analysis is to establish planning-level estimates
appropriate for the 2022-2038 plan period.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Park Mitigation Capital Fund: Park Mitigation Fees
As mentioned above, the City’s Park Mitigation Capital Fund is funded by mitigation fees paid by
new development. Mitigation fees have averaged around $130,000 annually from 2017 to 2019.
Collections for 2016 were unusually high and excluded from the average to be more conservative
for planning purposes.
This analysis leverages budgeted projections for mitigation fee revenues for 2020 and 2021.
Mitigation fee revenue projections after 2021 are based on average annual mitigation fee revenue
the City received from 2017 to 2019, which is annually adjusted for inflation based on the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index: U.S. City Average. See Exhibit 7 for actual and
estimated park mitigation fee revenues for the Park Mitigation Capital Fund from 2015 through
2038.
0.0 M
0.1 M
0.2 M
0.3 M
0.4 M
0.5 M
0.6 M
0.7 M
0.8 M Actual ProjectionsBudget
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 662 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 11
Exhibit 7. Actual and Projected Park Mitigation Capital Fund Park Mitigation Fees Revenues
(2015-2038), YOE$
Notes: Projections shown above are designed to estimate expected cumulative revenues for the planning period; annual
amounts shown above are not meant to reflect actual expected revenues in each specific year.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Parks and Recreation: Total Estimated Capital Revenues
Exhibit 8 details total projected capital revenues for parks capital projects over the planning period.
In 2019, Moses Lake had a fund balance of around $1,010,000 for the Parks and Recreation
Improvement Fund and a fund balance of around $710,000 for the Park Mitigation Fund. Combined,
this represented an aggregate fund balance of around $1,720,000 for parks capital projects. These
funds are also available to cover parks capital costs during the 2020-2038 time period.
Exhibit 8: Projected Parks and Recreation Capital Revenues (2020-2038), YOE$
Revenue Sources 2020-2021
Budget
2022-2027
Estimated
2028-2038
Estimated
TOTAL
2020-2038
Hotel/Motel Sales Tax $690,000 $2,680,000 $6,770,000 $10,140,000
Park Mitigation Fees $150,000 $850,000 $1,810,000 $2,810,000
Total $840,000 $3,530,000 $8,580,000 $12,950,000
Total with Fund Balance $14,670,000
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Parks and Recreation: Six-Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated recreation revenue sources with its planned
project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2022-2027 in order to understand the difference
between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As of the end of 2021, Moses
Lake is projected to have a fund balance of around $700,000 for the Parks and Recreation
0.0 M
0.1 M
0.1 M
0.2 M
0.2 M
0.3 M
0.3 M
0.4 M Actual ProjectionsBudget
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 663 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 12
Improvement Fund and a fund balance of $0 for the Park Mitigation Capital Projects Fund.
Combined, this represented an aggregate estimated fund balance of around $700,000 for parks
capital projects as of 2022.
As shown in Exhibit 9, estimated dedicated capital revenues are expected to be able to cover
estimated capital costs.
Exhibit 9: Projected Parks and Recreation Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$
Parks and Recreation Revenues and Costs
Estimated Parks and Recreation Capital Revenues $3,530,000
Estimated 2022 Fund Balance $700,000
Estimated Parks and Recreation Capital Costs $600,000
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus / (Deficit) $3,630,000
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
More information on specific Parks and Recreation projects can be found in the Capital Facilities
Inventory, Demand, and Planned Project Lists section.
Water/Sewer
The City has two capital improvement funds for water and wastewater capital projects: the
Water/Sewer Construction Fund (Fund 477) and the Water Rights Fund (Fund 471).
The City’s Water/Sewer Construction Fund is used to fund water and wastewater capital projects.
Funding sources for the Water/Sewer Construction Fund consists of operating transfers from the
City’s water/sewer operating fund.
The Water Rights Fund has no regularly dedicated funding sources and is funding by operating
transfers when opportunities to purchase water rights arise.
Water/Sewer: Total Estimated Capital Revenues
As mentioned above, the City’s Water/Sewer Construction Fund is funded by operating transfers on
an as needed basis from the City’s water/sewer operating fund. Funding sources for the City’s
water/sewer operating fund are primarily from utility charges. The City sets utility rates, in part,
based on planned water and sewer capital projects.
Projections for water/sewer capital revenues are based on planned water/sewer capital projects
over the planning period. Revenues projections for water/sewer capital revenues are assumed to
match planned project costs.
Exhibit 10 details total projected capital revenues for water/sewer capital projects over the
planning period. In 2019, Moses Lake had a fund balance of around $7,880,000 for the
Water/Sewer Construction Fund. These funds are also available to cover water/sewer capital costs
during the 2020-2038 time period.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 664 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 13
Exhibit 10: Projected Water and Sewer Capital Revenues (2020-2038), YOE$
Revenue Sources 2020-2021
Budget
2022-2027
Estimated
2028-2038
Estimated
TOTAL
2020-2038
Operating Transfers $10,810,000 $29,750,000 $106,960,000 $147,520,000
Total $10,810,000 $29,750,000 $106,960,000 $147,520,000
Total with Fund Balance $155,400,000
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Water/Sewer: Six-Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated water/sewer revenue sources with its
planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2022-2027 in order to understand the
difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As of the end of
2021, Moses Lake is projected to have a fund balance of around $475,000 for the Water/Sewer
Construction Fund. These funds are also available to cover water/sewer capital costs during the six-
year time period.
As shown in Exhibit 11, estimated dedicated capital revenues are expected to be able to cover
estimated capital costs.
Exhibit 11: Projected Water/Sewer Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$
Water/Sewer Revenues and Costs
Estimated Water/Sewer Capital Revenues $29,750,000
Estimated Fund Balance $475,000
Estimated Water/Sewer Capital Costs1 $29,750,000
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus / (Deficit) $475,000
1Inflation adjusted and will not match costs in the Capital Facilities Inventory, Demand, and Planned Project Lists section.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
More information on specific Water/Sewer projects can be found in the Capital Facilities Inventory,
Demand, and Planned Project Lists section.
Six-Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
Total Capital Revenues
Exhibit 12 summarizes the projected total capital revenues available over the planning period,
including fund balances.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 665 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 14
Exhibit 12: Projected Total Capital Revenues (2020-2038), 2021$
Revenue Sources 2020-2021
Budget
2022-2027
Estimated
2028-2038
Estimated
TOTAL
2020-2038
REET 1 $600,000 $2,130,000 $4,530,000 $7,260,000
REET 2 $600,000 $2,130,000 $4,530,000 $7,260,000
TBD Sales Tax $3,540,000 $11,910,000 $30,070,000 $45,520,000
Grants and Miscellaneous $330,000 $2,700,000 $6,820,000 $9,850,000
Hotel/Motel Sales Tax $690,000 $2,680,000 $6,770,000 $10,140,000
Park Mitigation Fees $150,000 $850,000 $1,810,000 $2,810,000
Operating Transfers $12,150,000 $25,550,000 $86,400,000 $124,100,000
Other Operating Transfers $4,940,000 $16,850,000 $42,530,000 $64,320,000
Estimated Revenues $18,060,000 $47,950,000 $140,930,000 $206,940,000
Revenues with Fund Balance $218,610,000
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Six-Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated revenue sources with the City’s planned
project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2022-2027 in order to understand the difference
between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. This analysis is done for the
six-year period rather than the 20-year period because project lists are constantly evolving, and a
longer-term outlook would provide an increasingly less accurate estimate of a potential funding gap
or surplus.
Exhibit 13 details total estimated dedicated capital revenues and total estimated dedicated capital
costs for the City over the six-year period.
Exhibit 13: Projected Total Capital Revenues and Costs (2022-2027), YOE$
Total Projected Revenues Revenues and Costs
Estimated Street Capital Revenues Available $18,880,900
Estimated Parks and Recreation Capital Revenues Available $4,230,000
Estimated Water/Sewer Capital Revenues Available $30,225,000
Total Capital Revenues Available $53,335,900
Total Capital Costs $52,694,000
Estimated Total Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $641,900
Note: Estimated revenues available include projected 2021 fund balances
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 666 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 15
Policy Options and Other Funding Sources
There are additional policy tools and sources available to the City to fund capital projects. These
policy tools and sources include:
▪ Bonds. The City has used and can use Bonds to support capital facilities funding. Moses Lake
has a rating of A+- from Standard and Poor’s on its general obligation bonds.
▪ Impact Fees. Impact fees are a financing tool allowed under state law that requires new
development to pay a portion of the costs associated with infrastructure improvements that are
related to the development. GMA allows agencies to implement a transportation, parks, fire, and
school impact fee program to help fund some of the costs of capital facilities needed to
accommodate growth. State law requires that impact fees be related to improvement that serve
new developments and not existing deficiencies, that they’re assessed proportional to the
impacts of new development, that they’re allocated for improvements that reasonably benefit
new development, and that they’re spent on facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Plan.
▪ Local Improvement District/Road Improvement District (LID/RID). LIDs and RIDs are
taxing districts that the City has the statutory authority to create. A district could be used to
levy additional property tax to cover debt service payments on the sale of bonds purchased to
finance projects within the district. Revenues from the levy must be used for local, clearly-
defined areas where the land owners are being assessed the additional tax benefit. LID, by law,
can be used for water, sewer, and stormwater projects. RIDs may be used for road funding and
street improvements.
▪ State Infrastructure Authorities. The City has options for creating specialized authorities to
fund public infrastructure, such as Public Facility Districts and Public Development Authorities.
These authorities each have specific purposes and formation requirements. In 2021, the
Washington State Legislature authorized local jurisdictions to form tax increment financing
(TIF) districts. Under this new authority, the City can have up to two TIF districts at any one
time. As authorized, TIF districts can collect incremental increases in property taxes within a
defined area to pay for public improvements.
▪ Grants. State and Federal grant programs can be pursued for competitive regional priorities for
infrastructure investments. Pursing grant opportunities requires resources, and success is not
guaranteed.
▪ Public-Private Partnerships. Public-private partnerships are joint agreements between a
governmental jurisdiction and private corporation (including 501(c)3s). Public-Private
Partnerships have legal requirements and issues of control that must be considered on a case-
by-case basis. Washington State’s constitutional restriction on public entities giving or lending
funds and credit to private enterprises requires that public entities need to demonstrate that
any partnership with a private entity will generate public good worth more than the value
provided to the private entity.1
▪ Development Project Mitigation. Under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, the
City can require mitigation measures from individual private development projects. These
mitigation measures can take the form of fees, specified public infrastructure, or changes to
1 Crawshaw-Lewis et al. City and County Options for Creative Financing: PFDs, PDAs and 501(c)(3)s Preston Gates Ellis,
2003, p 26-28.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 667 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 16
project design.
▪ Funding from Legislative Action. The State may restore some of the funding levels once
available to local governments for road improvements through Legislative action. Although
local jurisdictions receive a certain percentage of collected MVFT funds, a combination of
factors such as decreasing gas prices and a reduction in both vehicle miles driven and vehicle
fuel efficiency has resulted in local MVFT allocations that are generally not keeping pace with
inflation. In order to restore funding levels, the City could encourage legislators to follow the
recent gas tax increase with measures that raise the tax rate alongside cost inflation and
increase the tax rate over time with fuel efficiency improvements.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 668 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 17
Capital Facilities Inventory,
Demand, and Planned Project
Lists
Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services
Overview
The City of Moses Lake maintains a system of parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities managed
by the City’s Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Department. Moses Lake Parks, Recreation, &
Cultural Services offers a wide range of active and passive recreational opportunities including
playgrounds, ballfields, community gardens, walking/biking trails, water trails, educational
programs, a museum/arts center and programs, picnicking, camping, sport complexes, boat
launches, water park, amphitheater, skateboard facility, RC track, BMX track, batting cages, seasonal
ice rink, gardens, fishing sites, wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat open spaces.
Inventory
Parks and Trails
The City of Moses Lake Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Department operates and maintains
32 parks totaling 331.47 acres. The City also operates and maintains 62.98 miles of trails, 9.43 acres
of linear parks, and 9 water trail access points. See Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15.
Exhibit 14: City of Moses Lake Parks Inventory
Park Name Park Type Acres
Carl T. Ahlers Park Mini-Park 0.48
Carpenter Park Mini-Park 1.12
Gillette Park Mini-Park 0.93
Hayden Park Mini-Park 0.52
Juniper Park Mini-Park 0.83
Peninsula Park Mini-Park 1.07
Power Point Park Mini-Park 1.65
Dick Deane Family Historical Park Mini-Park 1.29
Crossroads Park Neighborhood Park 3.08
Harrison K. Dano Park Neighborhood Park 4.70
Knolls Vista Park Neighborhood Park 3.01
Laguna Park Neighborhood Park 4.94
Lakeview Park Neighborhood Park 3.51
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 669 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 18
Park Name Park Type Acres
Longview Park (undeveloped) Neighborhood Park 4.27
Yonezawa Neighborhood Park 4.99
Sun Terrace Park Neighborhood Park 11.27
Cascade Park Community Park 34.45
Larson Playfield Complex Community Park 19.62
Lower Peninsula Park Community Park 23.21
McCosh Park Community Park 20.06
Montlake Park Community Park 9.24
Paul Lauzier Athletic Complex Community Park 35.12
Blue Heron Park Regional/Urban Park 76.68
Municipal Tracts Property (undeveloped) Regional/Urban Park 14.27
Basin Homes Park Special Use Area 9.43
Civic Center Park Special Use Area 3.84
Community Gardens Special Use Area 0.80
Larson Recreation Center Special Use Area 7.03
Moses Lake Museum and Art Center Special Use Area 0.78
Sinkiuse Square Special Use Area 0.64
Skate Park Special Use Area 0.42
Three Ponds Resource Area Special Use Area 13.78
John E. Calbom Island Park (undeveloped) Natural Open Space/Greenways 6.37
Vehrs Wetland Property (undeveloped) Natural Open Space/Greenways 8.07
Total 331.47
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2016; BERK, 2021.
Exhibit 15: City of Moses Lake Trail, Linear Park, and Water Trail Inventory.
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2016; BERK, 2021.
Name Type Size, Length, or Count
Trails Length
Multi-Use Path Trails 23.18 miles
Greater than 4’ Shoulder Trails 31.03 miles
Bike Lanes Trails 4.06 miles
Sharrow Trails 2.16 miles
Future Trails 2.55 miles
Subtotal: Trails 62.98 miles
Linear Parks/Connections Size
Marina Park Linear Parks/Connections 0.86 acres
Neppel Landing Linear Parks/Connections 8.57 acres
Subtotal: Linear Parks/Connections 9.43 acres
Water Trails (Access Sites) Count
Connelly Park Water Trails 1
Cascade Park Water Trails 1
Neppel Landing Water Trails 1
Marina Park Water Trails 1
McCosh Park Water Trails 1
Montlake Park Water Trails 1
Peninsula Park Water Trails 1
Blue Heron Park Water Trails 1
Subtotal: Water Trails 9
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 670 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 19
Recreation Facilities
The City of Moses Lake offers a variety of recreation, athletic facilities, outdoor recreation
amenities, and cultural facilities. These facilities/amenities add recreational opportunities and
experiences for the community. Major facilities provided include sports complexes, ball fields and
courts, a seasonal swimming/water play center, an outdoor skating rink, skate park, BMX track, and
a museum and art center, among many other facilities. See Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 16: City of Moses Lake Recreation Facilities
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2016; BERK, 2021.
Facility Amount
Amphitheater with Stage 1
Baseball Fields (Youth and Full Size) 6
Basketball Hoops/Courts/Game Pad 5
BMX Track 1
Boat Launch 4
Boat Docks/Moorage 9
Campground 1
Community Garden 66 plots
Disc Golf Course 2
Dog Park (Off-Leash) 1
Ice Rink 1
Japanese Garden 1
Recreation Center 1
Museum & Art Center 1
Playgrounds 17
Pickleball Court 1
RC Track 1
Sinkiuse Square 1
Skate Park 1
Soccer Fields (Full Size) 2
Soccer Fields (Modified) 11
Softball Fields 6
Surf ‘n’ Slide Water Park 1
Tennis Courts 3
Volleyball Courts 3
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 671 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 20
Level of Service Standards
The LOS standards shown below in Exhibit 17 are recommended in Moses Lake’s 2016 Park, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan.
Exhibit 17: Parks Level of Service
Type Recommended Planned LOS
(PLOS)
Existing Inventory/Acres 2038 Total City & UGA Need
(Pop. Estimate: 47,593)
Net Reserve or Deficit
Parkland
Mini-Parks 0.25 - 0.50 acres/1,000 pop. 7.89 acres 11.89 – 23.79 acres (4.01 – 15.91 acres)
Neighborhood Parks 1.0 - 2.0 acres/1,000 pop 39.77 acres 47.59 – 95.19 acres (7.82 – 55.42 acres)
Community Parks 5.0 - 8.0 acres/1,000 pop 141.70 acres 237.97 – 380.74 acres (96.27 – 239.04 acres)
Regional/Urban Parks 5.0 – 10.0 acres/1,000 pop 90.95 acres 237.97 – 475.93 acres (147.02 – 384.98 acres)
Special Use Areas 1.07 acres/1,000 pop 36.72 acres 50.92 acres (14.20 acres)
Natural Open Space 1.20 acres/1,000 pop 14.44 acres 57.11 acres (42.67 acres)
Total Parkland LOS 13.5 – 22.8 acres/1,000 pop 331.47 acres 642.51 – 1,085.12 acres (311.04 – 753.65 acres)
Trails
Paths and Trails 0.86 miles/1,000 pop. 62.98 miles 40.93 miles 22.05 miles
Facilities
Soccer Fields (Full Size) 1 field/ 4,000 pop. 2 11.90 fields (9.9 fields)
Soccer Fields (Modified) 1 field / 4,000 pop. 11 11.90 fields (0.9 fields)
Tennis Courts 1 court/ 2,000 pop. 3 23.80 courts (20.80 courts)
Playgrounds 1 set/ 2,000 pop. 17 23.80 sets (6.80 sets)
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2016; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 672 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 21
Project Summary
The following section details proposed parks capital projects for the 2022-2027 period as well as additional parks capital projects planned
beyond the six-year CFP time period.
It is important to note that over time, priorities can change, and new funding sources can become available or existing funding sources can be
eliminated or shifted. Also, opportunities for the ability to acquire land or the option to develop a project can arise and change the proposed
project list.
The key to funding the proposed project list is a combination of grants, general obligation bonds for large projects either approved by the voters
or authorized by City Council action and the use of general fund budget funds or special tourism excise tax. See Exhibit 18.
Exhibit 18: Proposed Parks Projects 2022-2027
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Acquisition
New Parkland Unknown Future GF
Park Development
Blue Heron Park-Phase I Campground (RU) $5,000,000.00 Future GF
Blue Heron Park-Phase II Campground (RU) $5,000,000.00 Future GF
Laguna (Westlake) Development (NP) Unknown Future GF
Longview Park Development (NP) $150,000.00 Future GF
Lower Peninsula Park Development (CP) $300,000.00 Future GF
Municipal Tracts Property Development (RP) Unknown Future GF
Vehrs Wetland Property Development(NOS) Unknown Future GF
City-wide Major Maintenance, Repairs and Site Improvements
Self-Help Funds $264,000.00 Future GF
Sun Terrace Park Property Development (NP) $150,000.00 Future GF
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 673 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 22
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Kvamme Soccer Complex Lights (CP) $300,000.00 Future GF
Greenhouse $50,000.00 Future GF
Restroom replacement Blue Heron Park (RU) $450,000.00 2023 GF
Covered Tennis Courts McCosh (CP) Unknown Future GF
Covered Sports Field Unknown Future GF
Upgrade Electrical at Cascade Campground (CP) $60,000.00 Future GF
ADA Access for Playground at Montlake (NP) $20,000.00 Future GF
Complete Interpretive Exhibits at Museum (SU) $150,000.00 2021-2022 Future GF
Press Boxes at Paul Lauzier (5) (CP) $200,000.00 ea Future GF
Playgrounds (large) - Lower Peninsula and Municipal Tracts $150,000.00 ea Future GF
Playgrounds (small) – Power Point $50,000.00 Future GF
Restrooms - Basin Holms, Carpenter, Crossroads, Dano, Longview, Municipal
Tracts, Neppel, Yonezawa $200.000.00 ea Future GF
Picnic shelters (large) - Paul Lauzier, Lower Peninsula $45,000.00 ea Future GF/Donation
Picnic shelters (small) - Carpenter, Civic Center, Dano, Knolls Vista, Lakeview,
Longview, Municipal Tracts, Yonezawa $15,000.00 ea Future GF/Donation
Basketball courts – Longview, Lower Peninsula, Yonezawa $10,000.00 ea Future GF
Beautification
Secure additional city entrance and way-finding sites as defined in the DDI Plan Unknown Future
Specialized Facilities
Marina, moorage, and rentals at Cascade Park Unknown Future GF
Skate park or skate spots Unknown Future GF/Grant
Basin Homes Park – Dog Agility Course $30,000.00 Future Grant
Trail Development
Develop Pioneer Meadows Trails Unknown Future Trails & Paths/Grant
Acquire land and complete Wanapum Trail Loop Unknown Future Trails & Paths/Grant
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 674 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 23
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Acquire land and complete Montlake Trail Unknown Future Trails & Paths/Grant
Install Bike Lanes on Wheeler Road $10,000.00 Future Trails & Paths/Grant
Install Bike Lanes on Randolph Road $10,000.00 Future Trails & Paths/Grant
Stratford Road Bridge crossing over Highway 17 Unknown Future Trails & Paths/Grant
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 675 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 24
Wastewater
Overview
The City’s Public Works Department provides wastewater services to the City of Moses Lake
including wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for areas within the City as well as the
UGA.
Inventory
The City’s wastewater system consists of two independent collection, treatment, and disposal
systems: the Sand Dunes System and the Larson System. The Sand Dunes System serves the entire
service area except for the Larson area which is essentially the old Air Base. Total wastewater
accounts served in 2015 were 7,936. Total lineal feet of pipe was 746,878 of gravity sewer main,
22,371of low-pressure effluent main,89,965 of force main, and 1,328 of siphon, for a total of almost
163 miles of municipal sewer pipe. The following are descriptions of the City’s major wastewater
facilities:
Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
The Sand Dunes WWTP is located at 1801 Road K SE. This is the main treatment plant for the city,
serving a population of more than 20,000. The site includes a 3,646 square foot testing lab, which
was expanded in 2008. There are two wastewater plant operators stationed in this building.
Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
The Larson WWTP is located at 6691 Randolph Road. This is a much smaller facility, serving a
population of 3,000. The 1,350 square foot lab building was constructed in 1972. There is one
wastewater plant operator located in this building.
Central Operations Facility
The City also operates a Central Operations Facility at 1303 Lakeside Drive. The site includes
wastewater pre-treatment facilities, an emergency overflow basin, and Operations Building #4.
This building is 5,432 square feet and provides office space for the Wastewater Division. This
building was updated and expanded in 2007.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 676 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 25
Level of Service Standards
The City’s 2015 Wastewater System Master Plan does not identify Level of Service Standards. The
Department of Ecology (DOE) recommends, “Treatment plants designed to serve existing sewerage
systems should be designed on the basis of characteristics of sewage obtained from the operating
records of the treatment works,” (Criteria for Sewage Works Design, DOE, G2-2, G2.1.2.3). The City
relies on DOE recommendations, as noted in the Criteria for Sewage Works Design Manual, for
planning purposes. The City’s Level of Service standard for wastewater is a system capacity that
allows collection of peak discharge plus infiltration and inflow.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 677 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 26
Project Summary
The City has identified wastewater capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth over the 2022-2027 six-year
period and beyond. See Exhibit 19 for more detail.
Exhibit 19: Wastewater Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+, 2020$
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Wheeler Lift Sta. Submersible Pumps & Modify Above Ground $250,000 $250,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Wheeler Lift Sta. Extend Force Main to 6th and Beach $250,000 $250,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Install new force main from Division L.S. to 6th and Beech $100,000 $100,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Carswell, Patton, Castle, Lift St. 1 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Finish 20th Parallel force main $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Replace 25,000 LF 20-inch AC force main $3,000,000 $3,000,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Sewer Main Replacement $14,000,000 $2,000,000 $12,000,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Bio Solids Management Dunes, Larson WWTP $300,000 - $300,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Sand Dunes Expansion $15,000,000 - $15,000,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Sand Dunes Connection $15,000,000 - $15,000,000 Utility Charges, Developer Fees,
Grants
Water Reuse Facility $30,000,000 - $30,000,000 Utility Charges, Developer Fees,
Grants
Cascade Valley Force & Gravity Main Extension $1,250,000 - $1,250,000 Utility Charges, Developer Fees,
Grants
Cascade Valley New Lift Station $500,000 - $500,000 Utility Charges, Developer Fees,
Grants
Sources: FCSG, 2021; City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 678 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 27
Water
Overview
The City’s Public Works Department maintains the City’s water system and provides service to
customers within the City’s service area, which includes city limits as well as areas of the
unincorporated UGA. Private water purveyors are located throughout the UGA, providing
residential service.
Inventory
The City’s water system is supplied by local wells. The water system consists of 20 wells and 12
water storage tanks, serving over 8,100 residential, commercial, and industrial accounts. See
Exhibit 20 for an inventory of the City’s water supply facilities and Exhibit 21 for an inventory of the
City’s water storage facilities.
Exhibit 20: City of Moses Lake Water Supply Facilities
Well Number Location Year Installed Design Flow GPM
3 Abandoned
4 2430 Texas ST. 1972 930
5 Abandoned
7 324 5th Ave. 1997 910
8 1600 Eastlake DR 1992 680
9 1000 Grape DR. 2001 1,230
10 1501 Peninsula DR. 2005 1,720
11 204 N. Clover DR. 2014 1,130
12 11953 Bonanza Rd. 1998 1,990
13 Abandoned
14 1026 N. Stratford 2015 630
17 2571 Road N. NE 2003 1,500
18 13007 NE Wheeler Rd 2004 2,000
19 872 Road 4 NE 2010 825
21 7725 Newell St NE 1993 690
23 8053 Chanute St. NE 2015 1,480
24 8626 Harris Rd. NE 1991 1,790
28 5273 Patton Blvd. NE 1992 1,640
29 9002 Tyndall Rd. NE 1955 700
31 500 Montana St. 2010 950
33 339 Knolls Vista 2010 1,000
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2016; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 679 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 28
Exhibit 21: City of Moses Lake Water Storage Facilities
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2016; BERK, 2021.
Level of Service Standards
Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan does not identify a LOS standard for water, however, it does
identify criteria to evaluate the sizing, supply facilities, storage volume, siting distribution system,
pressure zone boundaries and pump stations. These criteria comply with the Department of Health
and are considered adequate. The criteria are as follows:
▪ The City shall maintain adequate water supply by ensuring that the water system shall have one
well (with approximately the same capacity as the largest well in the pressure zone) in standby
reserve under maximum daily demand conditions for each pressure zone.
▪ The required usable storage volume for the City of Moses Lake water system shall equal the
sum of equalizing, operational, standby, and fire suppression storage components as defined in
Chapter 9 of the DOH’s Water System Design Manual.
▪ The distribution system shall be able to meet peak hour demands with a minimum pressure of
30 p.s.i. while also providing fire flows during the maximum daily demand with a minimum fire
flow pressure of 20 p.s.i.
The Water Division works to provide water to those in the service area, targeting capacity at or
above the maximum day demand (MDD). The 2015 Moses Lake Water System Plan projects future
water demand in order to identify needed system improvements, including supply, pumping,
storage, and piping. At the time of the plan, residential demand was 46% of total water use while
commercial/industrial demand was 54% of total water use. Per capita consumption for residential
use was 186 gallons per day while maximum daily demand was 500 gallons per capita per day. See
Exhibit 22 for projections from the Water System Plan around the City’s water demand.
Facility Location Hydraulic Zone Usable Storage (MG)
R-1 902 Juniper Drive Central 0.68
R-2 800 Clover Drive Montlake 0.55
R-3 3500 Airway Drive NE Knolls Vista 0.56
R-4 3201 Wapato Central 1.02
R-5 1701 Nelson Road Lakeview 1.15
R-6 3029 Road N. NE Wheeler 1.33
R-7 5746 Patton Blvd NE Larson 1.3
R-8 1806 Kittleson Road Lakeview 1.15
R-9 7725 Newell Street NE Larson 1.37
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 680 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 29
Exhibit 22: Projected Future Water Demand and Future Source Capacity
Year Average Daily
Demand Capacity Maximum Daily
Demand
Capacity
(Equipment Limit)
2012 8.52 MGD 25.1 MGD 11,944 GPM 21,795 GPM
2020 10.79 MGD 30.9 MGD 15,150 GPM 24,795 GPM
2034 16.33 MGD 36.6 MGD 22,926 GPM 29,975 GPM
Note: MGD = Million Gallons Per Day and GPM = Gallons Per Minute
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2015; BERK, 2021
As shown above, well capacity for the year 2034 is projected to be 29,975 gpm. As of 2021, of the
City has exceeded the projected 2034 maximum daily demand of 22,926 gpm. The City intends to
meet these increased needs by using water associated with the city’s water right claims, existing
water rights, acquiring existing water rights from other owners, and through applications that have
been submitted to the DOE for new water rights.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 681 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 30
Project Summary
City staff have determined that adequate capacity exists for an annual 3% service population increase in conjunction with scheduled
improvements. Exhibit 23 outlines a list of identified water capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth
through 2022-2027 and beyond:
Exhibit 23: Water Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+, 2020$
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Water Main Replacement $9,000,000 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Up Sizing Mains $9,000,000 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
New Source Central Zone (Well 34) $350,000 $350,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Rebuild Well 12 $500,000 $500,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Rebuild Well 29 $500,000 $500,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Rebuild Well 28 $500,000 $500,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Rebuild Well 21 $500,000 $500,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Rebuild Well 8 $500,000 $500,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Moses Pointe Tank $2,500,000 $2,500,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Meter replacement $1,190,400 $1,190,400 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Irrigation System - Larson $400,000 $400,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Well Field $1,500,000 $1,500,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
New Booster Stations $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - Utility Charges – Fund 477
Maintenance – Recoating Reservoirs $1,050,000 $900,000 $150,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Water Treatment Plant R/O Plant $25,000,000 - $25,000,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Cascade Valley Water Main Extension $1,250,000 - $1,250,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Cascade Valley New Well and Wellhouse $1,000,000 - $1,000,000 Utility Charges – Fund 477
Sources: FCSG, 2021; City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 682 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 31
Stormwater
Overview
The City of Moses Lake operates a stormwater utility under a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. The conditions of the permit
direct the City to implement measures for the reduction of pollutant discharge; meet state
standards for prevention, control, and treatment of stormwater runoff discharges; and protect
water quality.
Inventory
The City’s stormwater system includes 22 infiltration basins, 54 stormwater outfalls, and 31.39
miles of collection and conveyance piping. The City has ongoing plans to reduce or eliminate
outfalls that discharge to Moses Lake. Inventories of infiltration basins and outfalls are presented in
Exhibit 24 and Exhibit 25.
Exhibit 24: Stormwater Infiltration Basins
Facility ID Location Type
R003 Wren St. Storm Drainage Pond
R004 Towhee St. Storm Drainage Swale
R005 710 East Broadway Avenue Bio-Infiltration Swale
R046 Rd. N Retention Pond
R058 Sun Terrace No. 6 Storm Drain Pond
R059 3530 West Sage Road Bio-Infiltration Swale
R060 W Peninsula Dr. at S Interlake Rd. Natural Drainage Area
R061 Towhee St. at Fairway Dr. NE Infiltration Pond
R062 W Peninsula Dr. at S Wanapum Dr. (NW) Natural Drainage Area
R063 Broadway at I-90 On-ramp WB Natural Drainage Area
R064 S Wanapum Dr. between Lakeshore Ct and Broadway Natural Drainage Area
R065 South of S Wanapum Dr. at Lakeshore Ct. Natural Drainage Area
R066 W Peninsula Dr. at S Wanapum Dr. (SE) Natural Drainage Area
R067 1200 Rd F.2 NE Evaporation Pond
R068 101 Rd F NE Evaporation Pond
R069 Broadway at I-90 On-ramp EB Natural Drainage Area
R070 Shrike St. at Fox St. Infiltration Pond
R071 Division St. at Yonezawa Blvd. Natural Drainage Area
R072 Central Dr. at Daniel St. Natural Drainage Area
R073 Clover Dr. at Pioneer Way Swale
R074 2903 W Lakeside Dr. Infiltration Swale
R079 500 N Stratford Rd. Infiltration Basin
Source: City of Moses Lake Public Works, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 683 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 32
Exhibit 25: Stormwater Outfalls
Outfall ID Location Type
O-001 800 Camas Pl. 12" PVC
O-002 905 Sand Dunes Rd. 12" PVC
O-003 701 Lupine Dr. 12" PVC
O-004 600 S Lupine Dr 12" PVC
O-005 407 Sand Dunes Rd. 12" PVC
O-006 3801 Sage Rd. 12" PVC
O-007 500 S Sandalwood Pl. 12" reinforced concrete
O-008 550 S Sandalwood Pl. 12" reinforced concrete
O-009 811 S Laguna Dr. 8" PVC
O-010 1008 Laguna Dr. 8" PVC
O-011 1036 Laguna Dr. 10" PVC
O-012 1029 Laguna Dr. 10" PVC
O-013 1064 S Laguna Dr. 12" PVC
O-014 1053 Laguna Dr. 12" PVC
O-015 4094 Cove West Dr. 12" PVC
O-016 4204 Lakeshore Dr. 10" PVC
O-018 718 Gaylord Pl. 10" concrete
O-019 728 Tamarack Ln. 10" concrete
O-020 831 Winona St. 10" concrete
O-021 2413 Lakeside Dr. 10" corrugated metal
O-022 2313 Lakeside Dr. 8" PVC
O-023 2203 Lakeside Dr. 12" reinforced concrete
O-024 1303 Lakeside Dr. 12" reinforced concrete
O-025 825 Mackin Ln. 12" reinforced concrete
O-026 820 Sycamore Ln. 12" reinforced concrete
O-027 805 Pennivy St. 30" concrete
O-028 2900 Marina Dr. 8" overflow
O-029 1300 Marina Dr. 36" concrete
O-030 Ash St. 24" concrete
O-031 Alder St. 8" overflow
O-032 999 Dogwood St. 8" PVC
O-034 700 Division St. 54" concrete
O-035 802 Division St. 12" reinforced concrete
O-036 Division St. 10" corrugated metal
O-037 956 Division St. 36" concrete
O-038 1202 Eastlake Dr. 10" concrete
O-039 1322 Lakeway Dr. 10" concrete
O-040 1632 Beaumont Dr. 36" ductile cast iron
O-041 Linden Ave. 8" PVC
O-042 311 Northshore Dr. 8" concrete
O-043 697 Edgewater Ln. 24" concrete
O-044 1027 Edgewater Ln. 10" PVC
O-045 Stratford Rd. 10" corrugated metal
O-046 Stratford Rd. 10" ductile cast iron
O-047 Stratford Rd. 10" ductile cast iron
O-048 Stratford Rd. 10" ductile cast iron
O-050 619 Stratford Rd. 12" ductile cast iron
O-051 510 N Fig St. 27" concrete
O-052 802 S Division St. 10" PVC
O-054 1438 Marina Dr. 10" overflow
Source: City of Moses Lake Public Works, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 684 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 33
Level of Service Standards
The City has not adopted a formal LOS standard for stormwater facilities. Planning for the
stormwater utility is currently guided by the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), which
was adopted in 2007 pursuant to the conditions of the NPDES Phase II permit. The SWMP includes
action plans and implementation measures for the following topic areas:
▪ Public Education and Outreach;
▪ Public Involvement and Participation;
▪ Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination;
▪ Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control;
▪ Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment; and
▪ Pollution Prevention and Operation and Maintenance for Municipal Operations.
The SWMP is regularly updated, and the City files annual progress reports with the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Project Summary
As described above, the City has not adopted a formal LOS or system plan for stormwater facilities.
City staff has developed the conceptual capital project list based on known maintenance and repair
needs and long-term water quality initiatives, including the City’s outfall elimination and retrofit
program. This project summary will be updated as more detailed capital planning occurs.
Exhibit 26. Stormwater Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Primary Priority Asset Repairs $51,000 $51,000 - GF
Secondary and Tertiary Priority Asset Repairs $68,000 $68,000 - GF
Downtown Stormwater Retrofit $4,000,000 $4,000,000 GF/Grants
West Broadway Stormwater Retrofit $1,500,000 $1,500,000 GF/Grants
Grape Drive Stormwater Retrofit $300,000 $300,000 GF/Grants
Lark Avenue Stormwater Retrofit $60,000 $60,000 GF/Grants
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 685 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 34
Municipal Facilities
Overview
The City of Moses Lake owns and manages several buildings to help provide services. Below are
properties and facilities owned by the City, which may require new capital spending on increasing
capacity, operations, maintenance, or other needed investments.
Inventory
The table below identifies the City’s civic structures and property, which include the Civic Center,
Civic Center Annex, and Public Works and Parks Operations Complex.
Exhibit 27: City Owned Civic Buildings
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2015; BERK, 2021
Below, the following outlines the City’s Civic Center, Civic Center Annex, and Public Works and
Parks Operations Complex. Descriptions of the Sand Dunes and Larson Wastewater Treatment
Plants, the Fire Stations, and the Police Building can be found in Wastewater, Fire, and Police
sections, respectively.
Civic Center
The City’s Civic Center was completed in 2012. It is a two-story building with a basement. The first
floor contains the Museum & Art Center (MAC), auditorium, City Council Chambers, and the Finance
Department’s utility billing division. The second floor includes offices for the remainder of the
Finance Department and Administration staff, including the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Human Resources. City staff that are located in this building also include janitors and some Parks
and Recreation staff to operate the MAC. This building was constructed with extra offices for future
growth.
Civic Center Annex
The existing 16,000-square-foot City Hall was renamed Civic Center Annex after the Civic Center
was opened. City staff located in this building are the Community Development Department and
Facility Name Location Square Footage
Civic Center 401 South Balsam 41,000
Civic Center Annex 401 South Balsam 16,000
Public Works and Parks Operations Complex 11789 Road NE 36,760
Central Operations Facility (COF) 1303 Lakeside Drive 5,432
Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant 1801 Road K SE 3,646
Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant 6691 Randolph Road 1,350
Fire Station #1 701 E. Third Avenue 17,920
Fire Station #2 2401 West Broadway 5,416
Police/Parks Building 411 South Balsam St. 15,840
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 686 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 35
City Engineering. The Administration and Finance Departments moved out of this building to the
new Civic Center. With the additional community development/engineering staff needed to
support city efforts, the annex has been space-constrained, and the building should be upgraded to
add space. Estimated at $5,000,000 in the 2022-2027 time frame.
Public Works and Parks Operations Complex
The Operations Complex, located at 11789 Road4 NE, was completed in 2007 and consists of three
buildings. Building #1 is 22,120 square feet and houses Public Works administrative staff and the
Water Division. Building #2 is 9,109 square feet and houses the Streets, Building Maintenance, and
Equipment Rental Divisions. Building #3 is 5,531square feet and houses the Parks and Recreation
Maintenance Division. The high bidding climate at the time of construction prevented constructing
additional offices and accessory buildings. As a result, these additions will need to be constructed in
the future.
Level of Service Standards
There is no established Level of Service standard for municipal facilities. Some standards for public
facilities are measured in total square footage per 1,000 people. LOS standards for public facilities
can help ensure that the City has the necessary capital facilities for the operations of providing
services. However, it is not typically determined necessary for growth in the same manner as
water, sewer, schools, parks, etc.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 687 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 36
Project Summary
The City has identified municipal facilities capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth over the 2022-2027
six-year period and beyond. See Exhibit 28.
Exhibit 28: Municipal Facilities Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Upgrade to Civic Center Annex $5,000,000 $5,000,000 - GF
Transformational Center $10,000,000 $10,000,000 - GF/Homeless Housing funds/grants
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 688 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 37
Refuse
Overview
The City contracts with Lakeside Disposal Inc. to provide solid waste disposal and curbside
recycling and composting services to residents within city limits. Solid waste from residents and
business within the unincorporated urban growth area is collected by Consolidated Disposal
Service, Inc. (CDSI) or is handled individually by residents. CDSI also has a contract with the City
and provides service to areas for ten years from their annexation date.
Inventory
All waste is transported to the Ephrata Landfill – a 120-acre site and 147-acre adjacent property
owned and operated by Grant County – either directly or from a transfer station. Residents can
recycle paper, plastic, aluminum, and food cans in one cart, and yard waste and vegetative food
waste in the yard waste cart. Recycling is sorted and baled by Lakeside Disposal and transported to
a materials recovery facility (MRF) where it is prepared for marketing to end-user manufacturers.
Yard waste will be composted, and plans are being developed for a composting facility; cost
estimates have not yet been developed.
Grant County’s landfill design consultant estimates the planned landfill expansion will have a total
waste disposal capacity of approximately 2.6 million tons and will last until between 2033 and
2046, depending on waste disposal rate per capita and population growth.
Level of Service Standards
Moses Lake’s Comprehensive Plan does not identify a LOS standard for solid waste. Within the
Grant County Comprehensive Plan, a LOS was identified for solid waste facilities which examines
the availability of the system components including the number of disposal sites, recycling facilities,
and drop box collection facilities. The County’s Comprehensive Plan adopts an A through C level of
service standard for the quality of service provided by the waste management systems. Grant
County adopts LOS B as the minimum standard for solid waste management system components
and is responsible for maintaining this standard.
Project Summary
The outstanding facility need for solid waste management is a composting facility to process yard
waste. This process is under study, but specific facility plans or cost estimates are not yet available.
Streets
See the 2021 Transportation Element Update for a comprehensive system inventory and discussion
of the City’s transportation level of service. For the 2022-2027 six-year period, the City has
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 689 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 38
identified around $22.3 million in transportation capital projects that will be needed to meet the
demands of growth. For more detail around the City’s future transportation projects, see the City’s
latest six-year transportation improvement program (TIP) and the City’s 2021 Transportation
Element Update.
Airport
Overview
The Moses Lake Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Moses Lake. The airport
property was deeded to the City in 1947 by Northern Pacific Railroad. Between 1994-2019,
operations at the Municipal Airport were overseen by the Airport Commission. Since 2019, City
Council changed the structure of the Airport Commission to an Airport Advisory Board and
assigned the management of the airport to the City’s Municipal Services Director.
Inventory
The airport is 54.5 acres and serves general aviation aircraft and commercial crop spraying
operations. All aircraft using this airport have an aircraft approach speed of less than 121 knots, a
wingspan less than 49', and weigh less than 12,500 pounds.
The airport has two runways which, in total, have the dimensions of 2,500’ by 50’.
Level of Service Standards
Under GMA, an airport is not considered a facility necessary to support growth (i.e. permanent
population allocation), and a level of service is not established in the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the airport provides a necessary service to the community and supports tourism and
economic development and is considered an essential public facility.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 690 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 39
Project Summary
The City has identified airport capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth over the 2022-2027 six-year
period and beyond. See Exhibit 29.
Exhibit 29: Airport Capital Project List, 2022-2027 and 2027+
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Underground sprinkler system to Greenbelt 30 x 1500 (Parks) $15,000 $15,000 - Airport Rental Fees
Painting exterior on Parcels 14, 15 $10,000 $10,000 - Airport Rental Fees
Additional Lighting on airport buildings $5,000 $5,000 - Airport Rental Fees
Replace Operations Building $150,000 - $150,000 Airport Rental Fees
Install asphalt grindings on Municipal Hangar Road When Available When Available - Airport Rental Fees
Fencing, both sides to limit access only from Road $ NE $200,000 - $200,000 Airport Rental Fees
Snowplow runway (4 events for 8 hours/year) $4,000 $3,200 $800 Airport Rental Fees
Crack Seal (every 3-years) $8,000 $8,000 - Airport Rental Fees
Binding site plan improvements, HMA curb (7,000 LF) $1,000,000 - $1,000,000 Airport Rental Fees
PAPI lights $30,000 $30,000 - Airport Rental Fees
Courtesy car with Special Insurance $12,000 $8,000 $4,000 Airport Rental Fees
New tractor (used) $10,000 $10,000 - Airport Rental Fees
Annual janitorial service by Building Maintenance (135 hours/year) $17,500 $14,000 $3,500 Airport Rental Fees
Lean-to on side of Building 15 $25,000 $25,000 - Airport Rental Fees
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 691 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 40
Law Enforcement
Overview
The Moses Lake Police Department (MLPD) provides all law enforcement services for the City of
Moses Lake within city limits. Law enforcement within the UGA is currently provided by the Grant
County Sheriff’s Office. As of 2020, the department had 46 personnel, of which 38 were
commissioned officers. The department responds to about 18,000 calls for service annually.
Inventory
MLPD operates a police station at 411 S Balsam Street next to the City Hall. The building was
completed in 1978 and houses the City’s entire police staff as well as Parks and Recreation
administrative staff. In 2022, Parks and Recreation staff will transition to the Larson Recreation
Center that is under construction. The Parks and Recreation space will be repurposed for police
staffing needs. A study is underway for that purpose.
Level of Service Standards
LOS for police protection is expressed in terms of response times and staffing level as shown in
Exhibit 30. The main factors affecting LOS are the population served and the number of calls for
service. Future needs for police services are based on the LOS standard of 1.7 commissioned
officers per 1,000 population established in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The 2020 LOS staffing ratio is 1.57 commissioned officers per 1,000 population; the comprehensive
plan establishes a response time LOS standard of 5 minutes for high priority calls.
Exhibit 30: Police Services Level of Service
LOS Type LOS Standard Existing LOS
Staffing Level 1.7 Officers per 1,000 Pop. 1.57 Officers per 1,000 Pop.
Response Time 5 Minute Average, High Priority Calls 1-5 Minute Response Time
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Looking into the future, population growth will lead to increased demand for police services. Using
the LOS of 1.7 officers per 1,000 population, MLPD will need to add 23 officers by 2038 over current
staffing levels. See Exhibit 31.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 692 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 41
Exhibit 31: Future Police Services Need – LOS Analysis
Time Period Moses Lake
Population
Officers to Meet
Target LOS Standard
Current Officers
Available
Net Reserve or
Deficit
LOS Standard = 1.7 Officers per 1,000 Population
2020 24,807 42 38 (4)
2025 27,812 47 38 (9)
2030 30,818 52 38 (14)
2035 33,823 57 38 (19)
2038 35,626 61 38 (23)
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
The addition of new officers may require the addition of new or expanded capital facilities as well
as equipment to maintain expected level of service standards. The City’s current police station has
been expanded since its original construction in 1978 to serve a population of around 10,000.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 693 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 42
Project Summary
The City has identified police capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth over the 2022-2027 six-year
period and beyond. Exhibit 32 below details the police capital needs over the planning period.
Exhibit 32: Police Facility Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Police Station Renovation $3,000,000 $3,000,000 - GF
Police Sub-Station #1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 - GF
Police Sub-Station #2 $2,000,000 - $2,000,000 GF
Police Sub-Station #3 $2,000,000 - $2,000,000 GF
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 694 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 43
Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical
Services
Overview
The Moses Lake Fire Department (MLFD) provides fire protection, fire prevention, fire
investigation, rescue, and life support transport ambulance services to the City of Moses Lake.
Inventory
MLFD operates two fire stations: Fire Station No. 1, located at 701 East Third Avenue, and Fire
Station No. 2, located at 2401 West Broadway. Descriptions of the two fire stations are below.
Fire Station No. 1
Fire Station No. 1 serves as the headquarters for the MLFD and houses the administration offices,
prevention division, and the majority of the emergency response equipment. This station was built
in 1996 and is 17,920 square feet. Daytime staff (Monday-Friday, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm) includes the
Fire Chief, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal, Assistant Chief/EMS, the Fire Inspector, the
Administrative Coordinator, and the Fire Clerk. The station operates three daily shifts to provide
24-hour coverage. Shift staffing routinely includes one Captain and 2-3 firefighters, plus 2-3
firefighters dedicated to emergency medical response. Daily minimum staffing is seven: a Captain
or person acting in that capacity, and six Firefighters.
Fire Station No. 2
Fire Station No. 2 was completed in 1995 and is 5,416 square feet. The station is staffed by three
on-duty personnel: one Lieutenant and two Firefighters, cross-staffed for fire suppression and
medical response. This is a satellite station to serve the peninsula and Mae Valley areas.
See Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 34 for an inventory of the MLFD’s facilities and equipment, respectively.
Exhibit 33: Current Facilities Inventory – Moses Lake Fire Department
Facility Location Equipment
Station No. 1 701 E. Third
Avenue
3 Engines, 2 ladder trucks, 2 tenders, 2 utility, 3 medic units, 3 command units,
MSO, brush, squad, rescue, boat, special response trailer, oil spill response
trailer, and investigations trailer
Station No. 2 2401 W. Broadway Engine, medic unit, brush, tender, utility, and boat
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 695 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 44
Exhibit 34: Current Equipment – Moses Lake Fire Department
Equipment Year of Manufacture
Medic 1 2020
Command 1 2020
Command 2 2020
Utility 2 2020
Rescue 1 2020
Medic 2 2018
Sprint 1 2018
Command 3 2017
Medic 3 2014
Utility 3 2014
Engine 3 2014
Medic 4 2012
Medic 5 (Reserve) 2011
Utility 1 2005
Technical Rescue Trailer 2005
Engine 4 2002
Rescue 2 2001
Brush 1 2001
Tender 1 2001
Tender 2 1999
Brush 2 1997
Boat 2 1995
Hazmat Trailer 1994
Light & Air 1 1994
Ladder 2 (75’ Quint) 1993
Boat 1 1993
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
As of 2020, MLFD has 39.5 full-time personnel and has three primary divisions: fire suppression,
emergency medical services, and fire prevention.
Level of Service Standards
LOS for fire protection is measured in terms of response times and staffing levels. The City’s
adopted LOS response time standards for turnout time and various incident types are listed in
Exhibit 35. The current average citywide response time is 4 minutes, 45 seconds.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 696 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 45
Exhibit 35: Moses Lake Fire Department Adopted Response Time LOS Standards
Response Type LOS Standard
Turnout Time ▪ 75 seconds 90% of the time
Fire Suppression Incident
First Arriving Engine ▪ 5 minutes 90% of the time within the city for the first fire engine and 4
personnel
Deployment of a Full First Alarm
Assignment ▪ 10 minutes 90% of the time within the city – full alarm assignment includes 2
additional engines, 1 ladder truck, 1 medic unit, and 1 additional
command/safety officer for a total compliment of 13-15 personnel on scene
Emergency Medical Incident
Arrival of First Medical Response
Aid Vehicle ▪ 5 minutes 90% of the time with a minimum of 2 EMT-B qualified personnel
when responding within their first due area
Arrival of Advanced Life Support
Transport Unit ▪ 7 minutes with a minimum of 1 EMT-B and 1 EMT-P qualified personnel
Other
Arrival of Hazardous Materials
Trained and Equipped Technicians ▪ 5 minutes 90% of the time within the city for 4 personnel trained to the
Hazardous Materials Awareness or Operations Level*
* Currently no capability to provide Hazardous Materials Technicians.
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021.
Staffing levels of the department should be maintained at an adequate level to maintain the five-
minute average response time standard. Other criteria that can affect service levels are fire flow
requirements and the transportation system.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 697 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 46
Project Summary
The City has identified fire and EMS capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth over the 2022-2027 six-
year period and beyond. Exhibit 36 below details the fire and EMS facility needs over the planning period while Exhibit 37 details fire and EMS
major equipment needs over the same period.
Exhibit 36. Fire and EMS Facility Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Fire Station #3 $3,800,000 $3,800,000 - GF
Fire Station #4 $4,500,000 - $4,500,000 GF
Fire Station #5 $5,200,000 - $5,200,000 GF
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Exhibit 37. Fire and EMS Equipment Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Brush 3 $400,000 $400,000 GF
Battalion Chief Vehicle $80,000 $80,000 GF
Utility 1 $75,000 $75,000 GF
Medic 5 (Reserve) $275,000 $275,000 GF
Hazmat Trailer $35,000 $35,000 GF
Medic 2 $280,000 $280,000 GF
Medic 3 $280,000 $280,000 GF
Light & Air 1 $200,000 $200,000 GF
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 698 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 47
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Engine 4 $900,000 $900,000 GF
Medic 1 $300,000 $300,000 GF
Command 3 $90,000 $90,000 GF
Brush 2 $450,000 $450,000 GF
Ladder 2 (75’ Quint) $1,300,000 $1,300,000 GF
Tender 3 $525,000 $525,000 GF
Sprint 1 $90,000 - $90,000 GF
Medic 4 $305,000 - $305,000 GF
Rescue 2 $175,000 - $175,000 GF
Utility 3 $45,000 - $45,000 GF
Tender 2 $550,000 - $550,000 GF
Command 1 $100,000 - $100,000 GF
Command 2 $100,000 - $100,000 GF
Brush 1 $500,000 - $500,000 GF
Tender 1 $600,000 - $600,000 GF
Boat 1 $100,000 - $100,000 GF
Engine 3 $1,000,000 - $1,000,000 GF
Utility 2 $105,000 - $105,000 GF
Technical Rescue Trailer $40,000 - $40,000 GF
Boat 2 $50,000 - $50,000 GF
Engine 1 $1,400,000 - $1,400,000 GF
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 699 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 48
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Engine 2 (Under Construction) $1,500,000 - $1,500,000 GF
Rescue 1 $275,000 - $275,000 GF
Ladder 1(104’ Platform) $1,800,000 - $1,800,000 GF
Engine 5 (will be needed when Station 4 is built) $925,000 - $925,000 GF
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 700 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 49
Schools
Overview
The Moses Lake School District serves children from the City of Moses Lake and unincorporated
Grant County. The District currently serves around 8,700 students.
Inventory
Moses Lake School District currently has ten elementary schools, three middle schools, a technical
skill center and a comprehensive high school. Except for Larson Heights Elementary, North
Elementary, and Endeavor Middle School, all Moses Lake Schools are within the city limits. See
Exhibit 38 for an inventory of Moses Lake School District schools and Exhibit 39 for an inventory of
Moses Lake School District special purposes facilities.
Exhibit 38: Moses Lake School District – School Buildings
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
School Name Square Feet Classrooms Portable Classrooms
Elementary Schools
Peninsula 40,333 21 4
Knolls Vista 33,195 16 4
Lakeview Terrace 32,103 16 4
Midway 32,103 16 16
Larson Heights 34,402 16 4
Garden Heights 33,407 18 4
Longview 41,243 21 4
North 34,494 16 4
Sage Point 46,851 22 0
Park Orchard 46,851 22 0
Middle Schools
Frontier 91,875 34 0
Chief Moses 106,523 38 10
Endeavor 31,173 12 0
High Schools
Moses Lake High School 226,000 61 10
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 701 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 50
Exhibit 39: Moses Lake School District – Special Purpose Facilities
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Level of Service Standards
The district bases its space needs on the state formula for school facilities. That includes space
allotments of:
▪ 90 square feet per elementary student
▪ 117 square feet per middle school student
▪ 130 square feet per high school student
Additional square foot allotments are granted for vocational and special education students.
Project Summary
The Moses Lake School District conducts its own capital facilities planning process to identify
projects needed to serve its students. The District’s latest capital facilities plan is not currently
available to the City; the City will continue to coordinate with the District on future capital planning
efforts.
School Name Gymnasiums Auditoriums Cafeterias Libraries
Elementary Schools
Peninsula 1 0 1 1
Knolls Vista 1 0 1 1
Lakeview Terrace 1 0 0 1
Midway 1 0 1 1
Larson Heights 1 0 0 1
Garden Heights 1 0 0 1
Longview 1 0 0 1
North 1 0 1 1
Sage Point 1 0 1 1
Park Orchard 1 0 1 1
Middle Schools
Frontier 1 0 1 1
Chief Moses 2 0 1 1
Endeavor 1 0 0 1
High Schools
Moses Lake High School 4 1 1 1
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 702 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 51
Library
Overview
The Moses Lake Public Library, located at 5th and Pioneer Way, has been operating since 1956.
In1962, the Library became a branch of the North Central Washington Library System (NCW
Libraries). Currently the Library houses almost 70,000 volumes but as an affiliate branch of the
NCW Libraries system, it has access to over 775,000 volumes which are continuously rotated
throughout the system at the request of the users.
Inventory
The City of Moses Lake owns the facility and the grounds which the library is located on. The City
pays all costs related to the facility, including the monthly utilities and some maintenance costs.
NCW Libraries owns the materials and pays for staffing and maintenance expenses.
Level of Service Standards
Currently there are no adopted LOS standards for the Moses Lake Public Library. Without
established LOS standards, it is not possible to present a quantitative analysis of system
deficiencies. However, the mission statement of the Library can serve as the guide to providing
library service. The mission statement is as follows:
Provide library and information services to meet the diverse educational, vocational, and
recreational needs of its current and potential users.
In fulfilling its mission, the Library will:
▪ Provide and maintain organized collections of books and related Library materials.
▪ Promote and make Library services conveniently available.
▪ Serve as a source for reliable information within and beyond the Library’s service area.
▪ Encourage self-education and life-long learning.
▪ Support and defend the Library user’s freedom to read.
▪ Cooperate with other organizations, agencies, and institutions with similar goals.
▪ Maintain a strong and financially secure library system.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 703 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 52
Project Summary
The City has identified library capital improvement projects that will be needed to meet the demands of growth over the 2022-2027 six-year
period and beyond. Exhibit 40 below details the library capital needs over the planning period.
Exhibit 40: Library Facility Needs, 2022-2027 and 2027+
Project Name Total 2022-2027 2027+ Fund Source
Facilities Assessment $500,000 $500,000 - GF
Partnership Opportunity $3,000,000 - $3,000,000 TBD
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 704 of 883
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 53
Capital Project Summary
Exhibit 41 shows consolidated 6-year and 20-year planned capital costs by facility/service
category. As shown in the preceding sections, cost estimates are not available for all anticipated
projects, particularly projects planned for the 2028-2038 period. As a result, estimated capital costs
shown for this period may not represent the full costs of future projects, and additional capital
planning efforts will be necessary over the coming years.
Exhibit 41: Total Estimated Capital Project Costs by Category, 2020$
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Capital Project Category Costs
2022-2027
Costs
2027+
Costs
2022-2038
Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services $600,000 $14,534,000 $15,134,000
Wastewater $7,850,000 $74,050,000 $81,900,000
Water $16,340,400 $39,400,000 $55,740,400
Stormwater $119,000 $5,860,000 $5,979,000
Municipal Facilities $15,000,000 - $15,000,000
Transportation $22,344,000 $60,000,000 $82,344,000
Airport $128,200 $1,358,300 $1,486,500
Law Enforcement $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $9,000,000
Fire and Emergency Medical $8,990,000 $19,360,000 $28,395,000
Schools Not Available Not Available Not Available
Library $500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000
Total Planned Capital Costs $76,871,600 $221,562,300 $298,433,900
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 705 of 883
To: Michelene Torrey
Submission for Public Comment on Comprehensive Plan
I want to commend the Moses Lake Planning Commission and City staff for dedicating their time
and effort to the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. I was appointed to the Planning and
Zoning Commission in a rural agricultural town of 7,000 about 10 years ago. I spent 2 years
volunteering to update our town’s comprehensive plan and zoning code, which at the time was
over 40 years overdue. It is a lot of work and, often, a thankless job. I respect that the Planning
Commission and the City staff have spent a great deal of time and effort to consider the best
future for Moses Lake.
I want to express my support for the consideration of the updated Urban Growth Area (UGA)
that is proposed in the new Comprehensive Plan. The removal of outlier areas to normalize the
boundary, and a focus on greater housing density and affordable housing in the adjusted UGA,
will help us to ensure that, as we grow, our downtown business owners benefit from increased
residential density near their shops, restaurants and firms.
Allowing Moses Lake farmland and other areas at the edge of our town to be developed, without
first investing in the opportunities here in town, will hurt taxpayers in our wallets. Studies show
time and again how the cost of building and maintaining roads, water, sewer, schools and other
infrastructure in sprawling communities is more over the long term than the revenue generated
by the new homes at the edge. Major development at our edges will strain our emergency
services and infrastructure. We’ll face the challenges of every other town that has allowed
sprawling development - at the expense of our downtown businesses, taxpayers and
agricultural community.
Developers that have invested in or plan to invest in land at the edge of town will make
compelling cases to expand the boundary, because they have the resources to do so, and the
desire to protect their investments. I hope you will consider the cost to the taxpayer, our
downtown business community and our agricultural community as you weigh this very important
decision.
Respectfully,
Kristin Marcell
Moses Lake Resident
1820 Monte Vista Lane
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 706 of 883
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL October 12, 2021
STUDY SESSION
Comprehensive Plan/Housing Action Plan
Kevin Gifford with Berk Consultants provided a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the public engagement process, organization, and vision for the Comprehensive and Housing Action Plans. He explained key updates to the land use element for types of commercial and residential
buildings, as well as all Comp Plan elements. He reviewed the proposed revisions to the Urban Growth Area that will provide adequate infrastructure to planned growth. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Curnel with audio remote access. Special notice for attendance and citizen comment were posted on the meeting agenda. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Curnel; Deputy Mayor Jackson; Council Members Eck, Riggs, and Hankins.
Council Members Myers and Liebrecht attended the meeting remotely. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Eck led the Flag Salute. AGENDA APPROVAL
Action taken: Council Member Riggs moved to approve the Agenda as presented, second by Deputy Mayor Jackson. The motion carried 7 – 0.
PRESENTATIONS
Moses Lake Community Coalition Bernadette Crawford, Certified Community Coalition Specialist gave a progress report on their programs from January to September 2021 and requested increased funding for 2022 to include a new program each month at the High School.
Parks Comp Plan Survey Results Jeff Milkes, Project Consultant for Green Play, LLC explained the purpose, public process, and results of the Parks Comprehensive Plan Survey for the Parks Master Plan Update.
SUMMARY REPORTS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
New Over the Phone Interpreter Services
The City now has an over-the-phone, real time, translation service available for staff to
use as needed for multiple languages.
Airport Lease Update Memo Municipal Services Director Dave Bren reviewed the memo included in the packet regarding the cost and work that it will take to update the airport lease.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 707 of 883
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – October 12, 2021
pg. 2
Complete Streets Program Survey Memo Complete Streets Grants are due in October and November. Staff has hired Brooklyn Holton from Firm Foundations to create a bilingual survey for the community in effort to
update the Complete Streets Policy and write a successful grant application for the City.
A public hearing has been advertised for the October 26 Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING
Northland Cable (Vyve) Franchise Extension Ordinance 2990
This ordinance grants Northland Cable Television, Inc. a cable television franchise extension. Mayor Curnel opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. There was no public comment, and the hearing was closed. Action taken: Deputy Mayor Jackson moved to adopt Ordinance 2990 as presented, second by
Council Member Eck. The motion carried 7 – 0.
CITIZEN’S COMMUNICATION
LTAC Funding Columbia Basin Allied Arts Representative Shawn Cardwell expressed her concern on the
recommended funding allocations from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. CONSENT AGENDA #2 a. City Council meeting minutes dated May 25, 2021 b. Claim Checks 153528 – 153722 in the amount of $1,638,611.52; Payroll Checks
64104* through 64111 in the amount of $5,186.11; and Electronic Payments
dated October 1, 2021, in the amount of $488,158.70. *Check 64103 was voided in the payroll system. c. Accept Poth Major Plate Phase 1 Resolution 3868 d. Authorize Well 31 Decommissioning Change Order
e. Authorize Network Server Purchases
Mayor Curnel pulled item (d) to seek clarification on which well was being decommissioned. Item (d) was placed back on the Consent Agenda for the vote.
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Jackson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, second by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 7 – 0. OLD BUSINESS
#3 Utility Delinquent Account Payment Plan Resolution 3869 This resolution authorizes the continuation of the suspension of utility shut offs and waiving of delinquent fees and assessments through October 31, 2021. Monthly shut offs and delinquent fee assessments will resume in November.
Action taken: Council Member Hankins moved to adopt Resolution 3869 as an extension only
and requests staff provide a report regarding imminent shut offs at the October 26 meeting, second by Council Member Myers. The motion carried 7 – 0.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 708 of 883
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – October 12, 2021
pg. 3
#4 Airport Fuel Storage Bid Rejection Five bids were received on September 22, 2021, with the apparent low bid from Ultra Tank Services, Inc. from Bellingham, and was approximately $68,000 over the
Engineer’s estimate. Staff is recommending the rejection of the bid for the Municipal
Airport Fuel Storage Project and moving forward with a new package for solicitation of project bids. This recommendation is based on the recommendation of the Airport Board. Action taken: Council Member Hankins moved to reject any and all bids as presented, second by
Council Member Myers. The motion carried 7 – 0. #5 Accept Hayden Homes Sagecrest Project By accepting the Hayden Homes Sagecrest Project, staff is recommending the reimbursement of $928,093.77 subject to any final inspection per the Developer
Agreement and subject to the February 23, 2021, Council Meeting action.
Action taken: Council Member Myers moved to accept Hayden Homes Sagecrest Project as presented, second by Deputy Mayor Jackson. The motion carried 7 – 0. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Advisory Boards
There are two known vacancies that will need to be filled. One for the Planning Commission and one generator of the Hotel/Motel Tax for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. All persons with terms expiring at the end of the year will be notified and requested to submit a letter for reappointment if they desire to continue to serve.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Council Member Liebrecht thanked City staff for the plant sent after her surgery.
Mayor Curnel let staff know that the lights are out at the Lower Columbia and the Montlake boat launches. Additionally, he requested the radar units for speeding cars on
Lakeshore and Peninsula Dr. to try and slow traffic down. City Manager Allison
Williams said purchasing of the unit could be discussed at the budget retreat October 23. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Curnel called an Executive Session at 8:09 p.m. to be held for 15 minutes pursuant to
RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to discuss potential litigation and there will be no further business. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m.
______________________________________ David Curnel, Mayor
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 709 of 883
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – October 12, 2021
pg. 4
ATTEST____________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 710 of 883
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Wendy Parks, Accounting Manager
Council Meeting Date: October 26, 2021
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Semi-Monthly Disbursement Report
The following amounts were budgeted and sufficient funds were available to cover these payments:
Claim Checks 153723 - 153874 $1,096,988.12 Payroll Checks 0064112 – 0064118 $4,938.56 Electronic Payments Payroll ACH – 10/15/2021 $486,798.90
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 10-26-21, Page 711 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 712 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 713 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 714 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 715 of 883
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Gail Gray, Interim Finance Director
Date: October 21, 2021
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Set Date for Public Hearings—2022 Preliminary Budget
and 2022 Property (Ad Valorem) Tax Levy
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: October 26, 2021
• Second Presentation:
• Requested Action: Motion
Staff Report Summary
In accordance with Washington State law, it is necessary to schedule:
• A public hearing to review Revenue Sources and Consideration of Legislation pertaining
to Ad Valorem (Property) Tax to be levied for collection in 2022; and
• Two public hearings on the 2022 Preliminary Budget.
Staff requests that Council set the date of November 9, 2021, for the public hearing on the 2022
Property (Ad Valorem) Tax and the first public hearing on the 2022 Budget; and November 23,
2021 for the second public hearing on the 2022 Budget.
The 2022 Preliminary Budget document will be posted on the City’s website on November 1,
2021.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council set the dates for public hearings regarding the 2022 Budget and
Property (Ad Valorem) Tax levy as presented.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 716 of 883
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: October 18, 2021
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Project Acceptance for (60) Lien Period
2019 Sewer Manhole Lining Project
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: October 26, 2021
• Second Presentation:
• Action: Motion to Accept Improvements and Start Lien Period
Overview
The City has many older brick sewer manholes. Over many decades the grout between the bricks
begins to erode. The brick sewer manholes are still structurally sound. However, the missing grout
will reduce their remaining service life. Therefore, concrete lining was conducted to seal and extend
the longevity of the brick manholes.
CONCRETE LINED BRICK MANHOLE
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 717 of 883
Page 2 of 2
WORK CONDUCTED:
The project consisted of pressure washing (190) older brick manholes and installing a concrete
lining system in each (See Picture).
COST OF WORK:
The work completed is in the amount of $186,525.86. The original contract price was for
$191,225.19. The cost reduction was due to three manholes that were not lined and small
differences between the estimated manhole depths and the actual measured depths. Three
manholes were skipped because one was abandoned, one could not be located, and one was
found to be of concrete construction rather than brick.
STAFF INSPECTION:
The 2019 Sewer Manhole Lining Project was completed by the contractor, Cascade Industrial
Services. All work has been inspected by City Staff and has been recommended for acceptance.
It should be noted that a separate 2020 Sewer Manhole Lining Project is still in process by the
same contractor and will be addressed separately when it is complete.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
After Council Acceptance of the project, the City will enter into the 60-day lien period as required
by Washington State Law. The Contractor will receive the remaining 5% retainage after the (60)
day lien period is complete
Council Packet Attachments
A. NONE
Finance Committee Review
N/A
Legal Review
N/A
Action Options:
Option Results
• Accept the project. The 60-day lien period will begin.
• Provide staff with changes. Staff will review the changes.
• Take no action. The project will not be accepted at this time.
Action Recommended:
City staff recommend Council acceptance of the 2019 Sewer Manhole Lining Project.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 718 of 883
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
To: Allison Williams, City Manager
From: Dave Bren, PE, Municipal Services Director
Date: October 21, 2021
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Cityworks Software Amendment #1
Authorization to Add (10) Users to Existing (100) User Account
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: October 26, 2021
• Second Presentation:
• Action: Motion
OVERVIEW:
The City uses the Cityworks Online Software to conduct: Asset Management, Work Orders, Permit
Review Tracking, and Public Portal requests. This software integrates in real-time with our GIS
mapping database. Both Municipal Services and Community Development Services are in the
process of adoption and implementation of this software.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 719 of 883
Page 2 of 3
FUTURE PERMIT CENTER:
The Cityworks Online platform will form the core of the future Permit Center. It will provide for all
permit center functions including: digital project intake, city department routing, review checklists,
project permit overlapping, project coordination, review reminders, project meetings, checklist
department approvals, construction inspection checklists, project punch lists, as-built drawings,
bonding, and closeout documents.
ONLINE / CLOUD HOSTING:
The Cityworks Online platform is fully online and utilizes highly secure cloud hosting. This
provides for public applications and digital project intake online. In addition, it provides for
distance work for employees if needed.
3-YEAR CONTRACT CHANGES:
The original contact was signed in December 2019 (Attachment A) and provided (50) licensed
users of the software. In December 2020 the City requested (50) additional users to the original
contract. The Software provider agreed to add (50) users for an additional $6,000/year. This
brought our total current licensed users up to (100).
Major growth in the use of the system City wide has occurred and now all (100) of these licenses
are in use. City Staff estimates that we need (10) additional licenses for the 2022 year. Staff has
contacted the software provider and they have agreed to add (10) additional licenses for
$2,500/year bringing the total to (110) software licenses.
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION/RENEWAL COST OF SOFTWARE:
The 2022 renewal cost for the software and (100) users is $71,000. City wide we are currently
using all (100) of our allotted users. Staff are requesting to add (10) additional users for an
additional $2,500. In addition, we are requesting immediate addition of those users, which
would be an additional $500 prorated for the last portion of the year. The total cost would be
$73,500 for 2022.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The $71,000 was planned for in the 2021 budget. However, the prorated amount in 2021 for
additional licenses was not planned in the budget.
Council Packet Attachments
A. Cityworks Original Contract - December 2019
($65,000/year) 50 Software Licenses
B. Cityworks Contract Adjustment – December 2020
(Additional $6,000/year) 100 Software Licenses
C. Cityworks Contract Amendment #1 – October 2021
(Additional $2,500/year) 110 Software Licenses
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 720 of 883
Page 3 of 3
Finance Committee Review
N/A
Legal Review
N/A
ACTION OPTIONS:
Option Results
• Authorize Signature of Amendment #1 The City Manager will be authorized to sign the
Cityworks Contract Amendment #1.
• Provide staff with changes Staff will review the changes.
• Take no action The additional (10) users will not be added.
ACTION RECOMMENDED:
Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Cityworks contract
amendment as presented.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 721 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 722 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 723 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 724 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 725 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 726 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 727 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 728 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 729 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 730 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 731 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 732 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 733 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 734 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 735 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 736 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 737 of 883
Azteca Systems, LLC, 11075 South State, Suite 24 • TEL 801.523.2751 • FAX 801.523.3734 www.cityworks.com
Amendment #1 to the Cityworks License & Maintenance Agreement Page 1
AMENDMENT # 1 TO THE CITYWORKS® LICENSE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
By accepting this Amendment # 1 (“Amendment”), both parties agree to amend the Cityworks License and
Maintenance Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”) between the City of Moses Lake, Washington,
(Licensee) and Azteca Systems, LLC (“Azteca Systems”) executed on or about December 26, 2019, which is incorporated herein by reference, to include the terms of the Agreement except as specifically modified herein. Through this Amendment, Azteca Systems and the Licensee have agreed to amend the terms of the
Agreement as set forth herein below.
WHEREAS, Azteca Systems, LLC and Licensee entered into the Cityworks License and Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) on or about the 26th day of December 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement and the Addendums thereto, provide to Licensee certain software licensed by Azteca Systems and also provide maintenance and support by Azteca and the payment of fees by Licensee, as set forth in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, Licensee desires to change the Cityworks software being licensed to Licensee under the Agreement to a hosted subscription service known as Cityworks Online, which is an online software service provided by Azteca Systems; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement for Licensee to obtain a license for the Cityworks Online software services and such that Licensee no longer needs the ‘on premise’ version of the software provided under the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Parties are willing to amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises contained in this Amendment, Azteca Systems and Licensee agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 5.7 of Article 5 – Term and Termination is hereby amended to read as follows:
5.7 If this Agreement is terminated per section 5.3 or 5.4, Licensee shall then return to Azteca Systems all of the Software, related modules, related updates, and any whole or partial copies, codes,
modifications, and merged portions in any form. Azteca will then, for no additional charge to Licensee
and at Licensee’s option, either grant a license to the Licensee for a period of one (1) year, which will
allow Licensee to retain the ability to access records and data contained in the Software, or allow Licensee to create digital copies of all files needed by the Licensee for the same period. If Licensee needs to retain access to records or data for a period longer than one (1) year, in order to transfer data to another system, Azteca will consider reasonable requests to extend beyond one (1) year.
If Licensee has an Online Services Subscription, Managed Cloud Services, or Online Services Product, then upon termination per section 5.3 or 5.4, Azteca Systems will provide Licensee the ability for 30 days to download, backup, or otherwise archive all Licensee Data.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 738 of 883
Amendment #1 to the Cityworks License & Maintenance Agreement Page 2
2. Addendum #1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and is hereby amended to read as follows:
ADDENDUM #1
PRODUCT LICENSING
1. Licensed Software: Server AMS Standard Cityworks Online Enterprise License Agreement (ELA), Includes Unlimited
Quantities of the Identified Products: Office Respond Mobile Native Apps (for iOS/Android) --Includes the following Add-ons: Storeroom Equipment Checkout Contracts Cityworks for Excel eURL (Enterprise URL)
Workload Web Hooks Work Order API - Basic
Local Government Templates (LGT) Use of Cityworks AMS Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) with commercially available Cityworks-centric applications that are licensed and maintained by authorized Cityworks partners
Server PLL Standard Cityworks Online Enterprise License Agreement (ELA), Includes Unlimited Quantities of the Identified Products: Office Respond Mobile Native Apps (for iOS/Android)
--Includes the following Add-ons: eURL (Enterprise URL) PLL Public Access API Use of Cityworks PLL Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) with commercially available Cityworks-centric applications that are licensed and maintained by authorized Cityworks partners
Additional Software Products & Licenses: Additional Software Products & licenses may be added to this License Agreement with either an acknowledgement of an official Cityworks quote signed by Licensee and additional fees, if necessary or applicable being paid, or receipt of Purchase Order from
Licensee in response to an official Cityworks quote and additional fees, if applicable being paid.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 739 of 883
Amendment #1 to the Cityworks License & Maintenance Agreement Page 3
2. Notices & Licensee Information: Until or unless otherwise, modified, all notices relevant to this agreement shall be sent to the following address: Azteca Systems, LLC 11075 South State, Suite 24 Sandy, Utah 84070
City of Moses Lake 401 S Balsam PO Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837
Attn: Cindy Smith
E-mail: csmith@cityofml.com
Phone: 509.764.3754
3. Delivery Date/Effective Date of Software
MM/DD/YYYY
10/15/2021 4. Schedule of Payments and Fees under License and Maintenance Agreement Support Period Date From/To (mm/dd/yyyy) Amount
Period 1 10/15/2021 – 01/14/2022 $ 500.00 Period 2 01/15/2022 – 01/14/2023 $73,000.00
* Fee for Year 1 reflects products added at $2,000.00/year and is pro-rated for the period of
10/15/2021 - 01/14/2022. Current Renewal Amount of $71,000.00 for the period 01/15/2021 - 01/14/2022 has been paid previously.
5. Additional a. CWOL – Cityworks Online: Cityworks Online (CWOL) – is a Cityworks Online hosted services subscription for the right to access and use the Online Services for the products identified hereinabove.
CWOL is a highly scalable hosted services product offering. It is hosted on Azteca Systems’ servers and completely scaled, managed, updated, backed up, and maintained by Azteca Systems. Because Azteca Systems controls the update schedule, users are not responsible for upgrading, managing, or patching the system themselves. b. ELA pricing quote for CWOL assumes no hosting logins are added over and above the current 110 Server AMS and/or PLL hosting Logins. Additional hosting logins can be added for an additional fee. c. On a when-and-if available basis, updates to the licensed software (Addendum #1) means subsequent releases of the program which Azteca generally makes available to its customers who are under an active Software License and Maintenance Agreement for which fees have been paid for the relevant support period. d. Occasionally, Azteca changes the name of its licensed software as part of its ongoing process to
improve and increase the functionality of the software. In the event the software licensed or listed above changes in name, and/or improvements are made, Azteca will provide software with functionality that is similar to or with substantially the same or greater functionality of the originally licensed software,
provided all current license fees have been paid.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 740 of 883
Amendment #1 to the Cityworks License & Maintenance Agreement Page 4
6. MANAGED CLOUD AND ONLINE SERVICES
6.1 Prohibited Uses. Licensee shall not provide Customer Content or otherwise access or use Cloud Services in a manner that: a. Creates or transmits spam, spoofings, phishing emails, or offensive or defamatory material; or stalks or makes threats of physical harm; or
b. Stores or transmits any Malicious Code; or
c. Violates any law or regulation; or
d. Infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party; or
e. Probes, scans, or tests the vulnerability of Cloud Services or breaches any security or authentication measures used by Cloud Services without written approval from Azteca Systems product security officer; or
f. Benchmarks the availability, performance, or functionality of Cloud Services for competitive purposes. 6.2 Service Interruption. System failures or other events beyond Azteca's reasonable control may interrupt Customer's access to Cloud Services. Azteca Systems may not be able to provide advance notice
of such interruptions.
6.3 Licensee Content. a. Licensee grants Azteca Systems and its subcontractors a nonexclusive, nontransferable, worldwide right to host, run, modify, and reproduce Licensee Content as needed to provide Cloud Services to
Licensee. Azteca Systems will not access, use, or disclose Customer Content without Customer's written permission except as reasonably necessary to support Customer's use of Cloud Services. Except for the limited rights granted to Azteca Systems under this Agreement, Customer retains all its rights, title, and interest in the Customer Content.
b. If Customer accesses Cloud Services with an application provided by a third party, Azteca Systems may disclose Customer Content to such third party as necessary to enable interoperation between the application, Cloud Services, and Customer Content.
c. Azteca Systems may disclose Customer Content if required to do so by law or regulation or by order of a court or other government body, in which case Azteca Systems will reasonably attempt to limit the scope of disclosure. d. When Customer's use of Cloud Services ends, Azteca Systems will either: 1. Make Customer Content available to Customer for download for a period of thirty (30) days unless Customer requests a shorter window of availability or Azteca Systems is legally prohibited from doing so; or 2. Download all Customer Content in Azteca Systems’ possession to a medium of Customer's
choosing and deliver such Customer Content to Customer.
Azteca Systems will have no further obligations to store or return Customer Content at the conclusion of the Cloud Services. 6.4 Removal of Customer Content. Azteca Systems may remove or delete Customer Content if there is reason to believe that uploading Customer Content to or using it with Cloud Services materially violates this Agreement. If reasonable under these circumstances, Azteca Systems will notify Customer before removing Customer Content. Azteca Systems will respond to any Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices in accordance with Azteca Systems copyright policy, available at
www.cityworks.com/legal.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 741 of 883
Amendment #1 to the Cityworks License & Maintenance Agreement Page 5
6.5 Service Suspension. Azteca Systems may suspend access to Cloud or Online Services (i) if Customer materially breaches this Agreement and fails to timely cure the breach, (ii) if Azteca Systems reasonably believes that Customer's use of Cloud Services will subject Azteca Systems to immediate liability or adversely affect the integrity, functionality, or usability of the Cloud Services, (iii) for scheduled maintenance, (iv) to enjoin a threat or attack on Cloud Services, or (v) if Cloud Services become prohibited by law or regulated to a degree that continuing to provide them would impose a commercial hardship. When feasible, Azteca Systems will notify Customer of any Cloud Services suspension beforehand and give Customer reasonable opportunity to take remedial action. Azteca Systems is not responsible for any damages, liabilities, or losses that may result from any interruption or suspension of Cloud Services or removal of Customer's content as described above.
6.6 Notice to Azteca Systems. Licensee will promptly notify Azteca Systems if Customer becomes aware of any unauthorized use of Customer's subscription or any other breach of security regarding Cloud Services. All other terms of the Agreement except as specifically modified by this Amendment shall remain the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective, valid, and binding upon the parties as of the date below as executed by their duly authorized representatives.
Accepted and Agreed:
City of Moses Lake, WA Azteca Systems, LLC (Licensee) (Azteca)
By: By: Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Printed Name: Printed Name: Brian L. Haslam
Title: Title: President/CEO
Date: ______/_______/_______ Date: ______/_______/_______
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 742 of 883
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
To:
From:
Date:
Proceeding Type:
Subject:
Allison Williams, City Manager
Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
October 26, 2021
Old Business
Grant Funding for Homeless Program
Legislative History:
•First Presentation: October 1, 2021 (Ad Hoc Homeless Committee)
•Second Presentation: October 26, 2021
•Action: Motion
Overview
The City of Moses Lake received multiple grants to fund its Homeless Program starting in 2020. The
City contracted with HopeSource as a sub-grantee to utilize these funds and manage the Open
Doors Sleep Center and the Enhanced Shelter. After performing a self-audit of the Homeless
Program expenses, staff believes it would be in the City’s best interest to amend its contracts with
HopeSource and sign a new agreement with the County regarding the Shelter Program Grant.
COVID-19 EMERGENCY HOUSING GRANT (EHG)
The City of Moses Lake initially received $195,845 of funding in October 2020 and later received
an additional $170,000 in June 2021. Moses Lake subcontracted $140,000 for Sleep Center
management and outreach and $130,000 for bathroom renovations and a quarantine room at the
Enhanced Shelter to HopeSource. Some of the EHG funds subcontracted to HopeSource were
billed to other revenue sources, so the City needs to amend our EHG agreement with HopeSource
to reflect how the funds were utilized. This can often happen as grant guidelines are frequently
updated, modifying allowable expenses.
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT COVID-19 (ESG) / Shelter Program Grant
In November 2020, the City of Moses Lake received $1,458,768. The City subcontracted with
HopeSource for Sleep Center management, outreach, Enhanced Shelter acquisition, operations,
and for Rapid Rehousing. Some of the subcontracted funds were used for renovations of the
Enhanced Shelter. Under the ESG guidelines, renovations of a permanent shelter require an
environmental review. Currently, the Department of Commerce does not have the capacity to do
an environmental review so they suggested an ESG amendment taking the renovation expenses
from the ESG budget and applying it to the Shelter Program, which would not require an
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 743 of 883
Page 2 of 3
environmental review. This would change the budget of the ESG to $1,273,307.37 and add
$185,460.63 to the Shelter Program.
The ESG has categories and specific budgets for each. In the future it may become necessary to
amend the City’s agreement with HopeSource to utilize all the funds.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The proposed EHG amendment accurately shows how HopeSource’s expenses were used. This will
allow the City to match its expenses with the agreement, if audited. The ESG amendment and
Shelter Program agreement includes applying the same amount of money to different sources.
This does not add or take away from our overall funding. Future ESG sub-agreements with
HopeSource would only utilize ESG funding. This will not affect the City’s overall budget or use the
General Fund. Currently, the City does not utilize any dollars from the General Fund to fund the
homeless program. However, the City Council may want to consider budgeting dollars to this
program in the future.
Council Packet Attachments
A. CV-EHG Amendment
B. ESG-CV Amendment
C. Shelter Program Sub-agreement
Finance Committee Review
Amendments and agreements presented to and approved by the Ad Hoc Homeless Committee on
October 1, 2021.
Legal Review
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed
Agreement Amendment CV-EHG Amendment 10/05/2021
Agreement Amendment ESG-CV Amendment N/A
Agreement Shelter Program Grant Sub-
Agreement
N/A
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 744 of 883
Page 3 of 3
Options
Option Results
• Authorize as presented Approve agreement amendments, new
agreement, and authorize City Manager to utilize
all funding from Grant County
• Provide staff with changes Amend budget amounts or contract agreements
• Take no action. Continue with current agreements, City must
find alternative ways to spend ESG-CV funds
Action Requested
Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute the EHG amendment, ESG
amendment and Shelter Program Grant agreement as presented. Staff also recommends
authorizing the City Manager to execute amendments to the City’s sub-agreements utilizing ESG
funds with HopeSource as needed.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 745 of 883
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, AND HOPESOURCE FOR UTILIZATION OF COVID-19
EMERGENCY HOUSING GRANT FUNDS
Preamble. This is the first amendment to the Agreement for Utilization of COVID-19 Emergency Housing Grant Funds effective July 2, 2020 (“Agreement”), by and between
HopeSource, a Washington nonprofit corporation, and the City of Moses Lake, a municipal
corporation (City), and this amendment is effective ______________, 2021. I. Amendments.
A. Section 1, “Scope of Services”, of the Agreement is amended to include the following
additional subsections: F. Funding is provided to Grant County to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak related to public health needs of people experiencing homelessness or otherwise
in need of quarantine or isolation due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Activities
funded under this Grant will be performed in accordance with the Washington State COVID-19 Outbreak Emergency Housing Grant Guidelines, version 3. G. The Sub Grantee agrees to use $17,683 for the purchase of beds for the
Enhanced Shelter.
H. The Sub Grantee agrees to use $33,869 for bathroom renovations and a quarantine room at the Enhanced Shelter, as well as keep one unit open and available for use by Grant County Health District, as determined necessary by the
Health District, for quarantine and insolation needs for the duration of the
COVID-19 emergency, in accordance with the most recent Grant County COVID-19 Emergency Housing Program Plan. B. Section II, “Time of Performance”, is amended to read as follows:
Services of the Sub Grantee shall start no earlier than the 1st day of June, 2020, and end on June 30, 2021. The term of this Agreement and the provisions herein may be extended at the City’s discretion to cover any additional time period during which grant funds remain unspent, the funded project has not been
completed, and/or the minimum level(s) of program services have not been met.
C. Section 2, “Exhibit B”-Budget, is amended as follows:
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 746 of 883
Budget
EHG Original Contract Amendment
Sleep Center
Operations $140,000.00 $33,576.15
Renovations $130,000.00 $33,869.00
Acquisition $- $17,683.00
EHG Total $270,000.00 $85,128.15
Other Funded
Renovations $- $96,131.00
Grand Total $270,000.00 $181,259.15
II. All other terms and conditions of that July 2, 2020, Agreement remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, HopeSource, and the City of Moses Lake have hereunto set their hands and seals this _______ day of __________________, 2021.
CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON HOPESOURCE
__________________________ __________________________
City Manager Susan Grindle, CEO
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 747 of 883
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Susan Grindle signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument as CEO for HOPESOURCE and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes
mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: ____________________, 2021 ____________________________________ Notary Public for Washington State
My commission expires________________
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 he/she was authorized to execute the instrument as City Manager for the City of Moses Lake and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: ____________________, 2021. ____________________________________ Notary Public for Washington State My commission expires________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Katherine Kenison, City Attorney
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 748 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 749 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 750 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 751 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 752 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 753 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 754 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 755 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 756 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 757 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 758 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 759 of 883
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To:
From:
Date:
Proceeding Type:
Subject:
Allison Williams, City Manager
Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
October 18, 2021
Public Hearing and Old Business
Housing Action Plan Resolution
Legislative History:
•First Presentations: Workshops throughout fall of 2020 as well as spring and summer of 2021
•Current Presentation: October 26, 2021
•Action: Motion
Overview
The City of Moses Lake is updating its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations
per the Growth Management Act (GMA). Every eight years the City must review and, if
needed, revise its comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure
the plan and regulations comply with the GMA. Review and evaluation includes, but is not
limited to, an analysis of the population allocated to the City by the County from the most
recent ten-year population forecast by the office of financial management. (RCW
36.70A.130). In a related work program that is underway, the City anticipates revising its
development regulations starting in 2021 with anticipated adoption in mid-2022.
Along with the Comprehensive Plan Update the City has developed a Housing Action
Plan (HAP) allowed under GMA (RCW 36.70A.600) to support the Comprehensive Plan
and guide policies, programs, and regulatory proposals in the future. The new
development code will implement the Future Land Use Map and other aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan including the Housing Action Plan.
The City received grant funding in the amount of $100,000 from the Department of
Commerce to develop the HAP. The scope of work and grant contract requires adoption
by the end of October. The October deadline reflects an extension already granted by
the Department of Commerce.
The HAP will be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan under appendix B.
Fiscal and Policy Implications:
Adoption will keep the City in compliance with the extended contract deadline terms.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 760 of 883
Page 2 of 2
Council Packet Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Housing Action Plan
Finance Committee Review N/A
Legal Review N/A
Options
Option Results
•Adopt as presented The City will move forward with closing the grant
and presenting the required deliverables to the
Department of Commerce.
•Provide staff with changes Staff will make changes and provide update to
Department of Commerce and try to extend
grant contract deadline.
•Take no action The City will be out of compliance with the grant
contract.
Action Requested
Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution accepting the Housing Action Plan as presented.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 761 of 883
MOSES LAKE HOUSING
ACTION PLAN
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 762 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 763 of 883
Contents
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 764 of 883
Exhibits
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 765 of 883
Executive Summary
The Housing Action Plan is Moses Lake’s strategy to promote
affordable housing options for all members of the community.
Moses Lake faces several challenges to creating affordable housing for
all members of the community.
Adopted policies, programs, and regulations promote housing
affordability, but also face challenges.
Seven strategies are identified to address housing supply, affordability,
and variety in Moses Lake.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 766 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 767 of 883
Introduction
Document Outline
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 768 of 883
1. Housing Needs in Moses Lake
2. Housing Policy Review
3. Goals & Strategies
4. Implementation & Monitoring
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 769 of 883
Housing Needs in Moses Lake
Housing production is not keeping pace with
demand.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 770 of 883
Housing affordability is an increasing
challenge.
“Provide for diversity in the type,
density, and location of housing within
the City in order to provide an
adequate supply of safe and sanitary
housing at price and rent levels
appropriate to the varied financial
capabilities of City residents.”
-Goal 1 from the Housing Element of
Moses Lake’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 771 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 772 of 883
Housing options should reflect the current and
anticipated future makeup of the community.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 773 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 774 of 883
Housing Policy Review
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 775 of 883
Goals & Strategies
Housing Action Plan Goals
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 776 of 883
Housing Action Plan Strategies
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 777 of 883
Reduce minimum lot sizes in residential zones.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 778 of 883
Increase allowed housing types in existing
zones.
Streamline permitting process.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 779 of 883
Integrate added flexibility for planned or
clustered subdivisions into the zoning code.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 780 of 883
Encourage income-restricted affordable
housing development.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 781 of 883
▪
▪
▪
Facilitate production of accessory dwelling
units.
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 782 of 883
▪
▪
Strategic infrastructure investments.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 783 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 784 of 883
Implementation & Monitoring
Implementation
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 785 of 883
▪ ⚫
▪
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
⚫
▪ ⚫
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 786 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 787 of 883
▪ ⚫
▪ ⚫
▪
▪ ⚫
▪ ⚫
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 788 of 883
Key Performance Indicators
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 789 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 790 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 791 of 883
Appendices
A Housing Needs Assessment
B Public Engagement Summary
C Policy Review
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 792 of 883
Appendix A
Housing Needs Assessment
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 793 of 883
MOSES LAKE HOUSING NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 794 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 795 of 883
Contents
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 796 of 883
Exhibits
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 797 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 798 of 883
Summary of Key Findings
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 799 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 800 of 883
Community Context - COVID-19
The global pandemic of COVID-19 has severely weakened the U.S. and Washington state
economies affecting both rural and urban communities. People of color, subject to established
patterns of discrimination affecting the workplace, housing market, education system, and
healthcare structure, have been disproportionately affected by the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic.
Trends in Washington state
The state’s economy has begun to recover; however, it remains far below pre-pandemic
activity. Washington’s unemployment rate was 8.5% in August 2020 compared with 16.3% in
April 2020.
Economic impacts are uneven among industries. The hardest hit industries are those where
social distancing is most difficult, such as leisure and hospitality. Aerospace and construction
jobs are expected to decline by 9.0% and 8.3% respectively. Meanwhile, online shopping
employment is expected to increase 19.7%.
Job security directly relates to housing security. Income loss and unemployment will fuel
instability in the housing market. Lower wage households are vulnerable to market
downturns, as these families are less likely to have excess financial reserves and generational
wealth resources to tap into during times of economic hardship.1
Washington new home construction is down annually for 2020. Permit activity is expected to
be down about 4,000 units from 2019. Many planned developments and construction
projects have likely been postponed, stalled, or cancelled due to economic uncertainty. 2
Temporary relief from housing costs of up to one year of mortgage forbearance was
provided by the federal government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act for those with coronavirus related income loss.3 Washington state
instituted a moratorium on evictions due to non-payment through the end of 2020. These
debts accumulate and residents are responsible for payment when the relief periods end.4
Supporting Moses Lake Residents
Protections for renters. Renters are most vulnerable to housing loss during this time. Short-term
protections should keep people in their homes as the economy adjusts. Assistance should
prioritize households that are both low-income and cost burdened.
Support for people experiencing homelessness. Residents experiencing homelessness need
additional support with shelter that protects them from infection with social distancing.
Policies to increase housing units. Increasing the quantity and type of housing units is more
important than ever, as affordability concerns increase for workers with lost or reduced income.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 801 of 883
Population Characteristics
Current and Future Population
Moses Lake is growing and aging.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 802 of 883
Age
20,366
24,220
35,626
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038Moses Lake Actual
Moses Lake Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 803 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 804 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 805 of 883
Race, Ethnicity, and
Language
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 806 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 807 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 808 of 883
Households
Household Income
Household income brackets reveal disparities between White and Hispanic
households in Grant County.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 809 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 810 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 811 of 883
Moses Lake households are roughly split between renters and owners, but renters
have lower incomes overall.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 812 of 883
Cost-Burdened Households
Cost burden in Moses Lake is most common among low-income, renter, and
older adult households, as well as among households with disabled members.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 813 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 814 of 883
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 815 of 883
Workforce Profile9
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 816 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 817 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 818 of 883
Travel to Work
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 819 of 883
Employment Projections
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 820 of 883
Housing Inventory
Housing Supply Characteristics
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 821 of 883
There is a mismatch between household size and housing unit size with existing
housing stock.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 822 of 883
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 823 of 883
Housing Age and Production
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 824 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 825 of 883
The City has sufficient land capacity to meet both adopted growth targets and
anticipated growth trends.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 826 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 827 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 828 of 883
Housing Affordability
Home Ownership
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 829 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 830 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 831 of 883
Rental Housing
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 832 of 883
Subsidized Housing
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 833 of 883
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 834 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 835 of 883
Gap Analysis
Housing Production
8,365
10,199
15,002
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Housing Actual
Housing Projected
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 836 of 883
Housing Choice and Diversity
Home Ownership
Rental Housing
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 837 of 883
Housing Needs by Income Level
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 838 of 883
674
425
1,060
1,585
510 530
2,050
715
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
<30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI >80% AMI
Renter Households Rental Units
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 839 of 883
441
566
918
476
2,402
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
<30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI >100% AMI
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 840 of 883
Homelessness
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 841 of 883
Glossary
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 842 of 883
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 843 of 883
A Appendix A: Household Types
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 844 of 883
B Appendix B: Housing Affordability
Calculations
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 845 of 883
C Appendix C: Point in Time Estimates &
Students Experiencing Homelessness
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 846 of 883
Appendix B
Public Engagement Summary
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 847 of 883
Public Engagement Summary
Introduction
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 848 of 883
What We Heard – Key
Themes
Summary of Key Themes
Moses Lake’s Assets
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Who Participated in the
Engagement Process?
Local residents
Chamber of Commerce representatives
Retired staff from Big Bend Community
College
Grant County Transit Authority
Chiropractor
Local business owners
Workforce trainer
Natural gas service provider
Real estate agents
Anthropologist
Residential Lender
Rotary Club members
Public utility district
Grant County Housing Authority
Land developers
Housing developers
Sustainable tourism expert
Moses Lake Community Coalition
Grant County Public Libraries
Moses Lake School District
Hope Source
Grant County Conservation District
Columbia Basin Railroad / Central
Washington Railroad
Economic Development professionals
Small-scale landlord
Home builders
Restaurateur
Auto detailer
Former Councilmember
Moses Lake Youth Baseball
Former Police Officer
Former Parks Department staff
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 849 of 883
Concerns
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Hopes and Desires
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 850 of 883
Important Topics for the HAP and Comprehensive Plan
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Housing Market and Production
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 851 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 852 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Employment
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 853 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Equity
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 854 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Environment and Parks
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 855 of 883
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Transportation and Utilities
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 856 of 883
Appendix C
Policy Review
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 857 of 883
April 2021
1
City of Moses Lake Policy Review
MOSES LAKE HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Introduction
The Moses Lake Housing Action Plan Policy Review evaluates the current City of Moses Lake
Comprehensive Plan and existing programs, policies, and initiatives related to housing, including
coordinated efforts between the City and Grant County. The Policy Review also addresses key housing
issues and provides a review of the existing land use and development regulations in Moses Lake.
Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) are referenced and evaluated against the Moses Lake Housing
Needs Assessment (HNA) and Housing Element.
The Policy Review is informed by findings from the Moses Lake HNA and will help inform strategies
proposed in the Housing Action Plan (HAP). Key takeaways from the Policy Review are listed below. The
City should consider these items to support development of housing that meets the needs identified in the
HNA.
Key Takeaways:
▪ Housing Element policies support diverse housing types and density but are limited in their effect.
More should be done at the policy level to increase housing choice via increased density in
residential areas.
▪ The MFTE Program should be revisited and improved due to low interest by the developer
community. Additional incentives or modifications to the MFTE program could potentially increase
usage.
▪ ADUs have many benefits for homeowners and renters alike; while production has been limited in
Moses Lake, policies aimed at affordable ADU development for homeowners earning less than
100% of Median Family Income (MFI), who are interested in building an ADU and making it
available to rent for low-income renters, could be encouraged.
▪ Proposed changes to the zoning code and land use regulations should promote the removal of
barriers related to affordable housing production, including rental and homeownership.
▪ Programs and policies aimed at homeownership opportunity, especially for cost-burdened
households, should be encouraged. Homeownership is out of reach for many households due to rising
costs and minimal change to income.
▪ The City should continue efforts to address homelessness in the City and continue to work with Grant
County on coordinated efforts.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 858 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 2
The Policy Review is organized as follows:
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 3
Housing Needs Assessment Findings ................................................................................................... 3
City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................................. 4
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Countywide Planning Policies .................................................................................................................................. 5
Housing Element ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Housing Element Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 7
Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 11
Land Use Element ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Land Use Element Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 12
Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 14
City of Moses Lake Land Use & Development Regulations ................................................................. 14
ADU Development ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Multi-Family Housing Tax Exemption ............................................................................................................... 15
Zoning Code Update .............................................................................................................................................. 17
City of Moses Lake Programs and Initiatives ...................................................................................... 17
Housing Programs .................................................................................................................................................... 17
MFTE Program ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Housing Authority of Grant County .................................................................................................................. 18
Homelessness ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
Other Programs and Initiatives ............................................................................................................................. 20
Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Discussion and Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 21
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 859 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 3
Evaluation Criteria
The Moses Lake Policy Review evaluates the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, specifically, the
Housing Element, and considers whether the goals and policies align with the needs identified in the
Housing Needs Assessment. Current programs and policies are also evaluated to determine whether they
help to address the needs in the HNA, or if more should be done to enhance those programs and policies,
thus supporting overall housing goals.
The evaluation criteria used measure existing policies and programs by the likelihood that they will help
the City of Moses Lake meet both the needs identified in the HNA and the overall stated housing goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The Key Findings in the Housing Needs
Assessment Findings section below guide the evaluation.
The Policy Review uses the evaluation scoring criteria listed in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1. Policy Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Evaluation
The policy is valid and helpful. There is continued need for the policy and it is likely to help the
City meet the needs identified in the Housing Needs Assessment.
V (Valid)
The policy is aligned to the needs identified in the HNA but may not be sufficient to meet those
needs. The City may consider amending the policies to encourage the desired development.
A (Approaching)
The policy may challenge the City’s ability to meet the needs identified in the HNA. The policy’s
benefits and consequences should be reviewed to optimize the ability to meet the policy’s
objectives while minimizing the negative impacts on meeting the housing needs of all community
members.
C (Challenge)
The Policy does not impact the City’s ability to meet the needs identified in the HNA NA (Not Applicable)
Housing Needs Assessment Findings
The Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) provides an overview of population characteristics, a
housing inventory, and a gap analysis which assesses housing production in the City of Moses Lake in
addition to findings on key characteristics related to housing choice, rental housing, and homeownership in
the City. These findings help to inform the review of existing programs and policies, including those in the
Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, laid out in the Policy Review. This review will ultimately
translate into strategies highlighted in the Housing Action Plan that the City could implement to address
these findings and to continue planning for population growth.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 860 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 4
Key findings include:
▪ Aging Population experiencing high rates of cost burden, particularly if they live alone.
▪ One third of households in Moses Lake are cost-burdened and pay more than 30% of their income
for housing, signaling a lack of affordability and choice in the market.
▪ Renters find it a challenge to find housing they can afford, although rental rates have not increased
as much as home values.
▪ Between 2012-2018, home values rose by 47%, but median income only increased by 19%.
▪ Lack of available and affordable housing options are pushing residents who work in Moses Lake out
of the City to find housing close to where they work. Over two-thirds of Moses Lake’s workforce lives
outside the City; many of these workers are commuting as far as 50 miles to work in the City.
▪ Moses Lake has a tight housing market; as of 2018, the homeownership vacancy rate was reported
at 2.6%.
▪ The average annual production of housing units in Moses Lake between 2010-2018 was 197 units;
Although housing production has increased in recent years, the rate falls short of anticipated growth.
Moses Lake needs an average of 253 units per year to meet estimated household growth by
2038.
▪ More housing type diversity is needed to produce units to meet the community’s needs.
▪ There is a misalignment between household sizes and housing unit size in Moses Lake.
More than 60% of Moses Lake households have only one or two members, but only about 39%
of the community’s housing units have two bedrooms or less.
This misalignment contributes to cost-burden as smaller households may be paying a higher price
for a larger unit that they may not need.
City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
OVERVIEW
Cities and Counties in Washington State are required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to
prepare comprehensive plans, which guide conservation efforts, development of rural and urban lands,
and plans for growth over a twenty-year period. The City of Moses Lake is located in Grant County,
which is considered a “fully planning” county; as such, all cities in the County are required to plan under
GMA.
The City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Elements include:
▪ Housing
▪ Utilities
▪ Transportation
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 861 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 5
▪ Capital Facilities
▪ Land Use
▪ Siting Essential Public Facilities
▪ Environmental Review
▪ Roles and Responsibilities
▪ Maintenance of the Plan
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
Comprehensive Plans at the local jurisdiction/City level must be consistent with Countywide Planning
Policies (CWPPs) and consistent with plans in other jurisdictions within the County. Cities planning under
GMA must coordinate comprehensive planning efforts and incorporate Countywide Planning Policies
adopted by the County.
In 1993, the Grant County Planned Growth Committee developed a series of CWPPs aimed at
incorporating the requirements of GMA, including mandated planning goals. The CWPPs were adopted
by the Grant County Board of Commissioners in 1993 and were last updated in 2009.1 The City of
Moses Lake ratified the CWPPs adopted by Grant County and have incorporated them within the City of
Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan.
Objectives of the CWPPs include2:
▪ Designation of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs);
▪ Promotion of contiguous and orderly development;
▪ Siting of public capital facilities;
▪ Establishing transportation facilities and strategies;
▪ Providing affordable housing for all economic segments of the population;
▪ Promotion of joint county and city planning within the UGA; and
▪ Encourage favorable employment and economic conditions in the County.
The Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan Housing Element references CWPP Policy 5, which is incorporated
into Housing Element policies proposed in the plan. Below is a summarized overview of the relevant
objectives presented by CWPP Policy 53:
▪ Policy 5: Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic
segments of the population.
Provide a range of housing alternatives which meet urban area and regional housing needs.
Develop a balanced variety of dwelling unit types and densities.
1 Introduction, Grant County Comprehensive Plan.
2 Introduction, City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan.
3 Appendix D, Countywide Planning Policies, Grant County Comprehensive Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 862 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 6
Recognize manufactured housing as a functional and needed housing type, including provisions
for where it may be located (subdivisions/park, single lots, etc.)
Provide areas for the location of a variety of residential uses while minimizing the impact on
surrounding areas.
▪ Plan provisions for the location of high, medium, and low-density residential development
shall be made within the urban growth area where possible and within or adjacent to
existing communities.
▪ Plan provisions for the location of rural housing shall be made in a manner consistent with
preserving agricultural lands and maintaining the rural lifestyles of the County while
minimizing conflicts with commercial agricultural activities.
Preserve the viability of existing single-family residential areas.
Promote housing that meets the needs of all socio-economic groups in the County.
Policy 5 objectives highlight preservation of existing single-family residential areas and land uses, while
also promoting the provision of diverse housing types and densities. Manufactured housing is referenced
multiple times as an alternative housing type that should be preserved and encouraged according to
Grant County.
The Housing Element section below provides an overview of the Housing Element section of the Moses
Lake Comprehensive Plan, including ways in which the goals and policies incorporate the CWPP, in
addition to evaluating the goals and policies as they relate to the HNA findings.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Overview
The Housing Element of the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan is based on the following assumptions4:
▪ Single-family detached houses located on individual lots will continue to be the preferred choice of
housing for most residents in the future.
▪ As the population requiring Special Needs housing and services become more diverse, there will
need to be alternative housing choices to maintain adequate housing supply.
▪ Moses Lake’s Urban Growth Area will experience a 3% annual growth rate.
Note: Based on recent permitting trends, the Housing Needs Assessment assumes a 2.4%
average annual growth rate, which would translate to a population of 35,626 residents by
2038, or an increase of 10,819 residents over the 2020 population.
▪ Public Housing agencies will continue to receive Federal funding for purposes of housing assistance
programs for low-and-moderate income families.
These assumptions are based on data and analysis from the last revision of the Comprehensive Plan, in
September 2014. The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, with adoption expected
4 Housing Element, Section 4.1, City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 863 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 7
in the summer of 2021. Revisions to the plan elements will include updated information on existing
conditions and projected growth trends.
Housing Element Evaluation
Exhibit 2 below provides a list of relevant goals and policies in the Housing Element of the Moses Lake
Comprehensive Plan. Evaluation scores are based on the evaluation criteria established in Exhibit 1 and
are used to evaluate policies against the Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment findings and current
City-level efforts to address the needs and gaps identified in the HNA.
The Discussion and Recommendations section below addresses ways that the City can leverage existing
efforts, improve upon, or create new programs and policies. These recommendations will inform the
strategies proposed in the Moses Lake Housing Action Plan.
Exhibit 2. Housing Element Evaluation, Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
HOUSING SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION
Goal 1: Provide for diversity in the type, density, and location of housing within the City in order to
provide an adequate supply of safe and sanitary housing at price and rent levels appropriate to the
varied financial capabilities of City residents.
Policy 1.1. Encourage the public and private sector to take actions to develop and maintain an
adequate supply of single family and multifamily housing for all economic segments of the
population.
A
Policy 1.2. Encourage and support equal access to housing throughout the City for all people
regardless of race, color, sex, marital status, religion, national origin, physical or mental
handicap, and encourage the responsible state and federal agencies to enforce federal and
state civil rights and fair housing laws.
V
Policy 1.3. Encourage the development of alternative housing types through innovative land use
regulations that enable construction of affordable attractive housing which include attached
single-family units, modular or manufactured housing, clustered housing, mixed-use developments,
group homes, assisted living facilities, self-help housing, cooperatives, etc.
C
Policy 1.4. A variety of housing types and densities should be available in residential areas to
provide all residents with location and price/rent choices. The City shall encourage affordable
housing units that are compatible in design and quality with other units to be integrated within
market rate developments.
A
Policy 1.5. Encourage the development of multi-use neighborhoods which are a mix of housing,
jobs, stores, and public space all within a well-planned pedestrian environment.
A
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 864 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 8
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
Policy 1.6. Assure that policies, codes, and ordinances promote neighborhood designs that are
pedestrian and transit friendly and discourage reliance upon the automobile.
C
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Goal 2: Support and assist in planning for increasing housing opportunities which are primarily for
households with special needs.
Policy 2.1. Assure that code and ordinances allow for a continuum of care and housing
opportunities for special needs populations, such as emergency housing, transitional housing,
extensive support, minimal support, independent living, family- based living or institutions.
A
Policy 2.2. Assure that policies, codes, and ordinances allow for a geographic distribution of
housing continuum with housing provided in appropriate locations and adequately served by
public facilities (such as transit) and services.
A
Policy 2.3. Codes and ordinances shall recognize the changing demographic trends by
supporting accessory units and other types of housing and human service programs.
C
Policy 2.4. Building codes and development regulations shall encourage the development,
rehabilitation, and adaptation of housing that responds to the physical needs of special
populations. For example, lower parking requirements and smaller lot sizes could be permitted in
projects designed for elderly residents. In this case, restrictions similar to the HUD standards could
be considered to limit housing occupancy to only senior citizens.
A
Policy 2.5. The City shall support and assist in planning for subsidized housing opportunities
primarily for households that cannot compete in the market for housing utilizing all available
federal and state aid. If the City’s elderly population continues to be higher than average, then
the City may wish to consider requiring public housing to be divided between elderly and non-
elderly families proportionate to their representation in the City’s total need for low income
housing.
A
HOUSING MAINTENANCE/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Goal 3: To maintain the area’s existing housing stock in a safe and sanitary condition.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 865 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 9
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
Policy 3.1. The City shall continue to work with non-profit agencies to maximize the receipt of
Federal and State housing resources. These programs should be used to provide low and
moderate-income residents with housing assistance and related services as well as to maintain or
improve housing conditions and re-use existing structures. This assistance may include technical
expertise and advice as well as grants targeted at rehabilitating substandard residential units
occupied by low-income households. Assistance should be provided to both owner-occupied and
renter-occupied units.
V
Policy 3.2. The City shall consider the Community Development Block Grant program each fiscal
year in which the City is eligible to apply, for the purposes of increasing the quality of
affordable ownership housing.
C
Policy 3.3. The City should continue and expand housing inspection and code enforcement
programs to promote neighborhood and community pride and ensure adequate maintenance of
the housing stock. Inspectors should seek to resolve hazardous or overcrowded housing conditions
or other threats to the public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging or requiring property
owners to maintain their properties in compliance with all applicable codes concerning junk and
debris, noxious weeds, and other unsafe or unsanitary conditions. Where necessary these
regulations should be aggressively enforced.
A
Policy 3.4. The City should proceed as quickly as allowed by State and local laws to demolish
substantially dilapidated structures that are beyond rehabilitation or reuse.
NA
Policy 3.5. Relocation assistance should be provided to any dislocated household. A
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROGRAM
Goal 4: To encourage more affordable housing by making it easier and/or less expensive to build
new housing through the use of innovative land use regulations, development standards, and
building code requirements.
Policy 4.1. The City should review all land use and building regulations to see that they do not
unnecessarily restrict the supply of housing or increase its cost. Any modifications should be
designed to reduce housing costs and facilitate development of more affordable housing types,
styles, and prices without compromising the public health, safety, welfare, or the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A
Policy 4.2. Within budget constraints, the City should consider incentives to private or nonprofit
housing developers to build more affordable housing. Such incentives should target the
production of below-market rate units for renters and first-time home buyers. These incentives
could include, but should not be limited to, fee waivers, expedited permits, density bonuses,
innovative land use regulations, new construction practices, and others.
A
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 866 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 10
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
HOUSING CHOICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY
Goal 5: Support public and private actions that increase housing choices for City residents with
emphasis on housing and public improvement programs that increase the number of housing
alternatives for both renters and owners, maintain neighborhood stability, and improve the physical
and environmental conditions of all neighborhoods.
Policy 5.1. Encourage programs in deteriorating older neighborhoods that address structural,
demographic, and economic issues.
A
Policy 5.2. Encourage voluntary housing rehabilitation programs. V
Policy 5.3. Encourage preventative maintenance in sound and transitional neighborhoods. NA
Policy 5.4. The City shall support efforts to conserve, protect, and rehabilitate housing by
programming infrastructure improvements in areas where there is a concentration of substandard
housing and where infrastructure improvements are needed. To the extent possible, public
investments in new infrastructure should be coordinated to foster housing rehabilitation and
encourage neighborhood improvements.
A
Policy 5.5. Preserve the character of stable residential neighborhoods by protecting them from
undesirable impacts of new development through selective and innovative zoning techniques that
accomplish infill and consider the following:
▪ Impact on older existing neighborhoods
▪ Development that is appropriate to surrounding residential density, housing type, and
affordability or use characteristics
▪ Encouragement of affordable units
▪ Maintenance of neighborhood integrity and compatibility
▪ Provision of development standards and process for infill.
A
Policy 5.6. The City recognizes the extensive number of substandard mobile and site-built owner-
occupied housing units concentrated in numerous neighborhoods. The City shall place a high
priority on the rehabilitation or replacement of dwelling units located in these areas.
A
Policy 5.7. Contingent on the availability of federal, state, or private funds made available to
local government for the purposes of carrying out an affordable very low and low income home
rehabilitation loan and grant program, the City shall target the rehabilitation of low or very low
income owner dwelling units.
A
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 867 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 11
Discussion and Recommendations
Policies in the Housing Element of the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan are organized by key themes as
listed below:
▪ Housing Supply and Production (Policy 1.1-Policy 1.6)
▪ Special Needs Housing (Policy 2.1-Policy 2.5)
▪ Housing Maintenance/Technical Assistance (Policy 3.1-Policy 3.5)
▪ Development Regulations Program (Policy 4.1-Policy 4.2)
▪ Housing Choice and Neighborhood Stability (Policy 5.1-Policy 5.7)
The above themes correspond to the Housing Needs Assessment findings and to the CWPP Policy 5
Objectives on housing diversity. In relation to the HNA findings, the Housing Element policies are well
positioned to address the key findings; however, a focus on promoting more housing type diversity should
be implemented by the City. Further, the policies should support more infill development in residential
zones to encourage diversity in density, as referenced in Goal 1 of the Housing Element. The Housing
Needs Assessment finds that production is recent years has shown a diversification of housing types, with
more multifamily units and mobile/manufactured homes coming to the market. This trend should be
emphasized and encouraged as a way to meet the housing needs identified in the HNA.
The provision of more housing units through increased production could allow for more affordable
options. However, as referenced in the HNA, housing supply is limited, which translates to higher housing
costs. The City should encourage more housing production within its residential zones and encourage the
use of programs such as MFTE to incentivize production of affordable housing units; considering the
program has not been as successful, the City should prioritize ways to promote its use by developers.
Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 to 2.5 are specific to Special Needs Housing, which is inclusive of housing for
individuals who require additional supports through services, other types of assistance, and/or age-
friendly housing. The City of Moses Lake has an advantage due to its existing programs and policies
aimed at addressing housing for elderly populations and those with disabilities and mental illness.
Goal 3 and its associated policies are focused on housing maintenance, code enforcement, and other
technical assistance policies. These programs should remain, as they benefit renters and homeowners,
especially cost-burdened households who may not have the extra expense to make necessary repairs or
improvements. As referenced in the Housing Needs Assessment, the City has an aging housing inventory,
with 30% of the housing stock built prior to 1960, and 25% built since 2000.5
Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 to 4.2 are specific to development regulations, and specifically policies aimed at
supporting affordable housing through incentives for developers and for mitigating unintended
consequences of land use regulations such as those related to costs. As the City considers options for
updates to its zoning code, incentivizing the development of affordable housing should continue to be
prioritized.
Goal 5 and its policies are aimed at housing stability and choice; these policies help to address the needs
identified in the HNA, specifically related to housing diversity and stability. While housing production has
increased, the rate is not enough to meet the demand of projected population growth, thus more should
5 Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment, BERK Consulting, March 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 868 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 12
be done to increase housing production and infill development to allow for more housing choices/options.
Policies aimed at housing maintenance and repairs, such as those highlighted under Housing Element Goal
5, will help to address HNA findings related to age of housing stock in Moses Lake. According to the
HNA, 25% of the housing inventory in Moses Lake was built between 1950-1959, thus highlighting the
potential for necessary upgrades and/or rehabilitation of those units and building structures.
LAND USE ELEMENT
Overview
The Land Use Element (LU Element) of the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan identifies land uses for
all areas in Moses Lakes, including incorporated and unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth
Area. The LU Element follows the assumption that the UGA will increase in population and grow at a rate
of 3% per year; as noted previously, the HNA uses a 2.4% average annual growth rate.
Policies proposed in the LU Element are meant to respond to and be consistent with policies proposed in
the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies. The main CWPPs related to
land use are as follows:
▪ Policy 1: Policy regarding urban growth areas and the designation of urban growth boundaries
▪ Policy 2A: Policies to promote contiguous orderly development and the provision of urban
governmental services to such development.
▪ Policy 2B: Urban densities – definition of lot sizes
▪ Policy 6: Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth area
▪ Policy 7: Policy for county-wide economic development and employment
▪ Policy 15: Population forecast distribution
The above CWPPs help to inform policies proposed by the City and incorporate specific goals related to
planning for growth via land use.
Land Use Element Evaluation
The LU Element includes sixteen goals and associated policies under the following topic areas:
▪ General Land Use – Goals 1-2
▪ Annexation – Goal 3
▪ Residential Land Uses – Goal 4
▪ Residential Redevelopment Areas – Goal 5
▪ Nonconforming Land Uses – Goal 6
▪ Commercial Land Uses – Goals 7-8
▪ Neighborhood Commercial Centers – Goal 9
▪ Industrial Land Uses – Goal 10
▪ Parks/Open Space – Goal 11
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 869 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 13
▪ Environmentally Sensitive Areas – Goal 12
▪ Cultural Resources – Goal 13
▪ Community Image and Design – Goals 14-16
Land Use Goals 1, 2, 4, and 5 are most relevant to housing and as such will be the main focus for
evaluation of policies, as shown in Exhibit 3. Please note that not all policies under LU Goal 1-5 are
referenced here; only those most relevant to the HNA findings are evaluated.
Exhibit 3. Land Use Element Evaluation, Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan
Adopted Goal and Policy Evaluation
GENERAL LAND USE
Goal 1: Growth shall occur in a manner that balances the pace of development with the City’s
ability to provide public facilities and services within the Urban Growth Area.
Policy 1.1. The City shall encourage cost effective development adjacent to urban areas
where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in a timely and
efficient matter.
A
Policy 1.4. Infill developments that are scaled and designed to fit their surroundings are
encouraged on properties suited to urban development.
A
Goal 2: The City shall continue and strengthen the partnerships that foster communication and
coordination among residents, the business community, and other governmental entities in the
Moses Lake area.
Policy 2.3. Interlocal agreements with Grant County should be established for the
development of land within the City’s unincorporated UGA. These agreements should address
potential land use, zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, as well as other
relevant issues.
V
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Goal 4: The City shall encourage a range of housing opportunities through its residential land use
designations for all citizens throughout the Urban Growth Area.
Policy 4.1. Densities should be set to encourage affordable housing stock that includes a
range of housing types that meets the housing needs of all segments of the community.
V
Policy 4.6. To decrease inefficient use of land, residential density should be increased in ways
that will not negatively affect existing neighborhoods.
V
RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 870 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 14
Goal 5: To stimulate development in economically disadvantaged residential areas that may be
stagnant or in need of redevelopment due to inadequate public improvements, public facilities,
open spaces, utilities or other identified factors.
Policy 5.3. The City shall create flexible development regulations that encourage and foster
revitalization of the areas while promoting the sound development and utilization of the area
compatible with established land uses.
A
Policy 5.4. Properties within the Residential Redevelopment Area designation retain the
underlying zoning, but are eligible for optional development techniques. All properties with
wetlands or other critical areas on site are subject to the critical areas and wetlands
regulations.
V
Discussion and Recommendations
The Land Use Element goals and policies evaluated above correspond to the Housing Element policies, as
land use is the foundation to all residential development. The policies also correspond to the CWPPs
highlighted above that are related to land use. In relation to the HNA findings, the Land Use Element
policies in the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, coupled with the Housing Element policies, are well
framed to respond to some of the key findings, which include:
▪ A need for housing choice and diversity of housing types and densities, and
▪ A need for more infill development, which also relates to housing diversity.
Policies aimed at homeownership opportunity and land use policies that could promote homeownership,
are not included in the Land Use Element and/or Housing Element. Considering availability of affordable
homeownership opportunities were identified in the HNA as a gap, policies and goals aimed at
homeownership opportunity is encouraged.
Related to land use, the HNA found that Moses Lake has sufficient land capacity to meet anticipated
population growth. As referenced previously, the HNA assumes a 2.4% average annual growth rate,
which would bring the 2038 city population to 35,626 residents, which is an additional 10,819 residents
since 2020. To accommodate this population growth, the City should prioritize development where
appropriate within City limits and in the unincorporated UGA.
City of Moses Lake Land Use & Development Regulations
The City of Moses Lake is comprised of mostly single-family homes. As referenced in the Housing Needs
Assessment, 62% of the housing stock in Moses Lake is single-family units. A quarter of the housing stock
range from duplexes, four-plexes, and/or larger multifamily buildings; 11% of all units are mobile
homes.6 Title 18 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code provides the relevant zoning
designations/classifications and development standards in the City, which guides development throughout
6 Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment, BERK Consulting, March 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 871 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 15
the City. Exhibit 4 below provides an overview of the relevant residential zones in Moses Lake and
maximum densities allowed.
A majority of land in Moses Lake is zoned R1 – Single Family Residential, thus corresponding to a high
inventory of single-family homes as the dominant housing type in the City, as noted in the HNA.
Additional zones where housing is located include C2 – General Commercial, which is located along
major corridors, HI – Heavy Industrial, which is found north and east of the City center, and R3 –
Multifamily residential, which is found in Downtown Moses Lake, and distributed in areas within the City
limits. Exhibit 5 provides a detailed zoning map showing the existing land use distribution across the City.
Exhibit 4. Residential Density by Zone
ZONE MAXIMUM
DENSITY
(DU/AC)
R-1 Single Family Residential 4.0
R-2 Single/Two-Family Residential 8.0
R-3 Multifamily Residential 15.0
C-2 General Commercial 15.0
Source: City of Moses Lake 2021; BERK 2021
ADU Development
Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, are allowed uses under the City of Moses Lake zoning code (Moses
Lake Municipal Code – Title 18). ADUs are currently allowed in all residential zones, with the exception
of R-4, which is a low-density rural zone. Chapter 18.20.0557 provides an overview of standards related
to ADUs in residential zones where they are allowed, which include R1, R2, and R3 zones. ADUs are
allowed as a subordinate use, attached and/or detached from any existing single-family dwelling. There
are parking requirements for the ADU dwelling at one off-street parking space, in addition to one off-
street parking space for the primary dwelling.
While ADUs are currently allowed in the City, they have not yielded much interest from the local
developer community. ADUs as a rental product could help to respond to some of the findings in the HNA,
especially related to housing choice and availability of affordable rental units to those who may be
priced out of the City. ADUs are an added cost to homeowners, and as such may not be a feasible
undertaking by households who are already cost-burdened. The City should identify ways to promote
ADU development and incentivize production for homeowners who are interested in a detached and/or
attached ADU, but do not have the resources.
Multi-Family Housing Tax Exemption
The City of Moses Lake offers an MFTE Program for multifamily housing production in what are known as
“residentially deficient urban centers.” Chapter 18.23 of the zoning code provides an overview of the
7 Chapter 18.20.055, Accessory Dwelling Units https://moseslake.municipal.codes/Code/18.20.055
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 872 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 16
MFTE Program, and the various standards and eligibility requirements. The Housing Programs section
below goes more in depth on the program and ways that the City could leverage the program to
promote mid-to-high density residential development and/or improve the program so that more
developers would utilize its benefits, and in turn, develop more affordable and accessible housing.
Exhibit 5. Moses Lake Zoning Map
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020; BERK 2020
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 873 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 17
ZONING CODE UPDATE
The City of Moses Lake is planning a significant update to its zoning and development code following
adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan in summer 2021. This code update will implement new
comprehensive plan land use designations, provide increased predictability in the permitting process,
promote quality urban design in Downtown and along major gateway corridors, and add flexibility for
both commercial and housing development near established residential neighborhoods. The updates,
coupled with the Housing Action Plan and Housing Needs Assessment, will promote a more efficient and
streamlined development and land use process that will remove barriers to affordable housing
production in the existing zoning code.
Exhibit 6 summarizes the major components of the planned development code update and evaluates how
these measures respond to the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and the goals of the Housing
Action Plan.
Exhibit 6. Development Code Update Evaluation
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATES INCREASES
HOUSING
PRODUCTION
ADDRESSES
HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
ENCOURAGES
VARIETY IN
HOUSING
STOCK
Revision of zoning in Downtown Moses Lake to
promote additional mixed-use development and live-
work units associated with a new Creative District.
⚫
Update development regulations for duplex, triplex,
and courtyard apartment housing types.
⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Incorporate cluster development provisions. ⚫ ⚫
Provide density bonuses in exchange for affordable
housing unit production in higher-density residential
zones.
⚫ ⚫
Establish design standards for residential and
commercial development to ensure compatibility of
all types of infill housing in existing neighborhoods.
⚫ ⚫
Reduction of minimum lot sizes in residential zones. ⚫ ⚫
Relaxation of standards for development of ADU’s. ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
City of Moses Lake Programs and Initiatives
HOUSING PROGRAMS
The City of Moses Lake has several programs which address housing affordability and homelessness
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 874 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 18
within the City, including coordinated efforts with Grant County, and specifically the Housing Authority of
Grant County. Other programs and policies include the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program, which
provides incentives to housing developers, in exchange for production of affordable housing. While these
programs exist, as referenced in the Housing Needs Assessment, subsidized housing is limited in Moses
Lake.
MFTE Program
The City of Moses Lakes adopted the MFTE Program in 2004; according to the City, the program has not
received much interest from the local developer community. The program is specific to Downtown Moses
Lake, which could be considered a limiting factor to developers who may be interested in developing
elsewhere within City-limits. As of March 2021, two active projects have utilized the MFTE Program.
Chapter 18.23 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code8 provides a description of the program, including
project eligibility and development standards. The purpose of the MFTE Program is to encourage new
private multifamily housing development and redevelopment within cities that planning under GMA (RCW
84.14)9. The MFTE program provides for allows for the provision of multifamily housing in areas that are
considered “residentially deficient urban centers.” The goal is to build housing closer to employment
centers, entertainment, shopping, and transit services. The City of Moses Lake has adopted a Residential
Target Area where MFTE could be implemented.
Regarding project eligibility, projects utilizing the MFTE Program must include at least four units within a
residential structure or as part of a mixed-use development. Further, the proposed project must not
displace existing residential units, unless they are not up to building and housing codes.
Housing Authority of Grant County
The City of Moses Lake offers public housing and other subsidized housing options under the jurisdiction
of the Housing Authority of Grant County (HAGC). HAGC offers a variety of affordable housing options
in cities across the County, including Moses Lake. HAGC also offers a variety of homeless assistance and
rental assistance programs. In addition to public housing and special needs housing, HAGC offers housing
for farmworkers. HAGC administers the Section 8 Housing Choice (HCV) Program, which provides a total
of 237 vouchers to be distributed across the County.10 Moses Lake has 184-units of income restricted
housing, and 206 vouchers for subsidized units.
Public Housing
The Housing Authority of Grant County is located in Moses Lake and operates four properties in the City;
these properties include:
▪ Section 8 Larson: A 47-unit property located in North Moses Lake
▪ Larson: A 126-unit property and former subdivision developed in 1977 as U.S. Air Force housing; it
now offers 2, 3, and 4-bedroom rental units
▪ Transitional Housing: 12 units
8 Chapter 18.23, Moses Lake Municipal Code. https://moseslake.municipal.codes/Code/18.23.010
9 Chapter 84.14 RCW. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=84.14
10 Moses Lake Housing Needs Assessment, BERK 2021.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 875 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 19
▪ Emergency Shelter: 5 units
Special Needs Housing
HAGC operates several properties tailored towards individuals who require additional supports. HAGC
operates a 5-unit 3-bedroom property in North Moses Lake for those with special needs. The
Developmental Disabled Development Project11 is under the jurisdiction of HAGC, and residents have 24-
hour access to Directions in Community Living, which is a program of the Grant County Developmental
Disability Services.
In addition to the above project, HAGC also offers Mental Health Housing; Moses Lake is the site of a 6-
unit 2-bedroom property known as Balsam Apartments, which provides housing for low-income individuals
with chronic mental illness.
Homelessness
Programs and services aimed at addressing homelessness in Moses Lake are referenced in the
Comprehensive Plan; these programs and services include those provided by the Housing Authority of
Grant County; The City of Moses Lake also has several programs and efforts underway currently; more
information on these programs and policies are described below. An Ad-Hoc Homeless Committee was
formed as an advisory committee to the Moses Lake City Council, to address matters related to
homelessness, including programs and policies.
Project Open Doors
Project Open Doors was established in 2019 following passage of Resolution 376412 by the City of
Moses Lake, which was a resolution to adopt a homeless program via a percentage of real estate excise
tax dollars. The mission of Project Open Doors is to: “advocate for the homeless people in Moses Lake in
order to improve quality of life, increase public awareness of issues of homelessness, impact public policy,
and to prevent and end homelessness.” The Project identifies ways to coordinate and link resources by
involving stakeholders with a shared goal of building a comprehensive system to end homelessness.13
Project Open Doors led to the creation of the Open Doors Sleep Center, which is a low-barrier drop-in
shelter with services targeted at chronically homeless and unsheltered populations in Moses Lake. Services
are provided by HopeSource. The City has entered into a sub-recipient agreement with Grant County to
ensure the allocation of funds for homeless programs, which will allow the City to fund the program
through June 2022.14 Funding allocation from the County Emergency Solutions Grant awards the City of
Moses Lake approximately $1,458,000 to operate homeless programs.
Homeless Task Force of Grant County
The City of Moses Lake is a member of the Homeless Taskforce of Grant County and has adopted the
11 Developmental Disabled Development Project, https://a7ed2d6f-fada-4dab-8641-
52945d95c661.filesusr.com/ugd/84d143_e8538be16cc1460ea7259fee984d8af8.pdf
12 Resolution 3764, City of Moses Lake. https://www.cityofml.com/DocumentCenter/View/7460/08-00-AB-Homeless-
Program-Resolution-2019
13 Project Open Doors, Help for the Homeless, City of Moses Lake. https://www.cityofml.com/1005/Help-for-the-Homeless
14 Sleeping Center FAQ, City of Moses Lake. https://www.cityofml.com/DocumentCenter/View/8956/Sleeping-Center-FAQ-1
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 876 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 20
County Plan to End Homelessness as the baseline from which to administer programs. The mission of the
Homeless Task Force is to: “advocate for the homeless people in Grant County in order to improve
quality of life, increase public awareness of issues of homelessness, impact public policy and to prevent
and end homelessness.”
OTHER PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES
In addition to the above Open Door Sleep Center, the City of Moses Lake has worked with HopeSource
to convert a former motel into an emergency shelter.15 The Enhanced Emergency Shelter operates out of
the former El Rancho Motel in Moses Lake, which HopeSource entered into a Purchase and Sales
Agreement (PSA) to contract for the motel site, and ultimately acquired the site to be used for homeless
services and a shelter. The purchase of the site added an additional 25-beds to the homeless program in
Moses Lake, and beds are available via referrals from other local agencies.
The City’s partnership with HopeSource has the following objectives:
▪ Objective 1: Quickly identify and engage people experiencing homelessness.
▪ Objective 2: Prioritization of homeless housing for people with the highest needs.
▪ Objective 3: Effective and efficient homeless crisis response and housing services.
The partnership will lead to long-term and short-term options for addressing homelessness in the City.
Those individuals who reside in the Open Doors Sleep Center site and/or the Enhanced Emergency
Shelter may be referred to the Housing Authority of Grant County for more stable housing placement or
for other services. The City will work with the Homeless Taskforce to identify other needs and strategize
improvements to the City’s homeless plan and provision of services.
The City is currently seeking Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from qualified service providers to expand the
homeless program and help to develop a Rapid Re-Housing Program directed at those who experience
chronic homelessness, and will also create a Hotel Voucher Program to provide temporary emergency
shelter to Crisis Response System providers in Moses Lake.
EVALUATION
Exhibit 7. Evaluation of Existing Programs and/or Policies in Moses Lake
PROGRAM EVALUATION SCORE
MFTE Program C
Subsidized Housing A
Special Needs Housing A
Homelessness V
15 “Moses Lake Moves Forward with Programs to Fight Homelessness,” The Wenatchee World, September 15, 2020.
https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/northwest/moses-lake-moves-forward-with-programs-to-fight-
homelessness/article_d6865177-723c-5e2d-ac44-9fc3f862ec9c.html
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 877 of 883
April 2021| City of Moses Lake | Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – Policy Review 21
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Moses Lake has several programs and initiatives currently which address homelessness in the
City. Further, the City has partnered with the Housing Authority of Grant County, nonprofits, and private
sector organizations to address subsidized housing needs, and housing for those experiencing mental
illness. The City has several housing options for elderly residents who require additional supports. These
programs help to meet the identified needs in the Housing Needs Assessment.
While these programs currently exist, the City should leverage them, and improve them to address the
HNA findings related to lack of rental unit options, including subsidized units for very low-income and
extremely low-income rental households. Further, programs aimed at homeownership should be
incorporated in housing related policies, such as those offered by the State of Washington, and/or
locally by Grant County.
The HNA found that a Point-in-Time count of homeless individuals in Grant County was reported to be
148 persons in 2019, 82 of those being unsheltered individuals. Considering the prevalence of homeless
programs in the Moses Lake, and in the County, the City should continue its efforts, as described above in
conjunction with County-led efforts.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 878 of 883
RESOLUTION NO. 3862
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A HOUSING ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed ESHB 1923 in 2019 to increase urban
residential building capacity and provide additional affordable and market rate housing in a
greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes; and WHEREAS, ESBH 1923 also provided Washington State funding through a grant program to
assist cities in achieving the objectives of this Bill; and
WHEREAS, the City Council provided direction to staff to pursue grant funding for the preparation of a Housing Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake applied and received grant funding from Department of
Commerce in the amount of $100,000 to develop a Housing Action Plan in conformance with ESBB 1923; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Moses
Lake and Berk Consulting was initiated for consultant services to assist in the preparation of the
Housing Actin Plan; and WHEREAS, from June 2, 2020, to August 26, 2021, the City of Moses Lake and Berk Consulting prepared in conformance with ESHGB 1923, all required elements of the Housing
Action Plan including: Goals and Strategies; Public Participation Plan; Housing Needs
Assessment; and draft Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, special effort was made to implement the Public Involvement Plan through engagement with community members, community groups, local builders, local realtors, and
nonprofit housing advocates, including a survey and stakeholder meeting in Fall of 2020; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2021, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued a “Determination of Nonsignificance” (DNS) pursuant to RCW 43.21C and WAC 197-11, with no appeal filed; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2021, the Moses Lake Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing to consider a draft proposal and offer an opportunity for public comment before making recommendation to the City County in favor of adopting the Housing Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing October 26, 2021, at its regular Council meeting to take and consider public comment.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 879 of 883
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. The Housing Action Plan with amendments, as shown in Attachment A, is hereby adopted and approved and Section 2. The City Council supports the use of the Housing Action Plan, to find innovative
ways to address Moses Lake’s housing needs.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 26, 2021.
________________________________________ David Curnel, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 880 of 883
STAFF REPORT
To: City Council
From: Allison Williams, City Manager
Date: October 20, 2021
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: Annual Review and approval of LTAC application
recommendations
Legislative History:
•First Presentation:
•Second Presentation:
•Action:
October 26, 2021
Motion
Overview
The Lodging Tax is an excise tax authorized by State law in RCW 67.28, Public Stadium, Convention,
Arts and Tourism Facilities. The City of Moses Lake has imposed an excise tax on charges for lodging
by hotels, motels, and similar business enterprises, pursuant to Chapter 82.08 RCW. In Moses Lake
the total tax on lodging is 4% (this includes the original 2% sales tax credit and the additional 2%
special excise tax).
The Moses Lake Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) met on October 5th and 6th to consider
the 2022 applications for funding support to eligible groups and organizations that have positive
impacts on tourism in the greater Moses Lake area.
The LTAC members considered all applications in accordance with the LTAC General Guidelines
documents with specific attention to the Project Evaluation Criteria portion of the Guidelines.
Following is the spreadsheet which reflects applications received, requested funding levels and the
LTAC’s recommendation. The LTAC funded applications to the recommended funding level of
$309,900. They also requested that the City fund the Freedom Festival with the City’s portion of
hotel-motel tax that is not committed to debt service. This request would constitute an
appropriate LTAC recommendation for the use of the City’s portion of funding that is not obligated
to debt payments.
Additionally, Council had a request for reconsideration of the amount funded to the Allied Arts.
The City’s Lodging Tax funds and area events were impacted by COVID in 2020. As a result, City
Council could consider a fund as a part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that would
reimburse 2020 lodging tax fund losses in 2020 to cover the Freedom Festival and establish a
separate fund through ARPA that would be a business and non-profit support fund out of which
the Allied Arts request could be funded.
Page 1 of 2
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 881 of 883
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The City of Moses Lake has established a special revenue fund titles “Tourism Activities Fund” to
account for the lodging tax receipts and related tourism promotion expenditures.
The City intends to maintain a reserve in the fund and will assess how much of the fund to
appropriate in a given year on an annual basis.
As set forth in RCW 67.28.1816, the revenues received from the City’s hotel/motel tax may be used
for the following purposes only:
1.Tourism marketing;
2.Marketing and operations of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists;
3.Operations and capital expenditures of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by a
municipality or a public facilities district; or
4.Operations of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations.
Council Packet Attachments
A. Summary of applications with supplemental LTAC funding recommendation.
Finance Committee Review N/A
Legal Review N/A
Options
Option Results
•Review and approve the LTAC funding
recommendation.
The applicants move forward with budgeting
the funding of their requests.
•Review and revise the LTAC funding
recommendation.
•(Procedural requirements of this action
are set forth in RCW 67.28.1817 (2)
The City Council must advise the LTAC of their
revisions to the LTAC funding
recommendations. The LTAC Committee
would then have 45 days to meet to consider
Council input and prepare another
recommendation. After the second
recommendation from the LTAC committee,
the Council may act on funding requests.
•Take no action.The hotel/motel tax funds remain in place and
continue to accrue.
Action Requested
Staff recommends the City Council discuss and advise staff on how to proceed.
Moses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 882 of 883
LTAC Meeting Date October 6, 2021Organization NameEvent Name & Date2021 Funded* 2022 Request** LTAC RecommendARPA BackfillEntco Intentional, LLC ML Airshow ‐ 6/17‐19/202250,000$ 60,000$ 57,900$ ‐$ Columbia Basin Cancer FoundatiCraft out Cancer ‐ 8/27/225,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ ‐$ Grant County Fairgrounds Grant County Fair ‐ 8/16 ‐ 20/20225,000$ 75,000$ 40,000$ ‐$ Columbia Basin Community Con Season 68 Concert Series 8/1/22‐4/30/23‐$ 10,000$ 7,500$ ‐$ City of Moses Lake ‐ Tourism COML Tourism Marketing Campaign 1/1 ‐ 12/31/22110,000$ 110,000$ 110,000$ ‐$ Columbia Basin Allied Arts Premiere Season 45 8/1/22‐4/30/2310,000$ 20,000$ 7,500$ ‐$ Moses Lake Spring Festival Moses Lake Freedom Fest 7/1/22‐7/3/22‐$ 50,000$ none 50,000$ Visit WashingtonEvent Tourism Marketing 4/1/22‐9/1/22‐$ 3,650$ none noneDowntown Moses Lake AssociatBrews & Tunes ‐ 2/26/221,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ ‐$ Downtown Moses Lake AssociatSip and Stroll ‐ 9/18/221,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ ‐$ Sand Scorpions ORV Group Bounty Hole & Freestyle Mud Trucks ‐ 9/17/22 15,000$ 55,325$ 35,000$ ‐$ Spring FestivalSpring Fest ‐ 5/26/22‐5/29/2245,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ ‐$ Moses Lake BMXGold Cup/State Qualifier Race 6/18 ‐ 9/19/22‐$ 5,000$ 5,000$ ‐$ TOTALS:242,000$ 435,975$ 309,900$ 50,000$ ‐$ $309,900 Available to Grant in 2022122,425$ request shortfall* 2021 Restrictions applied to use of funds for Fair marketing and ORV Group to work with City staff for Tourism** 2022 Fair encourage application next year for events all year aroundMoses Lake COuncil Packet 10-26-21, Page 883 of 883